Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30699212›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2019

More than one in three proxies do not know their loved one's current code status: An observational study in a Maryland ICU.

Alison E Turnbull, Caroline M Chessare, Rachel K Coffin, Dale M Needham

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Measuring Goal-Concordant Care in Palliative Care Research.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alison E TurnbullOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1564-6547
Caroline M ChessareOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Rachel K CoffinMedical Intensive Care Unit, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Dale M NeedhamOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThe majority of ICU patients lack decision-making capacity at some point during their ICU stay. However the extent to which proxy decision-makers are engaged in decisions about their patient's care is challenging to quantify.

objectivesTo assess 1)whether proxies know their patient's actual code status as recorded in the electronic medical record (EMR), and 2)whether code status orders reflect ICU patient preferences as reported by proxy decision-makers.

methodsWe enrolled proxy decision-makers for 96 days starting January 4, 2016. Proxies were asked about the patient's goals of care, preferred code status, and actual code status. Responses were compared to code status orders in the EMR at the time of interview. Characteristics of patients and proxies who correctly vs incorrectly identified actual code status were compared, as were characteristics of proxies who reported a preferred code status that did vs did not match actual code status. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsAmong 111 proxies, 42 (38%) were incorrect or unsure about the patient's actual code status and those who were correct vs. incorrect or unsure were similar in age, race, and years of education (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Twenty-nine percent reported a preferred code status that did not match the patient's code status in the EMR. Matching preferred and actual code status was not associated with a patient's age, gender, income, admission diagnosis, or subsequent in-hospital mortality or with proxy age, gender, race, education level, or relation to the patient (P>0.20 for all comparisons).

conclusionsMore than 1 in 3 proxies is incorrect or unsure about their patient's actual code status and more than 1 in 4 proxies reported that a preferred code status that did not match orders in the EMR. Proxy age, race, gender and education level were not associated with correctly identifying code status or code status concordance.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedDecision MakingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMarylandMiddle AgedProxyResearch SubjectsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30699212
PMCPMC6353188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.