Literature DB >> 8267493

Myth of substituted judgment. Surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable.

J Suhl1, P Simons, T Reedy, T Garrick.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors predicting the accuracy of surrogate decision making in life support decisions.
DESIGN: Questionnaire.
SETTING: Urban Veterans Affairs hospital. PATIENTS AND
DESIGN: Fifty hospitalized patients and their chosen surrogates were given questionnaires describing life support modalities and four common medical scenarios in which life support would be contemplated. An additional 50 patients also completed the questionnaire. Patients gave their choices of life support in the different scenarios. Surrogates guessed the patients' answers (substituted judgment). Details of the patient-surrogate relationship were asked. Patients completed a depression inventory. MAIN
RESULTS: Surrogates correctly guessed patients' wishes about life support overall on 59.3% of the questions, not better than random chance (kappa = .09). The only predictor of accurate surrogate decision making was specific discussion between patient and surrogate about life support. SECONDARY
RESULTS: Patients had an overall low desire for life support (35%), and a majority favored euthanasia under some circumstances (62%). There was no relationship between depression score and desire for life support.
CONCLUSIONS: Substituted judgment by surrogates is not more accurate than random chance. Discussion between patient and surrogate about life support correlated with more accurate substituted judgment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship; West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8267493     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.154.1.90

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  35 in total

1.  Accuracy of a decision aid for advance care planning: simulated end-of-life decision making.

Authors:  Benjamin H Levi; Steven R Heverley; Michael J Green
Journal:  J Clin Ethics       Date:  2011

2.  [Reflections on living wills (I and II)].

Authors:  K Martínez Urionabarrenetxea
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.137

3.  Too soon to give up: re-examining the value of advance directives.

Authors:  Benjamin H Levi; Michael J Green
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Family understanding of seriously-ill patient preferences for family involvement in healthcare decision making.

Authors:  Rashmi K Sharma; Mark T Hughes; Marie T Nolan; Carrie Tudor; Joan Kub; Peter B Terry; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Patient Preference to Accept Medical Treatment Is Associated with Spokesperson Agreement.

Authors:  Andrew J Foy; Benjamin H Levi; Lauren J Van Scoy; Ashley Bucher; Anne Dimmock; Michael J Green
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2019-04

6.  Epistemic burdens and the incentives of surrogate decision-makers.

Authors:  Parker Crutchfield; Scott Scheall
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2019-12

7.  Cognitive performance predicts treatment decisional abilities in mild to moderate dementia.

Authors:  R J Gurrera; J Moye; M J Karel; A R Azar; J C Armesto
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2006-05-09       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Availability of Advance Care Planning Documentation for Older Emergency Department Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Timothy F Platts-Mills; Natalie L Richmond; Eric M LeFebvre; Sowmya A Mangipudi; Allison G Hollowell; Debbie Travers; Kevin Biese; Laura C Hanson; Angelo E Volandes
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 2.947

9.  National questionnaire survey on what influences doctors' decisions about admission to intensive care.

Authors:  Monica Escher; Thomas V Perneger; Jean-Claude Chevrolet
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-21

10.  Agreement between prostate cancer patients and their clinicians about utilities and attribute importance.

Authors:  Arthur S Elstein; Gretchen B Chapman; Joan S Chmiel; Sara J Knight; Cheeling Chan; Robert B Nadler; Timothy M Kuzel; Amy K Siston; Charles L Bennett
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.