Background Little is known about why surrogate decision makers for patients with advanced illness often have overly optimistic expectations about prognosis. Objective To determine how surrogates interpret prognostic statements and to explore factors influencing surrogates’ interpretations of grim prognostic information. Design Multicenter, mixed-methods study. Setting Intensive care units of 3 hospitals in San Francisco, California. Participants 80 surrogates of critically ill patients. Measurements Participants recorded their interpretation of 16 prognostic statements using a standard probability scale. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine whether participants interpreted statements more optimistically as the expressed probability of survival decreased. Fifteen surrogates whose responses exhibited this trend participated in a semistructured interview. Results Participants’ interpretations of prognostic statements expressing a low risk for death were relatively accurate, but interpretations of statements conveying a high risk for death were more optimistic than the actual meaning (P < 0.001; generalized estimating equation model). Interpretations of the statement “90% chance of surviving” did not differ from the actual meaning, but interpretations of “5% chance of surviving” were more optimistic and showed substantial variability (median, 90% [interquartile range, 90% to 95%; P = 0.11] vs. 15% [interquartile range, 5% to 40%; P < 0.001], respectively). Two main themes from the interviews explained this trend: surrogates’ need to register optimism in the face of a poor prognosis and surrogates’ belief that patient attributes unknown to the physician would lead to better-than-predicted outcomes. Limitation Surrogates’ interpretations were elicited in an experimental setting rather than during actual clinician–surrogate conversations. Conclusion Inaccurate interpretations of physicians’ prognostications by surrogates arise partly from optimistic biases rather than simply from misunderstandings. Primary Funding Source National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Objectives: Although discussing a prognosis is a duty of physicians caring for critically ill patients, little is known about surrogate decision-makers' beliefs about physicians' ability to prognosticate. We sought to determine: 1) surrogates' beliefs about whether physicians can accurately prognosticate for critically ill patients; and 2) how individuals use prognostic information in their role as surrogate decision-makers. Design, Setting, and Patients: Multicenter study in intensive care units of a public hospital, a tertiary care hospital, and a veterans' hospital. We conducted semistructured interviews with 50 surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients. We analyzed the interview transcripts using grounded theory methods to inductively develop a framework to describe surrogates' beliefs about physicians' ability to prognosticate. Validation methods included triangulation by multidisciplinary analysis and member checking. Measurements and Main Results: Overall, 88% (44 of 50) of surrogates expressed doubt about physicians' ability to prognosticate for critically ill patients. Four distinct themes emerged that explained surrogates' doubts about prognostic accuracy: a belief that God could alter the course of the illness, a belief that predicting the future is inherently uncertain, prior experiences where physicians' prognostications were inaccurate, and experiences with prognostication during the patient's intensive care unit stay. Participants also identified several factors that led to belief in physicians' prognostications, such as receiving similar prognostic estimates from multiple physicians and prior experiences with accurate prognostication. Surrogates' doubts about prognostic accuracy did not prevent them from wanting prognostic information. Instead, most surrogate decision-makers view physicians' prognostications as rough estimates that are valuable in informing decisions, but are not determinative. Surrogates identified the act of prognostic disclosure as a key step in preparing emotionally and practically for the possibility that a patient may not survive. Conclusions: Although many surrogate decision-makers harbor some doubt about the accuracy of physicians' prognostications, they highly value discussions about prognosis and use the information for multiple purposes. (Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 2341–2347)

Doubt about physicians' ability to predict medical futility is common among surrogate decision makers. The nature of the doubt may have implications for responding to conflicts about futility in clinical practice.

Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection (SCAD) is an important cause of myocardial infarction that typically affects women without traditional cardiovascular risk factors. It is the most common cause of myocardial infarction in pregnant and postpartum women. SCAD is often underdiagnosed due to the lack of clinician familiarity, and patients with pregnancy-associated SCAD often have more severe clinical presentations than those without. We present a case of SCAD in a multiparous woman who presented with acute chest pain in the postpartum period.