Darin B Zahuranec1,2, Renee R Anspach3, Meghan E Roney2, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis2, Daniel M Connochie2, Emily P Chen1,2, Bradford B Thompson4,5, Panayiotis N Varelas6, Lewis B Morgenstern1,7,8, Angela Fagerlin2,9,10. 1. 1 Stroke Program, Department of Neurology, Michigan Medicine , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. 2 Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine , Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. 3 Department of Sociology, University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. 4 Department of Neurology, Alpert Medical School at Brown University , Providence, Rhode Island. 5. 5 Department of Neurosurgery, Alpert Medical School at Brown University , Providence, Rhode Island. 6. 6 Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Hospital , Detroit, Michigan. 7. 7 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 8. 8 Department of Emergency Medicine, Michigan Medicine , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 9. 9 Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10. 10 Salt Lake City VA Center for Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance (IDEAS) , Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surrogate communication with providers about prognosis in the setting of acute critical illness can impact both patient treatment decisions and surrogate outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine surrogate decision maker perspectives on provider prognostic communication after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed qualitatively for key themes. SETTING/ SUBJECTS: Surrogate decision makers for individuals admitted with ICH were enrolled from five acute care hospitals. RESULTS: Fifty-two surrogates participated (mean age = 54, 60% women, 58% non-Hispanic white, 13% African American, 21% Hispanic). Patient status at interview was hospitalized (17%), in rehabilitation/nursing facility (37%), deceased (38%), hospice (4%), or home (6%). Nineteen percent of surrogates reported receiving discordant prognoses, leading to distress or frustration in eight cases (15%) and a change in decision for potentially life-saving brain surgery in three cases (6%). Surrogates were surprised or confused by providers' use of varied terminology for the diagnosis (17%) (e.g., "stroke" vs. "brain hemorrhage" or "brain bleed") and some interpreted "stroke" as having a more negative connotation. Surrogates reported that physicians expressed uncertainty in prognosis in 37%; with physician certainty in 56%. Surrogate reactions to uncertainty were mixed, with some surrogates expressing a negative emotional response (e.g., anxiety) and others reporting understanding or acceptance of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice of prognostic communication in acute critical illness has many gaps, leading to distress for surrogates and variability in critical treatment decisions. Further work is needed to limit surrogate distress and improve the quality of treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: Surrogate communication with providers about prognosis in the setting of acute critical illness can impact both patient treatment decisions and surrogate outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine surrogate decision maker perspectives on provider prognostic communication after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed qualitatively for key themes. SETTING/ SUBJECTS: Surrogate decision makers for individuals admitted with ICH were enrolled from five acute care hospitals. RESULTS: Fifty-two surrogates participated (mean age = 54, 60% women, 58% non-Hispanic white, 13% African American, 21% Hispanic). Patient status at interview was hospitalized (17%), in rehabilitation/nursing facility (37%), deceased (38%), hospice (4%), or home (6%). Nineteen percent of surrogates reported receiving discordant prognoses, leading to distress or frustration in eight cases (15%) and a change in decision for potentially life-saving brain surgery in three cases (6%). Surrogates were surprised or confused by providers' use of varied terminology for the diagnosis (17%) (e.g., "stroke" vs. "brain hemorrhage" or "brain bleed") and some interpreted "stroke" as having a more negative connotation. Surrogates reported that physicians expressed uncertainty in prognosis in 37%; with physician certainty in 56%. Surrogate reactions to uncertainty were mixed, with some surrogates expressing a negative emotional response (e.g., anxiety) and others reporting understanding or acceptance of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice of prognostic communication in acute critical illness has many gaps, leading to distress for surrogates and variability in critical treatment decisions. Further work is needed to limit surrogate distress and improve the quality of treatment decisions.
Entities:
Keywords:
cerebral hemorrhage; palliative care; prognosis; qualitative research
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Darin B Zahuranec; Angela Fagerlin; Brisa N Sánchez; Meghan E Roney; Bradford B Thompson; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Wendy G Anderson; Jenica W Cimino; Natalie C Ernecoff; Anna Ungar; Kaitlin J Shotsberger; Laura A Pollice; Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk; Shannon S Carson; J Randall Curtis; Catherine L Hough; Bernard Lo; Michael A Matthay; Michael W Peterson; Jay S Steingrub; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2015-02
Authors: Eric Racine; Marie-Josée Dion; Christine A C Wijman; Judy Illes; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Douglas B White; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Bernard Lo; J Randall Curtis Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Louisa-Jane Burton; Anne Forster; Judith Johnson; Thomas F Crocker; Sarah F Tyson; Faye Wray; David J Clarke Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: William Lou; Justin H Granstein; Rafael Wabl; Amita Singh; Sarah Wahlster; Claire J Creutzfeldt Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 3.532