Cited by 31Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics in medical practice

How Surrogate Decision-Makers for Patients With Chronic Critical Illness Perceive and Carry Out Their Role

Open access

Abstract

Objectives: Family members commonly make medical decision for patients with chronic critical illness. This study examines how family members approach this decision-making role in real time. Design: Qualitative analysis of interviews with family members in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled communication trial. Settings: Medical ICUs at four U.S. hospitals. Participants: Family members of patients with chronic critical illness (adults mechanically ventilated for ≥ 7 d and expected to remain ventilated and survive for ≥ 72 hr) who participated in the active arm of a communication intervention study. Interventions: Family members participated in at least two content-guided, informational, and emotional support meetings led by a palliative care physician and nurse practitioner. Measurements and Main Results: Grounded theory was used for qualitative analysis of 66 audio recordings of meetings with 51 family members. Family members perceived their role in four main ways: voice of the patient, advocate for the patient, advocate for others, and advocate for oneself. Their decision-making was characterized by balancing goals, sharing their role, keeping perspective, remembering previous experiences, finding sources of strength, and coping with various burdens. Conclusions: Family members take a multifaceted approach as they participate in decision-making. Understanding how surrogates perceive and act in their roles may facilitate shared decision-making among clinicians and families during critical care.

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 · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000003035

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • 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”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [14]Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 1998.
  2. [15]Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd Ed. London: Sage Publications; 2002.
  3. [17]Nelson HL, Nelson JL. The patient in the family: An ethics of medicine and families. New York and London, Routledge, 1995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, L., Nelson, J. E., Hanson, L. C., Cox, C. E., Carson, S. S., Chai, E. J., Keller, K. L., Tulsky, J. A., & Danis, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2018-05
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
699-704
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800292197
Cited by
31
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99CL999999)
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR012413)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • 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
Keywords
surrogate decision-making, family caregivers, chronic critical illness, mechanical ventilation, family meetings, shared decision-making, palliative care communication, family advocacy, family burden, intensive care unit
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Decision Making, Family, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Advocacy, Critical Illness, Caregivers, Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory

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