Cited by 232Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics in medical practiceFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units

Prevalence of and Factors Related to Discordance About Prognosis Between Physicians and Surrogate Decision Makers of Critically Ill Patients

Open access
White, Douglas B., Ernecoff, Natalie, Buddadhumaruk, Praewpannarai, Hong, Seoyeon, Weissfeld, Lisa, Curtis, J. Randall, Luce, John M., Lo, Bernard·2016·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Misperceptions about prognosis by individuals making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients (surrogates) are common and often attributed to poor comprehension of medical information. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of and factors related to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis in intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mixed-methods study comprising quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews conducted in 4 ICUs at a major US medical center involving surrogate decision makers and physicians caring for patients at high risk of death from January 4, 2005, to July 10, 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Discordance about prognosis, defined as a difference between a physician's and a surrogate's prognostic estimates of at least 20%; misunderstandings by surrogates (defined as any difference between a physician's prognostic estimate and a surrogate's best guess of that estimate); differences in belief (any difference between a surrogate's actual estimate and their best guess of the physician's estimate). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine surrogate decision makers (median age, 47 [interquartile range {IQR}, 35-56] years; 68% women) and 99 physicians were involved in the care of 174 critically ill patients (median age, 60 [IQR, 47-74] years; 44% women). Physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis occurred in 122 of 229 instances (53%; 95% CI, 46.8%-59.7%). In 65 instances (28%), discordance was related to both misunderstandings by surrogates and differences in belief about the patient's prognosis; 38 (17%) were related to misunderstandings by surrogates only; 7 (3%) were related to differences in belief only; and data were missing for 12. Seventy-five patients (43%) died. Surrogates' prognostic estimates were much more accurate than chance alone, but physicians' prognostic estimates were statistically significantly more accurate than surrogates' (C statistic, 0.83 vs 0.74; absolute difference, 0.094; 95% CI, 0.024-0.163; P = .008). Among 71 surrogates interviewed who had beliefs about the prognosis that were more optimistic than that of the physician, the most common reasons for optimism were a need to maintain hope to benefit the patient (n = 34), a belief that the patient had unique strengths unknown to the physician (n = 24), and religious belief (n = 19). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients, discordant expectations about prognosis were common between patients' physicians and surrogate decision makers and were related to misunderstandings by surrogates about physicians' assessments of patients' prognoses and differences in beliefs about patients' prognoses.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.5351

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Surrogates' own prognostic estimates may have served as illocutionary acts-expressions intended to express positive attitude, optimism, or faith; highlight patients' unrecognized qualities of resilience; or counter clinicians' pessimism.

    “their own prognostic estimates may also have served as “illocutionary acts”—that is, expressions distinct from comprehension with which they intended to express positive attitude, optimism, or faith; to highlight patients’ unrecognized qualities of resilience; or to counter clinicians’ pessimism (15, 34–36).”

    From Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Discussion reports that some surrogates intentionally held optimistic estimates, and Surrogates’ Explanations for Optimism and Pessimism links optimism to faith and patients’ strengths unknown to physicians. Table 4 also records a belief that physicians were pessimistic. The paper does not establish that the estimates were intended as communicative ‘illocutionary acts’ or to counter clinicians’ pessimism; those are the citing authors’ interpretations. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ineffective communication can result in the default provision of aggressive life support, which may conflict with patient preferences.

    “Ineffective communication can result in the default provision of aggressive life support, which may conflict with patient preferences (15)”

    From Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Discussion (page not provided) says that discordance about prognosis may lead to overuse of life-prolonging treatments, and the Abstract links optimistic expectations to greater use of invasive treatment. The paper does not say that ineffective communication causes aggressive life support to be provided by default or that such treatment conflicts with patients’ preferences. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
White, D. B., Ernecoff, N., Buddadhumaruk, P., Hong, S., Weissfeld, L., Curtis, J. R., Luce, J. M., & Lo, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Statistics Collaborative (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
White, Douglas B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2016-05-17
Volume
315
Issue
19
Pages
2086
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2407608263
Cited by
232
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 7
FWCI
25.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL094553)
  • National Center for Research Resources (KL2RR024130)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Keywords
prognosis, surrogate decision makers, critically ill patients, intensive care unit, physician communication, end-of-life decisions, prognostic accuracy, advance care planning, physician-patient communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude, Culture, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Probability, Prognosis, Terminal Care, Critical Illness, Proxy, Comprehension, Dissent and Disputes, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review