Knowing Is (Only) Half the Battle

Surrogate and Physician Decision Making for Mechanically Ventilated Patients According to Expected Patient Outcome

Background: Surrogates and physicians may differ in their priorities and perspectives when making decisions for incapacitated, critically ill patients. Objectives: To determine the extent to which surrogate and physician decisions to sustain life support are associated with their expectations for patient outcomes. Setting/Subjects: Surrogates and physicians of 100 mechanically ventilated patients at an academic, tertiary care medical center in the United States were surveyed. Measurements: Linear regression was used to determine if participant expectations for patient survival, good quality of life, and confidence in these expectations were associated with their agreement that mechanical ventilation should be continued if required for patient survival. Results: Surrogates were more likely than physicians to expect that patients would be alive in three months (91% interquartile range [IQR 70-95%] vs. 65% [IQR 43-77%], p < 0.001) and have good quality of life in three months (71% [IQR 50-90%] vs. 40% [IQR 19-50%], p < 0.001). Surrogates who were most confident in their prognostic abilities were also the most optimistic for good patient outcomes. As such, expectations for patient survival and good quality of life were not associated with level agreement that mechanical ventilation should be continued among confident surrogates, (R² = 0.03, p = 0.13) and (R² = 0.01, p = 0.53), respectively. In contrast, among physicians, confidence was not synonymous with optimism. Instead, the significant associations between expectations for patient survival and good quality of life with the agreement that mechanical ventilation should be continued were strengthened when physicians were confident, (R² = 0.34, p < 0.01) and (R² = 0.47, p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: Surrogates and physicians have different approaches to incorporating their expectations for patient prognosis and their confidence in these expectations when they are making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients.

Adapting a Traumatic Brain Injury Goals-of-Care Decision Aid for Critically Ill Patients to Intracerebral Hemorrhage and Hemispheric Acute Ischemic Stroke

OBJECTIVES

Families in the neurologic ICU urgently request goals-of-care decision support and shared decision-making tools. We recently developed a goals-of-care decision aid for surrogates of critically ill traumatic brain injury patients using a systematic development process adherent to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. To widen its applicability, we adapted this decision aid to critically ill patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and large hemispheric acute ischemic stroke.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Two academic neurologic ICUs.

SUBJECTS

Twenty family members of patients in the neurologic ICU were recruited from July 2018 to October 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We reviewed the existing critically ill traumatic brain injury patients decision aid for content and changed: 1) the essential background information, 2) disease-specific terminology to "hemorrhagic stroke" and "ischemic stroke", and 3) disease-specific prognosis tailored to individual patients. We conducted acceptability and usability testing using validated scales. All three decision aids contain information from validated, disease-specific outcome prediction models, as recommended by international decision aid standards, including careful emphasis on their uncertainty. We replaced the individualizable icon arrays graphically depicting probabilities of a traumatic brain injury patient's prognosis with icon arrays visualizing intracerebral hemorrhage and hemispheric acute ischemic stroke prognostic probabilities using high-quality disease-specific data. We selected the Intracerebral Hemorrhage Score with validated 12-month outcomes, and for hemispheric acute ischemic stroke, the 12-month outcomes from landmark hemicraniectomy trials. Twenty family members participated in acceptability and usability testing (n = 11 for the intracerebral hemorrhage decision aid; n = 9 for the acute ischemic stroke decision aid). Median usage time was 22 minutes (interquartile range, 16-26 min). Usability was excellent (median System Usability Scale = 84/100 [interquartile range, 61-93; with > 68 indicating good usability]); 89% of participants graded the decision aid content as good or excellent, and greater than or equal to 90% rated it favorably for information amount, balance, and comprehensibility.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully adapted goals-of-care decision aids for use in surrogates of critically ill patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and hemispheric acute ischemic stroke and found excellent usability and acceptability. A feasibility trial using these decision aids is currently ongoing to further validate their acceptability and test their feasibility for use in busy neurologic ICUs.

Development and usability testing of Understanding Stroke, a tailored life-sustaining treatment decision support tool for stroke surrogate decision makers

BACKGROUND

Surrogate decision makers of stroke patients are often unprepared to make critical decisions on life-sustaining treatments. We describe the development process and key features for the Understanding Stroke web-based decision support tool.

METHODS

We used multiple strategies to develop a patient-centered, tailored decision aid. We began by forming a Patient and Family Advisory Council to provide continuous input to our multidisciplinary team on the development of the tool. Additionally, focus groups consisting of nurses, therapists, social workers, physicians, stroke survivors, and family members reviewed key elements of the tool, including prognostic information, graphical displays, and values clarification exercise. To design the values clarification exercise, we asked focus groups to provide feedback on a list of important activities of daily living. An ordinal prognostic model was developed for ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage using data taken from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive Plus, and incorporated into the tool.

RESULTS

Focus group participants recommended making numeric prognostic information optional due to possible emotional distress. Pie charts were generally favored by participants for graphical presentation of prognostic information, though a horizontal stacked bar chart was also added due to its prevalence in stroke literature. Plain language descriptions of the modified Rankin Scale were created to accompany the prognostic information. A values clarification exercise was developed consisting of a list of 13 situations that may make an individual consider comfort measures only. The final version of the web based tool (which can be viewed on tablets) included the following sections: general introduction to stroke, outcomes (prognostic information and recovery), in-hospital and life-sustaining treatments, decision making and values clarification, post-hospital care, tips for talking to the health care team, and a summary report. Preliminary usability testing received generally favorable feedback.

CONCLUSION

We developed Understanding Stroke, a tailored decision support tool for surrogate decision makers of stroke patients. The tool was well received and will be formally pilot tested in a group of stroke surrogate decision makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03427645 ).

Goals-of-care decision aid for critically ill patients with TBI: Development and feasibility testing

OBJECTIVE

To develop and demonstrate early feasibility of a goals-of-care decision aid for surrogates of patients who are critically ill with traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) that meets accepted international decision aid guidelines.

METHODS

We developed the decision aid in 4 stages: (1) qualitative study of goals-of-care communication and decision needs of 36 stakeholders of ciTBI (surrogates and physicians), which informed (2) development of paper-based decision aid with iterative revisions after feedback from 52 stakeholders; (3) acceptability and usability testing in 18 neurologic intensive care unit (neuroICU) family members recruited from 2 neuroICU waiting rooms using validated scales; and (4) open-label, randomized controlled feasibility trial in surrogates of ciTBI. We performed an interim analysis of 16 surrogates of 12 consecutive patients who are ciTBI to confirm early feasibility of the study protocol and report recruitment, participation, and retention rates to date.

RESULTS

The resultant goals-of-care decision aid achieved excellent usability (median System Usability Scale 87.5 [possible range 0-100]) and acceptability (97% graded the tool's content as "good" or "excellent"). Early feasibility of the decision aid and the feasibility trial protocol was demonstrated by high rates of recruitment (73% consented), participation (100%), and retention (100% both after the goals-of-care clinician-family meeting and at 3 months) and complete data for the measurements of all secondary decision-related and behavioral outcomes to date.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic development process resulted in a novel goals-of-care decision aid for surrogates of patients who are ciTBI with excellent usability, acceptability, and early feasibility in the neuroICU environment, and meets international decision aid standards. This methodology may be a development model for other decision aids in neurology to promote shared decision-making.

Concerns of surrogate decision makers for patients with acute brain injury: A US population survey

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether groups of surrogates for patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) with poor prognosis can be identified based on their prioritization of goals-of-care (GOC) decisional concerns, an online survey of 1,588 adults recruited via a probability-based panel representative of the US population was conducted.

METHODS

Participants acted as a surrogate for a GOC decision for a hypothetical patient with SABI and were randomized to 1 of 2 prognostic scenarios: the patient likely being left with a range of severe functional disability (SD) or remaining in a vegetative state (VS). Participants prioritized a list of 12 decisional concerns via best-worst scaling. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to discover decisional groups.

RESULTS

The completion rate was 44.6%; data weighting was conducted to mitigate nonresponse bias. For 792 SD respondents, LCA revealed 4 groups. All groups shared concerns regarding respecting patient wishes and minimizing suffering. The 4 groups were otherwise distinguished by unique concerns that their members highlighted: an older adult remaining severely disabled (34.4%), family consensus (26.4%), doubt regarding prognostic accuracy (20.7%), and cost of long-term care (18.6%). For the 796 VS respondents, LCA revealed 5 groups. Four of the 5 groups had similar concern profiles to the 4 SD groups. The largest (29.0%) expressed the most prognostic doubt. An additional group (15.8%) prioritized religious concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although surrogate decision makers for patients with SABI are concerned with respecting patient wishes and minimizing suffering, certain groups highly prioritize other specific decisional factors. These data can help inform future interventions for supporting decision makers.