What Families Need and Physicians Deliver: Contrasting Communication Preferences Between Surrogate Decision-Makers and Physicians During Outcome Prognostication in Critically Ill TBI Patients

Abstract

Introduction 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 U.S. 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 neuroICU independent of whether a formal decision aid is used.

From Awareness to Prognosis: Ethical Implications of Uncovering Hidden Awareness in Behaviorally Nonresponsive Patients

“…Hope shapes how severe brain injury to a family member affects surrogate decisionmakers, and can influence how they manage treatment decisions. 65,66 Surrogates and families usually hope for a concrete outcome, e.g., that the patient will regain consciousness or recover the ability to speak or walk. Their level of hope generally remains stable, but can fluctuate significantly depending on new events or information.…”

How Should Physicians Manage Organ Donation after the Circulatory Determination of Death in Patients with Extremely Poor Neurological Prognosis?

“…10 Clarity of physician communication is essential and a numeric estimate of prognosis on the basis of outcome studies is helpful to avoid family members understanding a different account than physicians think they have presented. 11 In this case, we were surprised to note that family members began discussing organ donation before discussing their level of certainty that, because of her poor prognosis, Jenna would wish to have LST discontinued and die. Although withdrawal of LST is a prerequisite for controlled DCDD, there is a strong consensus in the medical, ethics, and organ donation communities that the decision to be an organ donor should be uncoupled from and never drive the decision to withdraw LST.…”

Portable neuromodulation induces neuroplasticity to re-activate motor function recovery from brain injury: A high-density MEG case study

“…In terms of clinical implementation, one approach to translation is to demonstrate individual-level technology advances rst and then scale to larger clinical applications. This approach enables a research-driven framework in which practitioners can better address issues and challenges related to "false hope" by evaluating new treatments through research (6,7). This is particularly germane to the increasing broader societal awareness of neuroplasticity and the potential role of neuromodulation (8,9).…”