Why Surrogates Don’t Make Decisions the Way We Think They Ought to: Insights From Moral Psychology

Cognitive Biases and Shared Decision Making in Acute Brain Injury

Many patients hospitalized after severe acute brain injury are comatose and require life-sustaining therapies. Some of these patients make favorable recoveries with continued intensive care, while others do not. In addition to providing medical care, clinicians must guide surrogate decision makers through high-stakes, emotionally charged decisions about whether to continue life-sustaining therapies. These consultations require clinicians first to assess a patient's likelihood of recovery given continued life-sustaining therapies (i.e., prognosticate), then to communicate that prediction to surrogates, and, finally, to elicit and interpret the patient's preferences. At each step, both clinicians and surrogates are vulnerable to flawed decision making. Clinicians can be imprecise, biased, and overconfident when prognosticating after brain injury. Surrogates can misperceive the choice and misunderstand or misrepresent a patient's wishes, which may never have been communicated clearly. These biases can undermine the ability to reach choices congruent with patients' preferences through shared decision making (SDM). Decision science has extensively studied these biases. In this article, we apply that research to improving SDM for patients who are comatose after acute brain injury. After introducing SDM and the medical context, we describe principal decision science results as they relate to neurologic prognostication and end-of-life decisions, by both clinicians and surrogates. Based on research regarding general processes that can produce imprecise, biased, and overconfident prognoses, we propose interventions that could improve SDM, supporting clinicians and surrogates in making these challenging decisions.

Ethical challenges faced by healthcare professionals who care for suicidal patients: a scoping review

For each one of the approximately 800,000 people who die from suicide every year, an additional twenty people attempt suicide. Many of these attempts result in hospitalization or in contact with other healthcare services. However, many personal, educational, and institutional barriers make it difficult for healthcare professionals to care for suicidal individuals. We reviewed literature that discusses suicidal patients in healthcare settings in order to highlight common ethical issues and to identify knowledge gaps. A sample was generated via PubMed using keywords "[(ethics OR *ethic*) AND suicid*] AND [English (Language) OR French (Language)]" (final N = 52), ethics content was extracted according to scoping review methodology, and categorized thematically. We identified three main areas posing ethical challenges for health professionals caring for suicidal individuals and their families. These were: (1) making clinical decisions for patients in acute care or when presented with specific circumstances; (2) issues arising from therapeutic relationships in chronic care, and (3) organizational factors. There is considerable uncertainty about how to resolve ethical issues when caring for someone who is suicidal. The stigma associated with suicide and mental illness, problems associated with risk-benefit assessments, and the fear of being held liable for malpractice should a patient die by suicide were overarching themes present across these three categories. Caring for suicidal patients is clinically and ethically challenging. The current literature highlights the complexity and range of decisions that need to be made. More attention should be paid to the difficulties faced by healthcare professionals and the development of solutions.

Understanding End-of-Life Decision-Making Terminology Among African American Older Adults

The purpose of the current study was to examine understanding of end-of-life (EOL) decision-making terminology among family caregivers of African American older adults with dementia. This qualitative descriptive study was part of a larger mixed-methods study from which a subset of caregivers (n = 18) completed interviews. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analyses guided by methods of qualitative analysis. Caregiver interpretation of EOL decision-making terminology varied between associations before and/or after death. EOL decision making was most often a family decision, based on past experiences, and included reliance on resources such as faith or spirituality and health care providers. Patients and families attach meaning to health care terms that should be aligned with health care providers' understanding of those terms. Results provide insight to improve EOL decision making in this population via tailored interventions for patients, families, and health care providers. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 44(2), 33-40.].

How do clinicians prepare family members for the role of surrogate decision-maker?

PURPOSE

Although surrogate decision-making (SDM) is prevalent in intensive care units (ICUs) and concerns with decision quality are well documented, little is known about how clinicians help family members understand the surrogate role. We investigated whether and how clinicians provide normative guidance to families regarding how to function as a surrogate.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We audiorecorded and transcribed 73 ICU family conferences in which clinicians anticipated discussing goals of care for incapacitated patients at high risk of death. We developed and applied a coding framework to identify normative statements by clinicians regarding what considerations should guide surrogates' decisions, including whether clinicians explained one or more of Buchanan and Brock's three standard principles of SDM to family members.

RESULTS

Clinicians made at least one statement about how to perform the surrogate role in 24 (34%) conferences (mean of 0.83 statements per conference (1.77; range 0-9)). We observed three general types of normative guidance provided to surrogates, with some conferences containing more than one type of guidance: counselling about one or more standard principles of SDM (24% of conferences); counselling surrogates to make decisions centred on the patient as a person, without specifying how to accomplish that (14% of conferences); and counselling surrogates to make decisions based on the family's values (8% of conferences).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians did not provide normative guidance about the surrogate role in two-thirds of family conferences for incapacitated patients at high risk for death. When they did, clinicians' guidance was often incomplete and sometimes conflicted with standard principles of SDM. Future work is needed to understand whether providing explicit guidance on how to perform the surrogate role improves decision-making or mitigates surrogates' psychological distress.

A Decade of Changes in Family Caregivers' Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatments for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients at End of Life in the Context of a Family-Oriented Society

CONTEXT

Temporal changes in different family caregiver cohorts' preferences for life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) at end of life (EOL) have not been examined nor have the concept of whether caregivers' LST preferences represent a homogeneous or heterogeneous construct. Furthermore, LST preferences are frequently assessed from multiple treatments, making clinical applications difficult/infeasible.

OBJECTIVES

To identify parsimonious patterns and changes in the pattern of LST preferences for two independent cohorts of family caregivers for terminally ill Taiwanese cancer patients.

METHODS

Preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intensive care unit care, cardiac massage, intubation with mechanical ventilation, intravenous nutritional support, tube feeding, and dialysis were assessed among 1617 and 2056 family caregivers in 2003-2004 and 2011-2012, respectively. Patterns and changes in LST preferences were examined by multigroup latent class analysis.

RESULTS

Five distinct classes were identified: uniformly preferring, uniformly rejecting, uniformly uncertain, and favoring nutritional support but rejecting or uncertain about other treatments. Class probability significantly decreased from 29.3% to 23.7% for the uniformly rejecting class, remained largely unchanged for the uniformly preferring (16.9%-18.6%), and favoring nutritional support but rejecting (37.1%-37.5%) or uncertain about other treatments (8.0%-10.4%) classes, but significantly increased from 7.0% to 11.5% for the uniformly uncertain class over time.

CONCLUSION

Family caregivers' LST preferences for terminally ill cancer patients are a heterogeneous construct and shifted from uniformly rejecting all LSTs toward greater uncertainty. Surrogate EOL-care decision making may be facilitated by earlier and thorough assessments of caregivers' LST preferences and tailoring interventions to the unique needs of caregivers in each class identified in this study.

Balancing Legitimate Critical-Care Interests: Setting Defensible Care Limits Through Policy Development

Critical-care decision making is highly complex, given the need for health care providers and organizations to consider, and constructively respond to, the diverse interests and perspectives of a variety of legitimate stakeholders. Insights derived from an identified set of ethics-related considerations have the potential to meaningfully inform inclusive and deliberative policy development that aims to optimally balance the competing obligations that arise in this challenging, clinical decision-making domain. A potential, constructive outcome of such policy engagement is the collaborative development of an as-fair-as-possible dispute resolution process that incorporates an appropriated-justified, defensible critical-care obligation threshold.