"It's not just what the doctor tells me:" factors that influence surrogate decision-makers' perceptions of prognosis.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians and surrogate decision-makers for seriously ill patients often have different views of patients' prognoses. We sought to understand what sources of knowledge surrogates rely on when estimating a patient's prognosis. DESIGN: Prospective, mixed-methods study using face-to-face, semistructured interviews with surrogate decision-makers. SETTING: Four intensive care units at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center in 2006 to 2007. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 179 surrogate decision-makers for 142 incapacitated, critically ill patients at high risk for death. MAIN RESULTS: Less than 2% (3 of 179) of surrogates reported that their beliefs about the patients' prognoses hinged exclusively on prognostic information provided to them by physicians. The majority cited other factors in addition to physicians' predictions that also contributed to their beliefs about the patients' prognoses, including perceptions of the patient's individual strength of character and will to live; the patient's unique history of illness and survival; the surrogate's own observations of the patient's physical appearance; the surrogate's belief that their presence at the bedside may improve the prognosis; and the surrogate's optimism, intuition, and faith. For some surrogates, these other sources of knowledge superseded the importance of the physician's prognostication. However, most surrogates endeavored to balance their own knowledge of the patient with physicians' biomedical knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates use diverse types of knowledge when estimating their loved ones' prognoses, including individualized attributes of the patient, such as their strength of character and life history, of which physicians may be unaware. Attention to these considerations may help clinicians identify and overcome disagreements about prognosis.

Surrogate decision-makers' perspectives on discussing prognosis in the face of uncertainty.

RATIONALE: Many physicians are reluctant to discuss a patient's prognosis when there is significant prognostic uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand surrogate decision makers' views regarding whether physicians should discuss prognosis in the face of uncertainty. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 179 surrogates for 142 incapacitated patients at high risk of death in four intensive care units at an academic medical center. The interviews explored surrogates' attitudes about whether physicians should discuss prognosis when they cannot be certain their prognostic estimates are correct. We used constant comparative methods to analyze the transcripts. Validation methods included triangulation by multidisciplinary analysis and member checking. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent (155/179) of surrogates wanted physicians to discuss an uncertain prognosis. We identified five main reasons for this, including surrogates' belief that prognostic uncertainty is unavoidable, that physicians are their only source for prognostic information, and that discussing prognostic uncertainty leaves room for realistic hope, increases surrogates' trust in the physician, and signals a need to prepare for possible bereavement. Twelve percent (22/179) of surrogates felt that discussions about an uncertain prognosis should be avoided. The main explanation was that it is not worth the potential emotional distress if the prognostications are incorrect. Surrogates suggested that physicians should explicitly discuss uncertainty when prognosticating. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surrogates of patients that are critically ill want physicians to disclose their prognostic estimates even if they cannot be certain they are correct. This stems from surrogates' belief that prognostic uncertainty is simultaneously unavoidable and acceptable.

Hope, truth, and preparing for death: perspectives of surrogate decision makers.

BACKGROUND: Although many physicians worry that openly discussing a poor prognosis will cause patients and families to lose hope, surrogate decision makers' perspectives on this topic are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine surrogate decision makers' attitudes toward balancing hope and telling the truth when discussing prognosis. DESIGN: Prospective, mixed-methods cohort study. SETTING: 4 intensive care units at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center, San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 179 surrogate decision makers for incapacitated patients at high risk for death. MEASUREMENTS: One-on-one, semistructured interviews with surrogates were conducted on the patients' 5th day of receiving mechanical ventilation. Constant comparative methods were used to inductively develop a framework to describe participants' responses. Validation methods included multidisciplinary analysis and member checking. RESULTS: Overall, 93% (166 of 179) of surrogates felt that avoiding discussions about prognosis is an unacceptable way to maintain hope. The main explanatory theme was that timely discussion of prognosis is essential to allow family members to prepare emotionally and logistically for the possibility of a patient's death. Other themes that emerged included surrogates' belief that an accurate understanding of a patient's prognosis allows them to better support the patient and each other, a moral aversion to the idea of false hope, the perception that physicians have an obligation to discuss prognosis, and the notion that some surrogates look to physicians primarily for truth and seek hope elsewhere. A few surrogates (6 of 179) felt that physicians should withhold prognostic information because of a belief that discussing death could be emotionally damaging to the family or could negatively affect the patient's health. LIMITATION: The authors did not longitudinally assess whether early disclosure about prognosis predicts fewer adverse bereavement outcomes. CONCLUSION: Most surrogates of critically ill patients do not view withholding prognostic information as an acceptable way to maintain hope, largely because timely discussions about prognosis help families begin to prepare emotionally, existentially, and practically for the possibility that a patient will die.

Identification of core objectives for teaching sustainable healthcare education.

BACKGROUND: Physicians will be called upon to care for patients who bear the burden of disease from the impact of climate change and ecologically irresponsible practices which harm ecosystems and contribute to climate change. However, physicians must recognize the connection between the climate, ecosystems, sustainability, and health and their responsibility and capacity in changing the status quo. Sustainable healthcare education (SHE), defined as education about the impact of climate change and ecosystem alterations on health and the impact of the healthcare industry on the aforementioned, is vital to prevention of adverse health outcomes due to the changing climate and environment. OBJECTIVE: To systematically determine which and when a set of SHE objectives should be included in the medical education continuum. DESIGN: Fifty-two SHE experts participated in a two-part modified-Delphi study. A survey was developed based on 21 SHE objectives. Respondents rated the importance of each objective and when each objective should be taught. Descriptive statistics and an item-level content validity index (CVI) were used to analyze data. RESULTS: Fifteen of the objectives achieved a content validity index of 78% or greater. The remaining objectives had content validity indices between 58% and 77%. The preclinical years of medical school were rated as the optimal time for introducing 13 and the clinical years for introducing six of the objectives. Respondents noted the definition of environmental sustainability should be learned prior to medical school and identifying ways to improve the environmental sustainability of health systems in post-graduate training. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes SHE objectives for the continuum of medical education. These objectives ensure the identity of the physician includes the requisite awareness and competence to care for patients who experience the impact of climate and environment on health and advocate for sustainability of the health systems in which they work. ABBREVIATIONS: CVI: Content validity index; SHE: Sustainable healthcare education.

Health care worker exposures to the antibacterial agent triclosan.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify absorption of triclosan, a potential endocrine disruptor, in health care workers with occupational exposure to soap containing this chemical. METHODS: A cross-sectional convenience sample of two groups of 38 health care workers at separate inpatient medical centers: hospital 1 uses 0.3% triclosan soap in all patient care areas; hospital 2 does not use triclosan-containing products. Additional exposure to triclosan-containing personal care products was assessed through a structured questionnaire. Urine triclosan was quantified and the occupational contribution estimated through regression modeling. RESULTS: Occupational exposure accounted for an incremental triclosan burden of 206 ng/mL (P = 0.02), while triclosan-containing toothpaste use was associated with 146 ng/mL higher levels (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of triclosan-containing antibacterial soaps in health care settings represents a substantial and potentially biologically relevant source of occupational triclosan exposure.