What Counts as a Surrogate Decision?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Levi BH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10751970 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
What Counts as a Surrogate Decision?
Levi Benjamin H BH Dimmock Anne Ef AE Van Scoy Lauren J LJ Smith Theresa T Kunzler Bronson B Foy Andrew J AJ Badzek Laurie L Green Michael J MJ
The American journal of hospice & palliative care 20230330 2
When patients lose decision-making capacity, others must make surrogate decisions on their behalf. What counts as a surrogate decision might seem self-evident. But as clinician-researchers in the field of advance care planning, we have found that it is not always so clear-cut. In this paper, we describe how and why this is a matter of concern, a novel approach for assessing whether a surrogate decision occurred, and findings from this assessment. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLiver cirrhosis is a significant source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The disease is usually indolent and asymptomatic early in its course while many cirrhotic patients are diagnosed late when severe complications occur. A major challenge is to diagnose advanced fibrosis as early as possible, using simple and non-invasive diagnostics tools. Thrombocytopenia represents advanced fibrosis and portal hypertension (HTN) and most non-invasive scores that predict liver fibrosis incorporate platelets as a strong risk factor. However, little is known about the association between longitudinal changes in platelet counts (PTC), when still within the normal range, and the risk of cirrhosis.AimTo explore whether platelet counts trajectories over time, can predict advanced liver fibrosis across the different etiologies of liver diseases.MethodsA nested case-control study utilizing a large computerized database. Cirrhosis cases (n = 5258) were compared to controls (n = 15744) matched for age and sex at a ratio of 1:3. All participants had multiple laboratory measurements prior to enrollment. We calculated the trends of PTC, liver enzymes, bilirubin, international normalized ratio, albumin and fibrosis scores (fibrosis-4 and aspartate transaminase-to-platelet ratio index) throughout the preceding 20 years prior to cirrhosis diagnosis compared to healthy controls. The association between PTC, cirrhosis complications and fibrosis scores prior to cirrhosis diagnosis was investigated.ResultsThe mean age in both groups was 56 (SD 15.8). Cirrhotic patients were more likely to be smokers, diabetic with chronic kidney disease and had a higher prevalence of HTN. The leading cirrhosis etiologies were viral, alcoholic and fatty liver disease. The mean PTC decreased from 240000/μL to 190000/μL up to 15 years prior to cirrhosis diagnosis compared to controls who's PTC remained stable around the values of 240000/μL. This trend was consistent regardless of sex, cirrhosis etiology and was more pronounced in patients who developed varices and ascites. Compared to controls whose values remained in the normal range, in the cirrhosis group aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, increased from 40 U/L to 75 U/L and FIB-4 increased gradually from 1.3 to 3 prior to cirrhosis diagnosis. In multivariable regression analysis, a decrease of 50 units in PTC was associated with 1.3 times odds of cirrhosis (95%CI 1.25-1.35).ConclusionIn the preceding years before the diagnosis of cirrhosis, there is a progressive decline in PTC, within the normal range, matched to a gradual increase in fibrosis scores.
| S-EPMC7579756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectiveSurrogate decision makers for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are frequently asked to make difficult decisions on use of life-sustaining treatments. We explored ICH surrogate satisfaction with decision making and experience of decision regret using validated measures in a prospective multicenter study.MethodsCases of non-traumatic ICH were enrolled from three hospitals (September 2015-December 2016), and surrogate decision makers were invited to complete a self-administered survey. The primary outcome was the 10-item decision-making subscale of the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit scale (FSICU-DM, range 0-100, higher is greater satisfaction), and the secondary outcome was the decision regret scale (range 0-100, higher is greater regret). Linear regression models were used to assess the association between satisfaction with decision making and pre-specified covariates using manual backward selection.ResultsA total of 73 surrogates were approached for participation (in person or mail), with 48 surrogates returning a completed survey (median surrogate age 60.5 years, 63% female, 77% white). Patients had a median age of 72.5, 54% were female, with a median admission Glasgow coma scale of 10, in-hospital mortality of 31%, and 56% with an in-hospital DNR order. Physicians commonly made treatment recommendation (> 50%) regarding brain surgery or transitions to comfort measures, but rarely made recommendations (< 20%) regarding DNR orders. Surrogate satisfaction with decision making was generally high (median FSICU-DM 85, IQR 57.5-95). Factors associated with higher satisfaction on multivariable analysis included greater use of shared decision making (P < 0.0001), younger patient age (p = 0.02), ICH score of 3 or higher (p = 0.03), and surrogate relationship (spouse vs. other, p = 0.02). Timing of DNR orders was not associated with satisfaction (P > 0.25). Decision regret scores were generally low (median 12.5, IQR 0-31.3).ConclusionsConsidering the severity and abruptness of ICH, it is reassuring that surrogate satisfaction with decision making was generally high and regret was generally low. However, more work is needed to define the appropriate outcome measures and optimal methods of recruitment for studies of surrogate decision makers of ICH patients.
| S-EPMC7736185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hospitalized patients frequently lack decision-making ability, yet little is known about physicians' approaches to surrogate decision making.To describe physicians' experiences with surrogate communication and decision making for hospitalized adults.Cross-sectional written survey.Two hundred eighty-one physicians who recently cared for adult inpatients in one academic and two community hospitals.Key features of physicians' most recent surrogate decision-making experience, including the nature of the decision, the physician's reaction, physician-surrogate communication and physician-surrogate agreement about the best course of action.Nearly three fourths of physicians (73%, n = 206) had made a major decision with a surrogate during the past month. Although nearly all patients (90%) had a surrogate, physicians reported trouble contacting the surrogate in 21% of cases. Conflict was rare (5%), and a majority of physicians agreed with surrogates about the medical facts (77%), prognosis (72%) and best course of action (65%). After adjustment for patient, physician and decision characteristics, agreement about the best course of action was more common among surrogates for older patients [prevalence ratio (PR) = 1.17 for each decade; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.31], ICU patients (PR = 1.40; CI 1.14-1.51) and patients who had previously discussed their wishes (PR = 1.60; CI 1.30-1.76), and less common when surrogates were difficult to contact (PR = 0.59; CI 0.29-0.92) or when the physician self-identified as Asian (PR = 0.60; CI 0.30-0.94).Surrogate decision making is common among hospitalized adults. Physician-surrogate decision making may be enhanced if patients discuss their preferences in advance and if physician contact with surrogate decision makers is facilitated.
| S-EPMC2726893 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDifficult conversations in medical care often occur between physicians and patients' surrogates, individuals entrusted with medical decisions for patients who lack the capacity to make them. Poor communication between patients' surrogates and physicians may exacerbate anxiety and guilt for surrogates, and may contribute to physician stress and burnout.ObjectiveThis pilot study assesses the effectiveness of an experiential learning workshop that was conducted in a clinical setting, and aimed at improving resident physician communication skills with a focus on surrogate decision-making.MethodsFrom April through June 2016, we assessed internal medicine residents' baseline communication skills through an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with actors representing standardized surrogates. After an intensive, 6-hour communication skills workshop, residents were reassessed via an OSCE on the same day. A faculty facilitator and the surrogate evaluated participants' communication skills via the expanded Gap Kalamazoo Consensus Statement Assessment Form. Wilcoxon signed rank tests (α of .05) compared mean pre- and postworkshop scores.ResultsOf 44 residents, 33 (75%) participated. Participants' average preworkshop OSCE scores (M = 3.3, SD = 0.9) were significantly lower than postworkshop scores (M = 4.3; SD = 0.8; Z = 4.193; P < .001; effect size r = 0.52). After the workshop, the majority of participants self-reported feeling "more confident."ConclusionsResidents' communication skills specific to surrogate decision-making benefit from focused interventions. Our pilot assessment of a workshop showed promise, and additionally demonstrated the feasibility of bringing OSCEs and simulated encounters into a busy clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5559241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:People often rely on numeric metrics to make decisions and form judgments. Numbers can be difficult to process, leading to their underutilization, but they are also uniquely suited to making comparisons. Do people decide differently when some dimensions of a choice are quantified and others are not? We explore this question across 21 preregistered experiments (8 in the main text, N = 9,303; 13 in supplement, N = 13,936) involving managerial, policy, and consumer decisions. Participants face choices that involve tradeoffs (e.g., choosing between employees, one of whom has a higher likelihood of advancement but lower likelihood of retention), and we randomize which dimension of each tradeoff is presented numerically and which is presented qualitatively (using verbal estimates, discrete visualizations, or continuous visualizations). We show that people systematically shift their preferences toward options that dominate on tradeoff dimensions conveyed numerically-a pattern we dub "quantification fixation." Further, we show that quantification fixation has financial consequences-it emerges in incentive-compatible hiring tasks and in charitable donation decisions. We identify one key mechanism that underlies quantification fixation and moderates its strength: When making comparative judgments, which are essential to tradeoff decisions, numeric information is more fluent than non-numeric information. Our findings suggest that when we count, we change what counts.
| S-EPMC11572960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent discussions about health care reform have raised questions regarding the value of advance directives.MethodsWe used data from survey proxies in the Health and Retirement Study involving adults 60 years of age or older who had died between 2000 and 2006 to determine the prevalence of the need for decision making and lost decision-making capacity and to test the association between preferences documented in advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making.ResultsOf 3746 subjects, 42.5% required decision making, of whom 70.3% lacked decision-making capacity and 67.6% of those subjects, in turn, had advance directives. Subjects who had living wills were more likely to want limited care (92.7%) or comfort care (96.2%) than all care possible (1.9%); 83.2% of subjects who requested limited care and 97.1% of subjects who requested comfort care received care consistent with their preferences. Among the 10 subjects who requested all care possible, only 5 received it; however, subjects who requested all care possible were far more likely to receive aggressive care as compared with those who did not request it (adjusted odds ratio, 22.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.45 to 115.00). Subjects with living wills were less likely to receive all care possible (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.56) than were subjects without living wills. Subjects who had assigned a durable power of attorney for health care were less likely to die in a hospital (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.93) or receive all care possible (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.86) than were subjects who had not assigned a durable power of attorney for health care.ConclusionsBetween 2000 and 2006, many elderly Americans needed decision making near the end of life at a time when most lacked the capacity to make decisions. Patients who had prepared advance directives received care that was strongly associated with their preferences. These findings support the continued use of advance directives.
| S-EPMC2880881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHospitalized older adults often lack decisional capacity, but outside of the intensive care unit and end-of-life care settings, little is known about the frequency of decision making by family members or other surrogates or its implications for hospital care.ObjectiveTo describe the scope of surrogate decision making, the hospital course, and outcomes for older adults.Design, setting, and participantsProspective, observational study conducted in medicine and medical intensive care unit services of 2 hospitals in 1 Midwestern city in 1083 hospitalized older adults identified by their physicians as requiring major medical decisions.Main outcomes and measuresClinical characteristics, hospital outcomes, nature of major medical decisions, and surrogate involvement.ResultsAccording to physician reports, at 48 hours of hospitalization, 47.4% (95% CI, 44.4%-50.4%) of older adults required at least some surrogate involvement, including 23.0% (20.6%-25.6%) with all decisions made by a surrogate. Among patients who required a surrogate for at least 1 decision within 48 hours, 57.2% required decisions about life-sustaining care (mostly addressing code status), 48.6% about procedures and operations, and 46.9% about discharge planning. Patients who needed a surrogate experienced a more complex hospital course with greater use of ventilators (2.5% of patients who made decisions and 13.2% of patients who required any surrogate decisions; P < .001), artificial nutrition (1.7% of patients and 14.4% of surrogates; P < .001), and length of stay (median, 6 days for patients and 7 days for surrogates; P < .001). They were more likely to be discharged to an extended-care facility (21.2% with patient decisions and 40.9% with surrogate decisions; P < .001) and had higher hospital mortality (0.0% patients and 5.9% surrogates; P < .001). Most surrogates were daughters (58.9%), sons (25.0%), or spouses (20.6%). Overall, only 7.4% had a living will and 25.0% had a health care representative document in the medical record.Conclusions and relevanceSurrogate decision making occurs for nearly half of hospitalized older adults and includes both complete decision making by the surrogate and joint decision making by the patient and surrogate. Surrogates commonly face a broad range of decisions in the intensive care unit and the hospital ward setting. Hospital functions should be redesigned to account for the large and growing role of surrogates, supporting them as they make health care decisions.
| S-EPMC3947481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a longstanding concern about the accuracy of surrogate consent in representing the health care and research preferences of those who lose their ability to decide for themselves. We sought informed, deliberative views of the older general public (≥50 years old) regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to grant leeway to future surrogates to choose an option contrary to their stated wishes.Methodology/principal findings503 persons aged 50+ recruited by random digit dialing were randomly assigned to one of three groups: deliberation, education, or control. The deliberation group attended an all-day education/peer deliberation session; the education group received written information only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, after the deliberation session (or equivalent time), and one month after the session, regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to give leeway to surrogates, regarding studies of varying risk-benefit profiles (a lumbar puncture study, a drug randomized controlled trial, a vaccine randomized controlled trial, and an early phase gene transfer trial). At baseline, 48% (gene transfer scenario) to 92% (drug RCT) were willing to participate in future dementia research. A majority of respondents (57-71% depending on scenario) were willing to give leeway to future surrogate decision-makers. Democratic deliberation increased willingness to participate in all scenarios, to grant leeway in 3 of 4 scenarios (lumbar puncture, vaccine, and gene transfer), and to enroll loved ones in research in all scenarios. On average, respondents were more willing to volunteer themselves for research than to enroll their loved ones.Conclusions/significanceMost people were willing to grant leeway to their surrogates, and this willingness was either sustained or increased after democratic deliberation, suggesting that the attitude toward leeway is a reliable opinion. Eliciting a person's current preferences about future research participation should also involve eliciting his or her leeway preferences.
| S-EPMC3561414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInstances of surrogate decision-making are expected to increase with the rise in hospitalised older adults in Japan. Few large-scale studies have comprehensively examined the entire surrogate decision-making process. This study aimed to gather information to assess the current state of surrogate decision-making in Japan.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 1000 surrogate decision-makers responded to the questionnaire. We examined the characteristics of surrogate decision-makers and patients, content of surrogate decision-making meeting regarding life-sustaining treatment between the doctors and surrogate decision-makers, extent of involvement of the various parties in the surrogate decision-making process, judgement grounds for surrogate decision-making, and frequency of involvement in the surrogate decision-making process.ResultsOf the participants, 70.5% were male and 48.3% were eldest sons. Only 7.6% of the patients had left a written record of their preferences and 48.8% of the surrogates reported no knowledge of the patient having expressed their prior intentions regarding medical care in any form. Respondents indicated that their family meetings with healthcare professionals mostly included the information recommended by guidelines in a surrogate decision-making meeting in Japan. Most participants reported a good understanding of the meeting content. Although many participants based their decisions on multiple grounds, surrogates' considerations may not adequately reflect respect for patient autonomy in Japan. Specifically, the eldest son considered his own preference more frequently than that of the other surrogate decision-makers. In 26.1% of the cases, either zero or one family meeting with healthcare professionals was held. In these cases, significantly fewer decisions involved the participation of healthcare professionals other than the doctor compared to cases with multiple meetings.ConclusionsSurrogate decisions in Japan are most commonly made by eldest sons and may not frequently consider the perspectives of other surrogates. The finding that patient preferences were rarely known suggests a role for increased advance care planning.
| S-EPMC8464150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe value of advance care planning (ACP) has been the subject of recent debate because of mixed findings. This may be, in part, because trials presume that researchers and patient spokespersons share the same understanding of the role of a surrogate decision-maker. We explored how patient surrogates conceptualized and defined surrogate decision-making vs patient advocacy. Understanding how surrogates perceive their role in decision-making is important to avoid misinterpreting the effectiveness of ACP interventions.ObjectiveTo understand how patient spokespersons distinguish surrogate decision-making from patient advocacy.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative thematic analysis of a subsample of participants from a randomized clinical trial at a tertiary medical center was conducted from September 27, 2012, to June 30, 2021. Participants (n = 36) were the designated spokespersons of adult patients with severe illness who had made a surrogate decision on behalf of the patient since the last follow-up. Analysis was performed from March 21, 2021, to February 7, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresSemistructured interviews examined how patient spokespersons conceptualize differences between surrogate decision-making and advocacy.ResultsThe study included 36 patient spokespersons (32 women [88.9%]; mean [SD] age, 62.1 [11.8] years) and found substantial variability in how the spokespersons conceptualized what it means to make a surrogate decision for another. A total of 10 spokespersons (27.8%) did not distinguish surrogate decision-making from advocacy. There were 5 definitions for both surrogate decision-making and advocacy. The 3 most common definitions of surrogate decision-making were (1) acting as the final decision-maker (18 [50.0%]), (2) doing what is best for the patient (8 [22.2%]), and (3) making decisions on behalf of patients so that their wishes are respected (6 [16.7%]). The 3 most common definitions of advocacy were (1) doing what is best for the patient (8 [22.2%]), (2) respecting patients' wishes (6 [16.7%]), and (3) providing support to the patient (6 [16.7%]). The most common pairing of definitions by an individual spokesperson involved defining surrogate decision-making as being the final decision-maker, and defining advocacy as acting in the best interest of the patient (6 [16.7%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis qualitative study found that many spokespersons perceive their roles as surrogate decision-makers differently than clinicians and researchers likely do, often conflating surrogacy with advocacy. These findings may help explain why researchers have found that ACP does not consistently improve traditional outcomes. If spokespersons do not distinguish surrogate decision-making from advocacy, then what is being reported by spokespersons and measured by clinicians and researchers may not accurately reflect the true association of ACP with outcomes.
| S-EPMC9856522 | biostudies-literature