Does Calculated Prognostic Estimation Lead to Different Outcomes Compared With Experience-Based Prognostication in the ICU? A Systematic Review

Prognostication in Acute Neurological Emergencies

BACKGROUND

For patients with acute, serious neurological conditions presenting to the emergency department (ED), prognostication is typically based on clinical experience, scoring systems and patient co-morbidities. Because estimating a poor prognosis influences caregiver decisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapy, we investigated the consistency of prognostication across a spectrum of neurology physicians.

METHODS

Five acute neurological presentations (2 with large hemispheric infarction; 1 with brainstem infarction, 1 with lobar hemorrhage, and 1 with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy) were selected for a department-wide prognostication simulation exercise. All had presented to our tertiary care hospital's ED, where a poor outcome was predicted by the ED neurology team within 24 hours of onset. Relevant clinical, laboratory and imaging data available before ED prognostication were presented on a web-based platform to 120 providers blinded to the actual outcome. The provider was requested to rank-order, from most to least likely, the predicted 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. To determine the accuracy of individual outcome predictions we compared the patient's the actual 90-day mRS score to highest ranked predicted mRS score. Additionally, the group's "weighted" outcomes, accounting for the entire spectrum of mRS scores ranked by all respondents, were compared to the actual outcome for each case. Consistency was compared between pre-specified provider roles: neurology trainees versus faculty; non-vascular versus vascular faculty.

RESULTS

Responses ranged from 106-110 per case. Individual predictions were highly variable, with predictions matching the actual mRS scores in as low as 2% of respondents in one case and 95% in another case. However, as a group, the weighted outcome matched the actual mRS score in 3 of 5 cases (60%). There was no significant difference between subgroups based on expertise (stroke/neurocritical care versus other) or experience (faculty versus trainee) in 4 of 5 cases.

CONCLUSION

Acute neuro-prognostication is highly variable and often inaccurate among neurology providers. Significant differences are not attributable to experience or subspecialty expertise. The mean outcome prediction from group of providers ("the wisdom of the crowd") may be superior to that of individual providers.

The Importance of Prognostication: Impact of Prognostic Predictions, Disclosures, Awareness, and Acceptance on Patient Outcomes

OPINION STATEMENT

In the advanced cancer setting, patients, families, and clinicians are often confronted with an uncertain future regarding treatment outcomes and survival. Greater certainty on what to expect can enhance decision-making for many personal and healthcare issues. Although 70-90% of patients with advanced cancer desire open and honest prognostic disclosure, a small proportion do not want to know. Approximately half of patients with advanced cancer have an inaccurate understanding of their illness, which could negatively impact their decision-making. In this review, we use a conceptual framework to highlight 5 key steps along the prognostic continuum, including (1) prognostic formulation, (2) prognostic disclosure, (3) prognostic awareness, (4) prognostic acceptance, and (5) prognosis-based decision-making. We shall summarize the impact of prognostic predictions, disclosure, awareness, and acceptance on various patient and caregiver outcomes, such as hope, trust, anxiety, depression, chemotherapy use, and care planning. Based on where the patient is at along the prognostic continuum, we propose 5 different subgroups (avoidance: "I don't want to know"; discordant, "I never wanted to know"; anxious, "I don't know what's happening"; concerned, "I don't like this"; acceptance, "I know how to plan ahead"). Although prognostication is not necessarily a linear process, recognizing where the patient is at cognitively and emotionally along the prognostic continuum may allow clinicians to provide personalized interventions, such as specialist palliative care and psychology referral, towards personalizing prognostic disclosure, enhancing prognostic awareness, increasing prognostic acceptance, and supporting decision-making and, ultimately, improving patient outcomes.