What Families Need and Physicians Deliver: Contrasting Communication Preferences Between Surrogate Decision-Makers and Physicians During Outcome Prognostication in Critically Ill TBI Patients
Khan, Muhammad A.
Goldberg, Robert J.
Mazor, Kathleen M.
UMass Chan AffiliationsDepartment of Surgery
Department of Anesthesiology/Critical Care
Department of Medicine
Meyers Primary Care Institute
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences
Department of Neurology (Neurocritical Care)
Shared decision making
Traumatic brain injury
Health Services Administration
Nervous System Diseases
Translational Medical Research
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBACKGROUND: Surrogate decision-makers ("surrogates") and physicians of incapacitated patients have different views of prognosis and how it should be communicated, but this has not been investigated in neurocritically ill patients. We examined surrogates' communication preferences and physicians' practices during the outcome prognostication for critically ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients in two level-1 trauma centers and seven academic medical centers in the USA. METHODS: We used qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics of transcribed interviews to identify themes in surrogates (n = 16) and physicians (n = 20). RESULTS: The majority of surrogates (82%) preferred numeric estimates describing the patient's prognosis, as they felt it would increase prognostic certainty, and limit the uncertainty perceived as frustrating. Conversely, 75% of the physicians reported intentionally omitting numeric estimates during prognostication meetings due to low confidence in family members' abilities to appropriately interpret probabilities, worry about creating false hope, and distrust in the accuracy and data quality of existing TBI outcome models. Physicians felt that these models are for research only and should not be applied to individual patients. Surrogates valued compassion during prognostication discussions, and acceptance of their goals-of-care decision by clinicians. Physicians and surrogates agreed on avoiding false hope. CONCLUSION: We identified fundamental differences in the communication preferences of prognostic information between ciTBI patient surrogates and physicians. These findings inform the content of a future decision aid for goals-of-care discussions in ciTBI patients. If validated, these findings may have important implications for improving communication practices in the neurointensive care unit independent of whether a formal decision aid is used.
Neurocrit Care. 2017 Oct;27(2):154-162. doi: 10.1007/s12028-017-0427-2. Link to article on publisher's site
Permanent Link to this Itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/50346
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Decision Aids and Shared Decision-Making in Neurocritical Care: An Unmet Need in Our NeuroICUsMuehlschlegel, Susanne; Shutter, Lori; Col, Nananda; Goldberg, Robert J. (2015-08-01)Improved resuscitation methods and advances in critical care have significantly increased the survival of patients presenting with devastating brain injuries compared to prior decades. After the patient's stabilization phase, families and patients are faced with "goals-of-care" decisions about continuation of aggressive intensive care unit care or comfort care only (CMO). Highly varying rates of CMO between centers raise the question of "self-fulfilling prophecies." Disease severity, the physician's communication and the family's understanding of projected outcomes, their uncertainties, complication risks with continued care, physician bias, and the patient's and surrogate's wishes and values all influence a CMO decision. Disease-specific decision support interventions, decision aids (DAs), may remedy these issues in the neurocritical care unit, potentially leading to better-informed and less-biased goals-of-care decisions in neurocritically ill patients, while increasing decision knowledge, confidence, and realistic expectations and decreasing decisional conflict and regret. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process that enhances patients' and proxies' understanding about prognosis, encourages them to actively weigh the risks and benefits of a treatment, and considers the patient's preferences and values to make better decisions. DAs are SDM tools, which have been successfully implemented for many other conditions to assist difficult decision-making. In this article, we summarize the purposes of SDM, the derivation of DAs, and their potential application in neurocritical care.
The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological reportNeogi, Tuhina; Aletaha, Daniel; Silman, Alan J.; Naden, Raymond L.; Felson, David T.; Aggarwal, Rohit; Bingham, Clifton O. III; Birnbaum, Neal S.; Burmester, Gerd R.; Bykerk, Vivian P.; et al. (2010-09-01)OBJECTIVE: The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism have developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of Phase 2 of the development process was to achieve expert consensus on the clinical and laboratory variables that should contribute to the final criteria set. METHODS: Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of "developing RA," complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach. CONCLUSION: The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set.
Should We Use the IMPACT-Model for the Outcome Prognostication of TBI Patients? A Qualitative Study Assessing Physicians' PerceptionsMoskowitz, Jesse; Quinn, Thomas; Khan, Muhammad W.; Shutter, Lori; Goldberg, Robert J.; Col, Nananda; Mazor, Kathleen M.; Muehlschlegel, Susanne (2018-03-26)Introduction. Shared Decision-Making may facilitate information exchange, deliberation, and effective decision-making, but no decision aids currently exist for difficult decisions in neurocritical care patients. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards, a framework for the creation of high-quality decision aids (DA), recommends the presentation of numeric outcome and risk estimates. Efforts are underway to create a goals-of-care DA in critically-ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients. To inform its content, we examined physicians' perceptions, and use of the IMPACT-model, the most widely validated ciTBI outcome model, and explored physicians' preferences for communicating prognostic information towards families. Methods. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in 20 attending physicians (neurosurgery,neurocritical care,trauma,palliative care) at 7 U.S. academic medical centers. We used performed qualitative content analysis of transcribed interviews to identify major themes. Results. Only 12 physicians (60%) expressed awareness of the IMPACT-model; two stated that they "barely" knew the model. Seven physicians indicated using the model at least some of the time in clinical practice, although none used it exclusively to derive a patient's prognosis. Four major themes emerged: the IMPACT-model is intended for research but should not be applied to individual patients; mistrust in the IMPACT-model derivation data; the IMPACT-model is helpful in reducing prognostic variability among physicians; concern that statistical models may mislead families about a patient's prognosis. Discussion: Our study identified significant variability of the awareness, perception, and use of the IMPACT-model among physicians. While many physicians prefer to avoid conveying numeric prognostic estimates with families using the IMPACT-model, several physicians thought that they "ground" them and reduce prognostic variability among physicians. These findings may factor into the creation and implementation of future ciTBI-related DAs.