The use of a prognostic model to aid clinician decision-making with regard to decompressive craniectomy for patients with severe neurotrauma has not been examined. Thus in this study we assessed whether an internationally validated prediction model would influence clinician decision-making about craniectomy. A two-part structured interview, given before and after knowing the predicted risks of unfavorable neurological outcomes at 6 months, was used to assess the participants' recommendations about performing decompressive craniectomy in three patients with severe traumatic brain injury. The participants rated their preferences when there was no surrogate decision maker available, when the next of kin requested surgical intervention, when the patient had an advance directive, and when the participant was the injured party. A visual analogue scale (1-10) was used to assess the strength of their opinions. A total of 50 neurosurgeons and intensive care physicians participated in this study. The participants were significantly more likely to recommend decompressive craniectomy for their patients than for themselves, especially when the next of kin of the patient demanded the procedure, and were more similar in their own preferences to patients who had advance directives. Clinicians' preferences to perform the procedure for both themselves and their patients was significantly reduced after knowing the predicted risks of unfavorable outcomes, and these changes in attitude were consistent across those with different specialties, regardless of the amount of experience caring for similar patients, or religious background. In conclusion, the predicted risks of unfavorable outcomes influenced clinician decision-making about recommending decompressive craniectomy for patients with very severe neurotrauma.

BackgroundDecompressive craniectomy has been traditionally used as a lifesaving rescue treatment in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study assessed whether objective information on long-term prognosis would influence healthcare workers' opinion about using decompressive craniectomy as a lifesaving procedure for patients with severe TBI.MethodA two-part structured interview was used to assess the participants' opinion to perform decompressive craniectomy for three patients who had very severe TBI. Their opinion was assessed before and after knowing the predicted and observed risks of an unfavourable long-term neurological outcome in various scenarios.ResultsFive hundred healthcare workers with a wide variety of clinical backgrounds participated. The participants were significantly more likely to recommend decompressive craniectomy for their patients than for themselves (mean difference in visual analogue scale [VAS] −1.5, 95% confidence interval −1.3 to −1.6), especially when the next of kin of the patients requested intervention. Patients' preferences were more similar to patients who had advance directives. The participants' preferences to perform the procedure for themselves and their patients both significantly reduced after knowing the predicted risks of unfavourable outcomes, and the changes in attitude were consistent across different specialties, amount of experience in caring for similar patients, religious backgrounds, and positions in the specialty of the participants.ConclusionsAccess to objective information on risk of an unfavourable long-term outcome influenced healthcare workers' decision to recommend decompressive craniectomy, considered as a lifesaving procedure, for patients with very severe TBI.

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of detailed prognostic information on the likelihood of informed consent for decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury. The study was a simulation exercise, asking anaesthetists to give opinions as if they themselves were the injured party. Anaesthetists were chosen as they represent a distinct group likely to be familiar with the procedure and the decision-making process, but not necessarily aware of the longer-term outcomes. A two-part structured interview was used. Seventy-five anaesthetists were shown three cases of differing severity of traumatic brain injury. A visual analogue scale (1 to 10) was used to assess the strengths of their opinion. Initially they were asked their opinion with no predictive outcome data. They were then shown the prediction of an unfavourable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale severely disabled, vegetative state or dead) and the observed outcome at 18-month follow-up from a cohort of 147 patients (who had had a decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury in Perth, Western Australia between the years 2004 and 2008). The opinions of the participants before and after seeing the prediction outcome data were compared. The participants' preferences to consent to the procedure changed after being informed of the predicted risks of unfavourable outcomes (P values <0.01). The changes in attitude appeared to be independent of age group, amount of experience in caring for similar patients and religious background. These findings suggest that access to objective information on risks of unfavourable outcomes may influence opinions in relation to consent for decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury.