Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25565458›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2015

How clinicians discuss critically ill patients' preferences and values with surrogates: an empirical analysis.

Leslie P Scheunemann, Thomas V Cunningham, Robert M Arnold, Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk, Douglas B White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. An Online Training Program to Improve Clinicians' Skills in Communicating About Serious Illness.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Leslie P Scheunemann1Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 2Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness, Clinical Research, Investigation and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3Division of Medical Humanities, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR. 4Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR. 5Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 6Palliative and Supportive Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 7Center for Bioethics and Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Thomas V Cunningham
Robert M Arnold
Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk
Douglas B White

Funding

Translational Training Program in Pulmonary Biology and MedicineT32HL007563 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Melanie Koenigshoff · 1985 to 2026
$12.3M
Multidisciplinary Training in Critical Care Outcomes ResearchT32HL007820 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Timothy D Girard, Jeremy M Kahn · 1996 to 2026
$6.4M
Identifying Effective Strategies to Disclose Prognosis in Patients with ARDSR01HL094553 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WHITE, DOUGLAS B · 2009 to 2012
$2.8M
A randomized trial to improve surrogate decision-making for critically ill eldersK23AG032875 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WHITE, DOUGLAS B · 2008 to 2011
$540k
Communicating with Surrogate Decision Makers about Incapacitated ICU Patients' ValuesF32AG047806 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SCHEUNEMANN, LESLIE PAGE · 2014 to 2015
$129k
NHLBI NIH HHS 1R01HL094553)NHLBI NIH HHS 2T32HL007820-16A1NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL094553NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007563NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007820NIA NIH HHS F32 AG047806NIA NIH HHS K23 AG032875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAlthough shared decision making requires clinicians to discuss the patient's values and preferences, little is known about the extent to which this occurs with surrogates in ICUs. We sought to assess whether and how clinicians talk with surrogates about incapacitated patients' preferences and values.

designProspective, cross-sectional study.

settingFive ICUs of two hospitals. SUBJECTS: Fifty-four physicians and 159 surrogates for 71 patients.

interventionsWe audio-recorded 71 conferences in which clinicians and surrogates discussed life-sustaining treatment decisions for an incapacitated patient near the end of life. Two coders independently coded each instance in which clinicians or surrogates discussed the patient's previously expressed treatment preferences or values. They subcoded for values that are commonly important to patients near the end of life. They also coded treatment recommendations by clinicians that incorporated the patient's preferences or values. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsIn 30% of conferences, there was no discussion about the patient's previously expressed preferences or values. In 37%, clinicians and surrogates discussed both the patient's treatment preferences and values. In the remaining 33%, clinicians and surrogates discussed either the patient's treatment preferences or values, but not both. In more than 88% of conferences, there was no conversation about the patient's values regarding autonomy and independence, emotional well-being and relationships, physical function, cognitive function, or spirituality. On average, 3.8% (SD, 4.3; range, 0-16%) of words spoken pertained to patient preferences or values.

conclusionsIn roughly a third of ICU family conferences for patients at high risk of death, neither clinicians nor surrogates discussed patients' preferences or values about end-of-life decision making. In less than 12% of conferences did participants address values of high importance to most patients, such as cognitive and physical function. Interventions are needed to ensure patients' values and preferences are elicited and integrated into end-of-life decisions in ICUs.

Indexed as

CommunicationCritical IllnessPatient PreferenceProfessional-Family RelationsCritical CareCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingFamilyFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLife Support CareMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesValue of Life

Identifiers

PMID25565458
PMCPMC4548294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.