Literature DB >> 29215368

Numeracy and Interpretation of Prognostic Estimates in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Among Surrogate Decision Makers in the Neurologic ICU.

Nikita Leiter1, Melissa Motta2, Robert M Reed1, Temitope Adeyeye3, Debra L Wiegand4, Nirav G Shah1, Avelino C Verceles1, Giora Netzer1,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians caring for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage must often discuss prognosis and goals of care with their patients' surrogate decision makers, and may make numeric estimates of likelihood of survival and functional independence, informed by validated prediction models. Surrogates' prognostic estimates are often discordant with physicians', suggesting that physicians' numeric statements may not be accurately interpreted. We sought to assess the relationship between numeracy and interpretation of prognostic estimates in intracerebral hemorrhage among surrogate decision makers. We also assessed surrogates' application of prognostic estimates to decisions regarding goals of care.
DESIGN: Single-center, survey-based, cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Twenty-two-bed neurologic ICU at an urban, academic hospital.
SUBJECTS: Surrogate decision makers for patients admitted to the neurologic ICU.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants completed a survey containing five clinical vignettes describing patients with nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage. For each patient, numerical estimates of survival and functional independence were explicitly provided, based on the validated outcome risk stratification scale (intracerebral hemorrhage score) and the Prediction of Functional Outcome in Patients with Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage score.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants were asked to make their own prognostic estimates, as well as to describe their preferred goals of care for each hypothetical patient. Respondent demographics were collected, and numeracy was assessed using a modified Lipkus 11-item scale. Poor numeracy was common (42 of 96 total subjects) in this relatively highly educated population. Most prognostic estimates (55%) made by surrogates were discordant with the provided estimates. High numeracy correlated with better concordance (odds ratio, 23.9 [5.57-97.64]; p < 0.001), independent of several factors, including level of education and religion. Numeracy also affected goals-of-care decisions made by surrogates.
CONCLUSIONS: Poor numeracy is common among surrogate decision makers in an intensive care setting and poses a barrier to communication between surrogates and clinicians regarding prognosis and goals of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29215368      PMCID: PMC5892196          DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002887

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  45 in total

1.  A randomized trial of two methods to disclose prognosis to surrogate decision makers in intensive care units.

Authors:  Susan J Lee Char; Leah R Evans; Grace L Malvar; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Prognostication during physician-family discussions about limiting life support in intensive care units.

Authors:  Douglas B White; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Bernard Lo; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  Quality of communication in the ICU and surrogate's understanding of prognosis.

Authors:  Jared Chiarchiaro; Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples.

Authors:  Mirta Galesic; Rocio Garcia-Retamero
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-08

5.  Managing Uncertainty - Harnessing the Power of Scenario Planning.

Authors:  Margaret L Schwarze; Lauren J Taylor
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 7.  Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice.

Authors:  Wendy Nelson; Valerie F Reyna; Angela Fagerlin; Isaac Lipkus; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2008-08-02

8.  Surrogate decision-makers' perspectives on discussing prognosis in the face of uncertainty.

Authors:  Leah R Evans; Elizabeth A Boyd; Grace Malvar; Latifat Apatira; John M Luce; Bernard Lo; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-10-17       Impact factor: 21.405

9.  Half of the family members of critically ill patients experience excessive daytime sleepiness.

Authors:  Avelino C Verceles; Douglas S Corwin; Majid Afshar; Eliot B Friedman; Michael T McCurdy; Carl Shanholtz; Karen Oakjones; Marc T Zubrow; Jennifer Titus; Giora Netzer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-06-05       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Sleep deprivation: Impact on cognitive performance.

Authors:  Paula Alhola; Päivi Polo-Kantola
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.570

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Does Calculated Prognostic Estimation Lead to Different Outcomes Compared With Experience-Based Prognostication in the ICU? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Melissa Basile; Anne Press; Alexander C Adia; Jason J Wang; Saori Wendy Herman; Janice Lester; Nisha Parikh; Negin Hajizadeh
Journal:  Crit Care Explor       Date:  2019-02-01

2.  Observation on the Effect of Solution-Focused Approach Combined with Family Involvement in WeChat Platform Management on Inpatients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Authors:  Yu Song
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 2.682

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.