Cited by 120Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics in medical practice

Nurse-led intervention to improve surrogate decision making for patients with advanced critical illness

Open access
White, D. B., Cua, S. M., Walk, R., Pollice, L., Weissfeld, L., Hong, S., Landefeld, C. S., Arnold, R. M.·2012·American Journal of Critical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Problems persist with surrogate decision making in intensive care units, leading to distress for surrogates and treatment that may not reflect patients' values. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of a multifaceted, nurse-led intervention to improve surrogate decision making in intensive care units. STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, single-arm, interventional study in which 35 surrogates and 15 physicians received the Four Supports Intervention, which involved incorporating a family support specialist into the intensive care team. That specialist maintained a longitudinal relationship with surrogates and provided emotional support, communication support, decision support, and anticipatory grief support. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention was implemented successfully in all 15 patients, with a high level of completion of each component of the intervention. The family support specialist devoted a mean of 48 (SD 36) minutes per day to each clinician-patient-family triad. All participants reported that they would recommend the intervention to others. At least 90% of physicians and surrogates reported that the intervention (1) improved the quality and timeliness of communication, (2) facilitated discussion of the patient's values and treatment preferences, and (3) improved the patient-centeredness of care. CONCLUSIONS: The Four Supports Intervention is feasible, acceptable, and was perceived by physicians and surrogates to improve the quality of decision making and the patient-centeredness of care. A randomized trial is warranted to determine whether the intervention improves patient, family, and health system outcomes.

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 · 10.4037/ajcc2012223

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • A multicomponent, nurse-led intervention designed to reduce depression, anxiety, and PTSD focused on emotional, communication, decisional, and anticipatory grief support for ICU family caregivers but did not utilize targeted strategies to reduce clinical symptoms.

    “Finally, a multicomponent, nurse-led intervention designed to reduce depression, anxiety, and PTSD focused on the provision of emotional, communication, decisional, and anticipatory grief support for ICU family caregivers, but did not utilize targeted strategies to reduce clinical symptoms [9, 10].”

    From Enhancing & Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness & Emotional Resilience (EMPOWER) among Surrogate Decision-Makers of ICU Patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2019) · cites this paper as [10]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous trials led by ICU and palliative care clinicians have proven inefficacious in improving mental health outcomes in informal caregivers.

    “Previous trials led by ICU and palliative care clinicians have proven inefficacious in improving mental health outcomes in informal caregivers [5–11].”

    From Enhancing & Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness & Emotional Resilience (EMPOWER) among Surrogate Decision-Makers of ICU Patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2019) · cites this paper as [10]

    The paper’s background discussion (indexed as Abstract > Conclusions; page unavailable) says several prior ICU interventions did not improve patient or surrogate outcomes and describes null findings from clinician-led trials. The outcomes it specifies are treatment intensity, palliative-care measures, length of stay, decisions, and family ratings of communication—not informal caregivers’ mental health. Its Discussion also says some palliative-care or ethics consultations may improve outcomes for families, so the blanket claim that such trials were proven ineffective overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior interventions to address family surrogates' distress have had limited success, and some may even exacerbate surrogates' traumatic stress responses.

    “However, prior research has shown these interventions not only have limited success but that some may even exacerbate surrogates' traumatic stress responses (14-20).”

    From EMPOWER: A Multi-Site Pilot Trial to Reduce Distress in Surrogate Decision-Makers in the ICU (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

    The paper’s Conclusions section (page unavailable) reports that several earlier interventions failed to improve patient or surrogate outcomes, supporting the claim of limited success. It does not report that any intervention exacerbated surrogates’ traumatic stress responses; its discussion of adverse psychological outcomes concerns problems with ICU communication, not harms caused by an intervention. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The majority of prior trials of surrogate interventions did not target surrogates who are anxious and/or emotionally dependent on the patient.

    “which the majority of prior trials of surrogate interventions did not do (14-20)”

    From EMPOWER: A Multi-Site Pilot Trial to Reduce Distress in Surrogate Decision-Makers in the ICU (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Conclusions say prior interventions focused largely, though not exclusively, on communication and information rather than surrogates’ emotional and interpersonal considerations. That supports the broad contrast, but the paper does not say that most prior trials failed to target surrogates selected for anxiety or emotional dependence on the patient. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several interventions have not observed strong effects on psychological outcomes.

    “distinguishing it from several interventions that have not observed strong effects on psychological outcomes (14-20)”

    From EMPOWER: A Multi-Site Pilot Trial to Reduce Distress in Surrogate Decision-Makers in the ICU (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

    The passage labeled Abstract > Conclusions (page unavailable) reports that several interventions did not improve patient or surrogate outcomes. Its examples concern treatment intensity, palliative-care measures, family ratings of communication, and length of stay—not specifically psychological outcomes. The source supports the claim of limited effects from several interventions, but not its psychological-outcomes qualification. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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., Cua, S. M., Walk, R., Pollice, L., Weissfeld, L., Hong, S., Landefeld, C. S., & Arnold, R. M.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
American Journal of Critical Care
Published
2012-10-31
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
396-409
ISSN
  • 1062-3264 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-710X
OpenAlex
W2131800241
Cited by
120
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 2
FWCI
13.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (K23AG032875)
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, nurse-led intervention, intensive care unit, end-of-life care, clinician-family communication, anticipatory grief, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
Aged, Communication, Decision Making, Family, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Patient Care Team, Pennsylvania, Professional-Family Relations, Social Support, Critical Illness, Proxy, Third-Party Consent

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