Douglas B White1, Shannon Carson2, Wendy Anderson3, Jay Steingrub4, Garrett Bird5, J Randall Curtis6, Michael Matthay7, Michael Peterson8, Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk9, Anne-Marie Shields1, Natalie Ernecoff9, Kaitlin Shotsberger10, Lisa Weissfeld11, Chung-Chou H Chang9, Francis Pike12, Bernard Lo13, Catherine L Hough14. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, UNC-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Division of Palliative Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine, Springfield, MA. 5. Department of Medicine, UCSF-Fresno School of Medicine, Fresno, CA. 6. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 7. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 8. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, UCSF-Fresno School of Medicine, Fresno, CA. 9. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 10. St. Clair Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. 11. The Statistics Collaborative, Washington, DC. 12. Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN. 13. Department of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 14. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Optimistic expectations about prognosis by surrogate decision-makers in ICUs are common, but there are few data about the causes and clinical consequences. Our objective was to determine the causes of optimistic expectations about prognosis among surrogates and whether it is associated with more use of life support at the end of life. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter cohort study from 2009 to 2012. SETTING: Twelve ICUs from multiple regions of the United States. SUBJECTS: The surrogates and physicians of 275 incapacitated ICU patients at high risk of death. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Surrogates and physicians completed a validated instrument assessing their prognostic expectations for hospital survival. We determined the proportion of surrogates with optimistic expectations, defined as a prognostic estimate that was at least 20% more optimistic than the physician's, then determined how frequently this arose from surrogates miscomprehending the physicians' prognosis versus holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. We used multivariable regression to examine whether optimistic expectations were associated with length of stay, stratified by survival status, and time to withdrawal of life support among nonsurvivors. Overall, 45% of surrogates (95% CI, 38-51%) held optimistic expectations about prognosis, which arose from a combination of misunderstanding the physician's prognostic expectations and from holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. Optimistic expectations by surrogates were associated with significantly longer duration of ICU treatment among nonsurvivors before death (β coefficient = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; p = 0.027), corresponding to a 56% longer ICU stay. This difference was associated with a significantly longer time to withdrawal of life support among dying patients whose surrogates had optimistic prognostic expectations compared with those who did not (β coefficient = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16-1.07; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent optimism about prognosis among surrogates in ICUs arises both from surrogates' miscomprehension of physicians' prognostications and from surrogates holding more hopeful beliefs. This optimism is associated with longer duration of life support at the end of life.
OBJECTIVES: Optimistic expectations about prognosis by surrogate decision-makers in ICUs are common, but there are few data about the causes and clinical consequences. Our objective was to determine the causes of optimistic expectations about prognosis among surrogates and whether it is associated with more use of life support at the end of life. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter cohort study from 2009 to 2012. SETTING: Twelve ICUs from multiple regions of the United States. SUBJECTS: The surrogates and physicians of 275 incapacitated ICU patients at high risk of death. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Surrogates and physicians completed a validated instrument assessing their prognostic expectations for hospital survival. We determined the proportion of surrogates with optimistic expectations, defined as a prognostic estimate that was at least 20% more optimistic than the physician's, then determined how frequently this arose from surrogates miscomprehending the physicians' prognosis versus holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. We used multivariable regression to examine whether optimistic expectations were associated with length of stay, stratified by survival status, and time to withdrawal of life support among nonsurvivors. Overall, 45% of surrogates (95% CI, 38-51%) held optimistic expectations about prognosis, which arose from a combination of misunderstanding the physician's prognostic expectations and from holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. Optimistic expectations by surrogates were associated with significantly longer duration of ICU treatment among nonsurvivors before death (β coefficient = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; p = 0.027), corresponding to a 56% longer ICU stay. This difference was associated with a significantly longer time to withdrawal of life support among dying patients whose surrogates had optimistic prognostic expectations compared with those who did not (β coefficient = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16-1.07; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent optimism about prognosis among surrogates in ICUs arises both from surrogates' miscomprehension of physicians' prognostications and from surrogates holding more hopeful beliefs. This optimism is associated with longer duration of life support at the end of life.
Authors: J M Teno; E Fisher; M B Hamel; A W Wu; D J Murphy; N S Wenger; J Lynn; F E Harrell Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: E Azoulay; S Chevret; G Leleu; F Pochard; M Barboteu; C Adrie; P Canoui; J R Le Gall; B Schlemmer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Charles L Sprung; Simon L Cohen; Peter Sjokvist; Mario Baras; Hans-Henrik Bulow; Seppo Hovilehto; Didier Ledoux; Anne Lippert; Paulo Maia; Dermot Phelan; Wolfgang Schobersberger; Elisabet Wennberg; Tom Woodcock Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Graeme Rocker; Deborah Cook; Peter Sjokvist; Bruce Weaver; Simon Finfer; Ellen McDonald; John Marshall; Anne Kirby; Mitchell Levy; Peter Dodek; Daren Heyland; Gordon Guyatt Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Derek C Angus; Amber E Barnato; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Lisa A Weissfeld; R Scott Watson; Tim Rickert; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Richard T Carrick; Jinny G Park; Hannah L McGinnes; Christine Lundquist; Kristen D Brown; W Adam Janes; Benjamin S Wessler; David M Kent Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 5.501