How Surrogates Decide: A Secondary Data Analysis of Decision-Making Principles Used by the Surrogates of Hospitalized Older Adults
Open accessAbstract
Background Many hospitalized adults do not have the capacity to make their own health care decisions and thus require a surrogate decision-maker. While the ethical standard suggests that decisions should focus on a patient's preferences, our study explores the principles that surrogates consider most important when making decisions for older hospitalized patients.Objectives We sought to determine how frequently surrogate decision-makers prioritized patient preferences in decision-making and what factors may predict their doing so.Design and participants We performed a secondary data analysis of a study conducted at three local hospitals that surveyed surrogate decision-makers for hospitalized patients 65 years of age and older.Main measures Surrogates rated the importance of 16 decision-making principles and selected the one that was most important. We divided the surrogates into two groups: those who prioritized patient preferences and those who prioritized patient well-being. We analyzed the two groups for differences in knowledge of patient preferences, presence of advance directives, and psychological outcomes.Key results A total of 362 surrogates rated an average of six principles as being extremely important in decision-making; 77.8% of surrogates selected a patient well-being principle as the most important, whereas only 21.1% selected a patient preferences principle. Advance directives were more common to the patient preferences group than the patient well-being group (61.3% vs. 44.9%; 95% CI: 1.01-3.18; p = 0.04), whereas having conversations with the patient about their health care preferences was not a significant predictor of surrogate group identity (81.3% vs. 67.4%; 95% CI: 0.39-1.14; p = 0.14). We found no differences between the two groups regarding surrogate anxiety, depression, or decisional conflict.Conclusions While surrogates considered many factors, they focused more often on patient well-being than on patient preferences, in contravention of our current ethical framework. Surrogates more commonly prioritized patient preferences if they had advance directives available to them.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The contradiction between surrogates' aggressive choices and their own understanding of patient preferences may reflect confusion of personal and patient perspectives, conflation of medical care intensity and quality, prioritization of immediate patient well-being over likely long-term outcome, reluctance in the face of prognostic uncertainty to consider withdrawal of a treatment that will likely,
“This contradiction may reflect confusion of personal and patient perspectives (39), conflation of medical care intensity and quality (40), prioritization of immediate patient well-being over likely long-term outcome (41), reluctance in the face of prognostic uncertainty to consider withdrawal of a treatment that will likely result in death (42), or simply an inadequate mechanization of the values”
From Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation (2019) · cites this paper as [41]
The Patient preferences and patient well-being section reports that 77.8% of surrogates prioritized patient well-being principles, compared with 21.1% who prioritized patient preferences. The cited paper does not establish that surrogates prioritized immediate well-being over likely long-term outcomes; its comparison is between well-being and preferences, not between time horizons. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 46
- Authors
- Devnani, R., Slaven, J. E., Bosslet, G. T., Montz, K., Inger, L., Burke, E. S., & Torke, A. M.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Health (US)
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Devnani, Rohit
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2017-08-24
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1285-1293
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC5698224
- OpenAlex
- W2746145600
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- PMC
- Funders
- Purdue University
- Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG044408, K24AG053794)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Keywords
- surrogate decision-making, surrogate decision makers, hospitalized older adults, patient preferences, patient well-being, advance directives, decision-making principles, decisional conflict, end-of-life care, medical ethics
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Decision Making, Female, Health Priorities, Health Services for the Aged, Health Status, Hospitalization, Humans, Indiana, Male, Middle Aged, Stress, Psychological, Advance Directives, Proxy, Advance Directive Adherence, Ethics, Clinical, Patient Preference
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