Surrogate Decision Makers' Interpretation of Prognostic Information

Abstract

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.

Recognizing, Naming, and Measuring a Family Intensive Care Unit Syndrome

“…They frequently misinterpret prognoses, unable to overcome optimistic biases (43). This is consistent with studies outside of the ICU, in which people frequently manifest unrealistic optimism regarding possible life events (44), and these expectations can contribute to systematic errors in decision making (45).…”

The Impact of Advance Directives on End-of-Life Care for Adolescents and Young Adults Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant

“…However, this might also indicate an absence of discussion between patients and their designated proxies with regard to their EOL preferences. Consequently, reliance on designated proxies to make EOL decisions for patients may be problematic for three reasons: decisions made by proxies are dependent on (1) their knowledge of the wishes of the patient, 29,30 (2) their trust in the provider's prognostication, 31,32 and (3) their willingness to agree to discontinuation of LST when death is inevitable. 30,33 A better understanding of the nature of EOL conversations between patient and proxy, and clear communication regarding prognosis and likelihood of recovery, are necessary to facilitate proxy decision making in the ICU.…”

The Ethics of Chronic Dialysis for the Older Patient

“…Frailty is extremely common among patients receiving hemodialysis in the United States (35) and is associated with early dialysis start and high mortality rates (36). For patients who are most frail or have multiple comorbidities, determining frailty via available tools, such as the FRAIL (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, and Loss of Weight) (37) or Rockwood (38) index, can help address the optimism bias often encountered in patients and families with critical illness; in turn, unrealistic expectations regarding treatment benefits can be avoided (39,40). Best case/worst case scenarios can be helpful for patients and families to more accurately appreciate a full spectrum of possible outcomes.…”

“…Second, physicians often bring their biases to the bedside, which can affect the patients' perception and ultimate decision (51,69). Finally, patients and family members of seriously ill patients tend to have a significant optimism bias when faced with dire prognosis, which may affect their choices as surrogate decision-makers for their loved one (39,40). Shared decision-making that allows a patient's goals to be met as accurately as possible should still be the goal.…”