Dataset Information

Deciding on behalf of others: a population survey on procedural preferences for surrogate decision-making.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess people's procedural preferences for making medical surrogate decisions, from the perspectives of both a potential surrogate and an incapacitated patient.

Design

Computer-assisted telephone interviews. Respondents were randomly assigned either the role of an incapacitated patient or that of a potential surrogate for an incapacitated family member. They were asked to rate six approaches to making a surrogate decision: patient-designated surrogate, discussion among family members, majority vote of family members' individual judgements, legally assigned surrogate, population-based treatment indicator and delegating the decision to a physician.

Setting

Germany and German-speaking and French-speaking parts of Switzerland.

Participants

2010 respondents were quota sampled from a panel (representative for the German and German-speaking and French-speaking Swiss populations, respectively, in terms of age, sex and regions).

Main outcome measures

Endorsement of each approach (rated on a scale from 1 to 10). Degree to which preferences overlap between the perspective of potential surrogates and potential patients.

Results

Respondents' endorsement of the six different approaches varied markedly (from Mdn=9.3?to Mdn=2.6). Yet the preferences of respondents taking the perspective of incapacitated patients corresponded closely with those of respondents taking the perspective of a potential surrogate (absolute differences ranging from 0.1 to 1.3). The preferred approaches were a patient-designated surrogate (Mdn=9.3) and all family members making a collective decision by means of group discussion (Mdn=9.3). The two least-preferred approaches were relying on a statistical prediction rule (Mdn=3.0) and delegating the decision to a physician (Mdn=2.6).

Conclusions

Although respondents taking the perspective of an incapacitated patient preferred a patient-designated surrogate, few people have designated such a surrogate in practice. Policy-makers may thus consider implementing active choice, that is, identifying institutional settings in which many people can be reached (eg, when obtaining a driver's licence) and requesting them to complete advance directives and to designate a specific surrogate. Moreover, potential patients and surrogates alike highly valued shared surrogate decisions among family members. Policy-makers may consider acknowledging this possibility explicitly in future legislation, and caregivers and physicians may consider promoting shared surrogate decisions in practice.

SUBMITTER: Frey R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6067368 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Deciding on behalf of others: a population survey on procedural preferences for surrogate decision-making.

Frey Renato R Herzog Stefan M SM Hertwig Ralph R

BMJ open 20180725 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess people's procedural preferences for making medical surrogate decisions, from the perspectives of both a potential surrogate and an incapacitated patient.<h4>Design</h4>Computer-assisted telephone interviews. Respondents were randomly assigned either the role of an incapacitated patient or that of a potential surrogate for an incapacitated family member. They were asked to rate six approaches to making a surrogate decision: patient-designated surrogate, discussion amo ...[more]

PMID: 30049700

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInstances of surrogate decision-making are expected to increase with the rise in hospitalised older adults in Japan. Few large-scale studies have comprehensively examined the entire surrogate decision-making process. This study aimed to gather information to assess the current state of surrogate decision-making in Japan.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 1000 surrogate decision-makers responded to the questionnaire. We examined the characteristics of surrogate decision-makers and patients, content of surrogate decision-making meeting regarding life-sustaining treatment between the doctors and surrogate decision-makers, extent of involvement of the various parties in the surrogate decision-making process, judgement grounds for surrogate decision-making, and frequency of involvement in the surrogate decision-making process.ResultsOf the participants, 70.5% were male and 48.3% were eldest sons. Only 7.6% of the patients had left a written record of their preferences and 48.8% of the surrogates reported no knowledge of the patient having expressed their prior intentions regarding medical care in any form. Respondents indicated that their family meetings with healthcare professionals mostly included the information recommended by guidelines in a surrogate decision-making meeting in Japan. Most participants reported a good understanding of the meeting content. Although many participants based their decisions on multiple grounds, surrogates' considerations may not adequately reflect respect for patient autonomy in Japan. Specifically, the eldest son considered his own preference more frequently than that of the other surrogate decision-makers. In 26.1% of the cases, either zero or one family meeting with healthcare professionals was held. In these cases, significantly fewer decisions involved the participation of healthcare professionals other than the doctor compared to cases with multiple meetings.ConclusionsSurrogate decisions in Japan are most commonly made by eldest sons and may not frequently consider the perspectives of other surrogates. The finding that patient preferences were rarely known suggests a role for increased advance care planning.

Project description:Background/objectiveSurrogate decision makers for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are frequently asked to make difficult decisions on use of life-sustaining treatments. We explored ICH surrogate satisfaction with decision making and experience of decision regret using validated measures in a prospective multicenter study.MethodsCases of non-traumatic ICH were enrolled from three hospitals (September 2015-December 2016), and surrogate decision makers were invited to complete a self-administered survey. The primary outcome was the 10-item decision-making subscale of the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit scale (FSICU-DM, range 0-100, higher is greater satisfaction), and the secondary outcome was the decision regret scale (range 0-100, higher is greater regret). Linear regression models were used to assess the association between satisfaction with decision making and pre-specified covariates using manual backward selection.ResultsA total of 73 surrogates were approached for participation (in person or mail), with 48 surrogates returning a completed survey (median surrogate age 60.5 years, 63% female, 77% white). Patients had a median age of 72.5, 54% were female, with a median admission Glasgow coma scale of 10, in-hospital mortality of 31%, and 56% with an in-hospital DNR order. Physicians commonly made treatment recommendation (> 50%) regarding brain surgery or transitions to comfort measures, but rarely made recommendations (< 20%) regarding DNR orders. Surrogate satisfaction with decision making was generally high (median FSICU-DM 85, IQR 57.5-95). Factors associated with higher satisfaction on multivariable analysis included greater use of shared decision making (P < 0.0001), younger patient age (p = 0.02), ICH score of 3 or higher (p = 0.03), and surrogate relationship (spouse vs. other, p = 0.02). Timing of DNR orders was not associated with satisfaction (P > 0.25). Decision regret scores were generally low (median 12.5, IQR 0-31.3).ConclusionsConsidering the severity and abruptness of ICH, it is reassuring that surrogate satisfaction with decision making was generally high and regret was generally low. However, more work is needed to define the appropriate outcome measures and optimal methods of recruitment for studies of surrogate decision makers of ICH patients.

Project description:Most critically ill adults have impaired decision-making capacity and are unable to consent to research. Yet, little is known about how Institutional Review Boards interpret the Common Rule's call for safeguards in research involving incapacitated adults. We aimed to examine Institutional Review Board practices on surrogate consent and other safeguards to protect incapacitated adults in research.A cross-sectional survey of 104 Institutional Review Boards from a random sample of U.S. institutions engaged in adult human subject research (response rate, 68%) in 2007 and 2008.None.Institutional Review Board acceptance of surrogate consent, research risks, and other safeguards in research involving incapacitated adults.Institutional Review Boards reported that, in the previous year, they sometimes (49%), frequently (33%), or very frequently (2%) reviewed studies involving patients in the intensive care unit. Six Institutional Review Boards (6%) do not accept surrogate consent for research from any persons, and 22% of Institutional Review Boards accept only an authorized proxy, spouse, or parent as surrogates, excluding adult children and other family. Institutional Review Boards vary in their limits on research risks in studies involving incapacitated adults: 15% disallow any research regardless of risk in studies without direct benefit, whereas 39% allow only minimal risks. When there was potential benefit, fewer Institutional Review Boards limit the risk at minimal (11%; p < .001). Even in populations at high risk for impaired decision making, many Institutional Review Boards rarely or never required procedures to determine capacity (13%-21%). Institutional Review Boards also varied in their use of independent monitors, research proxies, and advanced research directives.Much variability exists in Institutional Review Board surrogate consent practices and limits on risks in studies involving incapacitated adults. This variability may have adverse consequences for needed research involving incapacitated adults. Clarification of current regulations is needed to provide guidance.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS:We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS:Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION:We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.

Project description:BackgroundThe decision about which type of general anesthetic to administer is typically made by the clinical team without patient engagement. This study examined patients' preferences, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and perceived social norms about anesthesia and about engaging in the decision regarding general anesthetic choice with their clinician.MethodsWe conducted a survey in the United States, sent to a panel of surgical patients through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) from March 2022 through May 2022. Questions were developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and validated measures were used when available. A patient partner who had experienced both intravenous and inhaled anesthesia contributed to the development and refinement of the questions.ResultsA total of 806 patients who received general anesthesia for an elective procedure in the last five years completed the survey. 43% of respondents preferred a patient-led decision making role and 28% preferred to share decision making with their clinical team, yet only 7.8% reported being engaged in full shared decision making about the anesthesia they received. Intraoperative awareness, pain, nausea, vomiting and quickly returning to work and usual household activities were important to respondents. Waking up in the middle of surgery was the most commonly reported concern, despite this experience being reported only 8% of the time. Most patients (65%) who searched for information about general anesthesia noted that it took a lot of effort to find the information, and 53% agreed to feeling frustrated during the search.ConclusionsMost patients prefer a patient-led or shared decision making process when it comes to their anesthetic care and want to be engaged in the decision. However, only a small percentage of patients reported being fully engaged in the decision. Further studies should inform future shared decision-making tools, informed consent materials, educational materials and framing of anesthetic choices for patients so that they are able to make a choice regarding the anesthetic they receive.

Dataset Information

Deciding on behalf of others: a population survey on procedural preferences for surrogate decision-making.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Deciding on behalf of others: a population survey on procedural preferences for surrogate decision-making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets