Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: RATIONALE: Surrogate decision makers and clinicians often have discordant perceptions about a patient's prognosis. There is a paucity of empirical data to guide communication about prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess: (1) whether numeric or qualitative statements more reliably convey prognostic estimates; and (2) whether surrogates believe physicians' prognostic estimates. METHODS: A total of 169 surrogate decision makers for intensive care unit patients were randomized to view 1 of 2 versions of a video portraying a simulated family conference involving a hypothetical patient. The videos varied only by whether prognosis was conveyed in numeric terms ("10% chance of surviving") or qualitative terms ("very unlikely" to survive). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed: (1) surrogates' personal estimates of the patient's prognosis; and (2) surrogates' understanding of the physician's prognostic estimate. Neither surrogates' personal estimates nor their understanding of the physician's prognostication differed when prognosis was conveyed numerically versus qualitatively (surrogates' estimate, 22 ± 23% chance of survival versus 26 ± 24%, P = 0.26; understanding of physician's estimate, 17 ± 22% chance of survival versus 16 ± 17%, P = 0.62). One in five surrogates estimated the patient's prognosis was greater than 20% more optimistic than the physician's prognostication. Less trust in physicians was associated with larger discrepancies between surrogates' personal estimates and their understanding of the physician's estimate. CONCLUSIONS: Neither numeric nor qualitative statements reliably convey news of a poor prognosis to surrogates in intensive care units. Many surrogates do not view physicians' prognostications as absolutely accurate. Factors other than ineffective communication may contribute to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis.

SUBMITTER: Lee Char SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2970862 | biostudies-other | 2010 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Lee Char Susan J SJ Evans Leah R LR Malvar Grace L GL White Douglas B DB

American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20100610 7

<h4>Rationale</h4>Surrogate decision makers and clinicians often have discordant perceptions about a patient's prognosis. There is a paucity of empirical data to guide communication about prognosis.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess: (1) whether numeric or qualitative statements more reliably convey prognostic estimates; and (2) whether surrogates believe physicians' prognostic estimates.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 169 surrogate decision makers for intensive care unit patients were randomized to view 1 ...[more]

PMID: 20538959

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is intended to help patients and their spokespersons prepare for end-of-life decision making, yet little is known about what factors influence the extent to which spokespersons feel prepared for that role. Objective: To examine spokespersons' perceived preparedness for surrogate decision making after engaging in ACP. Design: Mixed methods experimental design with qualitative thematic analysis and data transformation (creating categorical data from rich qualitative data) of interviews collected during a randomized controlled trial (2012-2017). Setting/Participants: Two tertiary care medical centers (Hershey, PA and Boston, MA). Of 285 dyads (patients with advanced illness and their spokespersons) enrolled in the trial, 200 spokesperson interviews were purposively sampled and 198 included in the analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interviews with spokespersons (four weeks post-intervention) explored spokespersons' perceived preparedness for surrogate decision making, occurrence of ACP conversations, and spokespersons' intentions regarding future surrogate decisions. Data transformation was used to categorize participants' responses into three categories: Very Prepared, Very Unprepared, or In Between Prepared and Unprepared. Themes and categories were compared across arms. Results: About 72.72% of spokespersons (144/198) reported being Very Prepared and 27.28% (54/198) reported being Very Unprepared or In Between with no differences in preparedness across study arms. Occurrence of post-intervention ACP conversations did not influence perceived preparedness; however, spokespersons who used an ACP decision aid reported more conversations. Four themes emerged to explain spokespersons' perceived preparedness: (1) perceptions about ACP; (2) level of comfort with uncertainty; (3) relational issues; and (4) personal characteristics. Regarding future intentions, it emerged that spokespersons believed their knowledge of patient wishes, as well as other personal, relational, situational, and emotional factors would influence their surrogate decisions. Conclusions: Factors extrinsic to specific ACP interventions influence how prepared spokespersons feel to act as spokespersons. Understanding these factors is important for understanding how to improve concordance between patients' stated end-of-life wishes and surrogate decisions. Trial Registration: NCT02429479.

Project description:Individuals acting as surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients frequently struggle in this role and experience high levels of long-term psychological distress. Prior interventions designed to improve the sharing of information by the clinical team with surrogate decision makers have demonstrated little effect on surrogates' outcomes or clinical decisions. In this report, we describe the study protocol and corresponding intervention fidelity monitoring plan for a multicenter randomized clinical trial testing the impact of a multifaceted surrogate support intervention (Four Supports) on surrogates' psychological distress, the quality of decisions about goals of care, and healthcare use. We will randomize the surrogates of 300 incapacitated critically ill patients at high risk of death and/or severe long-term functional impairment to receive the Four Supports intervention or an education control. The Four Supports intervention adds to the intensive care unit (ICU) team a trained interventionist (family support specialist) who delivers four types of protocolized support-emotional support; communication support; decisional support; and, if indicated, anticipatory grief support-to surrogates through daily interactions during the ICU stay. The primary outcome is surrogates' symptoms of anxiety and depression at 6-month follow-up, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Prespecified secondary outcome measures are the Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness Scale (modified for use with surrogates) and Impact of Event Scale scores at 3- and 6-month follow-up, respectively, together with ICU and hospital lengths of stay and total hospital cost among decedents. The fidelity monitoring plan entails establishing and measuring adherence to the intervention using multiple measurement methods, including daily checklists and coding of audiorecorded encounters. This approach to intervention fidelity may benefit others designing and testing behavioral interventions in the ICU setting. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01982877).

Project description:Rationale: Breakdowns in clinician-family communication in intensive care units (ICUs) are common, yet there are no easily scaled interventions to prevent this problem.Objectives: To assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of a communication intervention that pairs proactive family meetings with an interactive, web-based tool to help surrogates prepare for clinician-family meetings.Methods: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, patient-level randomized trial comparing the Family Support Tool with enhanced usual care in two ICUs in a tertiary-care hospital. Eligible participants included surrogates of incapacitated patients judged by their physicians to have ≥40% risk of death or severe long-term functional impairment. The intervention group received unlimited tool access, with prompts to complete specific content upon enrollment and before two scheduled family meetings. Before family meetings, research staff shared with clinicians a one-page summary of surrogates' main questions, prognostic expectations, beliefs about the patient's values, and attitudes about goals of care. The comparator group received usual care enhanced with scheduled family meetings. Feasibility outcomes included the proportion of participants who accessed the tool before the first family meeting, mean number of logins, and average tool engagement time. We assessed tool usability with the System Usability Scale, assessed tool acceptability and perceived effectiveness with internally developed questionnaires, and assessed quality of communication and shared decision-making using the Quality of Communication questionnaire.Results: Of 182 screened patients, 77 were eligible. We enrolled 52 (67.5%) patients and their primary surrogate. Ninety-six percent of intervention surrogates (24/25) accessed the tool before the first family meeting (mean engagement time, 62 min ± 27.7) and logged in 4.2 times (±2.1) on average throughout the hospitalization. Surrogates reported that the tool was highly usable (mean, 82.4/100), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5 ± 0.9), and effective (mean, 4.4/5 ± 0.2). Compared with the control group, surrogates who used the tool reported higher overall quality of communication (mean, 8.9/10 ± 1.6 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4) and higher quality in shared decision-making (mean, 8.7/10 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4), but the difference did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions: It is feasible to deploy an interactive web-based tool to support communication and shared decision-making for surrogates in ICUs. Surrogates and clinicians rated the tool as highly usable, acceptable, and effective.

Project description:Background:Treatment decisions commonly have to be made in intensive care units (ICUs). These decisions are difficult for surrogate decision makers and often lead to decisional conflict, psychological distress, and treatments misaligned with patient preferences. Objective:To determine whether a decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation improved prognostic concordance between surrogate decision makers and clinicians compared with a usual care control. Design:Multicenter, parallel, randomized, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01751061). Setting:13 medical and surgical ICUs at 5 hospitals. Participants:Adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and their surrogates, ICU physicians, and ICU nurses. Intervention:A Web-based decision aid provided personalized prognostic estimates, explained treatment options, and interactively clarified patient values to inform a family meeting. The control group received information according to usual care practices followed by a family meeting. Measurements:The primary outcome was improved concordance on 1-year survival estimates, measured with the clinician-surrogate concordance scale (range, 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate more discordance). Secondary and additional outcomes assessed the experiences of surrogates (psychological distress, decisional conflict, and quality of communication) and patients (length of stay and 6-month mortality). Outcomes assessors were blinded to group allocation. Results:The study enrolled 277 patients, 416 surrogates, and 427 clinicians. Concordance improvement did not differ between intervention and control groups (mean difference in score change from baseline, -1.7 percentage points [95% CI, -8.3 to 4.8 percentage points]; P = 0.60). Surrogates' postintervention estimates of patients' 1-year prognoses did not differ between intervention and control groups (median, 86.0% [interquartile range {IQR}, 50.0%] vs. 92.5% [IQR, 47.0%]; P = 0.23) and were substantially more optimistic than results of a validated prediction model (median, 56.0% [IQR, 43.0%]) and physician estimates (median, 50.0% [IQR, 55.5%]). Eighty-two intervention surrogates (43%) favored a treatment option that was more aggressive than their report of patient preferences. Although intervention surrogates had greater reduction in decisional conflict than control surrogates (mean difference in change from baseline, 0.4 points [CI, 0.0 to 0.7 points]; P = 0.041), other surrogate and patient outcomes did not differ. Limitation:Contamination among clinicians could have biased results toward the null hypothesis. Conclusion:A decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation did not improve prognostic concordance between clinicians and surrogates, reduce psychological distress among surrogates, or alter clinical outcomes. Decision support in acute care settings may require greater individualized attention for both the cognitive and affective challenges of decision making. Primary Funding Source:National Institutes of Health.

Project description: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 (? 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 (? 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.

Project description:BackgroundCritical illness increases the risk for poor mental health outcomes among both patients and their informal caregivers, especially their surrogate decision-makers. Surrogates who must make life-and-death medical decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients may experience additional distress. EMPOWER (Enhancing & Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness & Emotional Resilience) is a novel cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention delivered in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting to surrogate decision-makers designed to improve both patients' quality of life and death and dying as well as surrogates' mental health.MethodsClinician stakeholder and surrogate participant feedback (n = 15), as well as results from an open trial (n = 10), will be used to refine the intervention, which will then be evaluated through a multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) (n = 60) to examine clinical superiority to usual care. Feasibility, tolerability, and acceptability of the intervention will be evaluated through self-report assessments. Hierarchical linear modeling will be used to adjust for clustering within interventionists to determine the effect of EMPOWER on surrogate differences in the primary outcome, peritraumatic stress. Secondary outcomes will include symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, prolonged grief disorder, and experiential avoidance. Exploratory outcomes will include symptoms of anxiety, depression, and decision regret, all measured at 1 and 3 months from post-intervention assessment. Linear regression models will examine the effects of assignment to EMPOWER versus the enhanced usual care group on patient quality of life or quality of death and intensity of care the patient received during the indexed ICU stay assessed at the time of the post-intervention assessment. Participant exit interviews will be conducted at the 3-month assessment time point and will be analyzed using qualitative thematic data analysis methods.DiscussionThe EMPOWER study is unique in its application of evidence-based psychotherapy targeting peritraumatic stress to improve patient and caregiver outcomes in the setting of critical illness. The experimental intervention will be strengthened through the input of a variety of ICU stakeholders, including behavioral health clinicians, physicians, bereaved informal caregivers, and open trial participants. Results of the RCT will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and serve as preliminary data for a larger, multisite RCT grant application.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03276559 . Retrospectively registered on 8 September 2017.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although shortcomings in clinician-family communication and decision making for incapacitated, critically ill patients are common, there are few rigorously tested interventions to improve outcomes. In this manuscript, we present our methodology for the Pairing Re-engineered Intensive Care Unit Teams with Nurse-Driven Emotional support and Relationship Building (PARTNER 2) trial, and discuss design challenges and their resolution. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the PARTNER 2 intervention to usual care among 690 incapacitated, critically ill patients and their surrogates in five ICUs in Pennsylvania. Eligible subjects will include critically ill patients at high risk of death and/or severe long-term functional impairment, their main surrogate decision-maker and their clinicians. The PARTNER intervention is delivered by the interprofessional ICU team and overseen by 4-6 nurses from each ICU. It involves: (1) advanced communication skills training for nurses to deliver support to surrogates throughout the ICU stay; (2) deploying a structured family support pathway; (3) enacting strategies to foster collaboration between ICU and palliative care services and (4) providing intensive implementation support to each ICU to incorporate the family support pathway into clinicians' workflow. The primary outcome is surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication during the ICU stay as assessed by telephone at 6-month follow-up. Prespecified secondary outcomes include surrogates' scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Event Scale, the modified Patient Perception of Patient Centredness scale, the Decision Regret Scale, nurses' scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory, and length of stay during and costs of the index hospitalisation.We also discuss key methodological challenges, including determining the optimal level of randomisation, using existing staff to deploy the intervention and maximising long-term follow-up of participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:We obtained ethics approval through the University of Pittsburgh, Human Research Protection Office. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02445937.

Project description:The prevalence of patients who are Incapacitated with No Evident Advance Directives or Surrogates (INEADS) remains unknown because such data are not routinely captured in structured electronic health records. This study sought to develop and validate a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to identify information related to being INEADS from clinical notes. We used a publicly available dataset of critical care patients from 2001 through 2012 at a United States academic medical center, which contained 418,393 relevant clinical notes for 23,904 adult admissions. We developed 17 subcategories indicating reduced or elevated potential for being INEADS, and created a vocabulary of terms and expressions within each. We used an NLP application to create a language model and expand these vocabularies. The NLP algorithm was validated against gold standard manual review of 300 notes and showed good performance overall (F-score = 0.83). More than 80% of admissions had notes containing information in at least one subcategory. Thirty percent (n = 7,134) contained at least one of five social subcategories indicating elevated potential for being INEADS, and <1% (n = 81) contained at least four, which we classified as high likelihood of being INEADS. Among these, n = 8 admissions had no subcategory indicating reduced likelihood of being INEADS, and appeared to meet the definition of INEADS following manual review. Among the remaining n = 73 who had at least one subcategory indicating reduced likelihood of being INEADS, manual review of a 10% sample showed that most did not appear to be INEADS. Compared with the full cohort, the high likelihood group was significantly more likely to die during hospitalization and within four years, to have Medicaid, to have an emergency admission, and to be male. This investigation demonstrates potential for NLP to identify INEADS patients, and may inform interventions to enhance advance care planning for patients who lack social support.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets