Prognostic Language in Critical Neurologic Illness: A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no evidence-based guidelines for discussing prognosis in critical neurologic illness, but in general, experts recommend that clinicians communicate prognosis using estimates, such as numerical or qualitative expressions of risk. Little is known about how real-world clinicians communicate prognosis in critical neurologic illness. Our primary objective was to characterize prognostic language clinicians used in critical neurologic illness. We additionally explored whether prognostic language differed between prognostic domains (e.g., survival, cognition). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional mixed-methods study analyzing deidentified transcripts of audio-recorded clinician-family meetings for patients with neurologic illness requiring intensive care (e.g., intracerebral hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, severe stroke) from 7 US centers. Two coders assigned codes for prognostic language type and domain of prognosis to each clinician prognostic statement. Prognostic language was coded as probabilistic (estimating the likelihood of an outcome occurring, e.g., "80% survival"; "She'll probably survive") or nonprobabilistic (characterizing outcomes without offering likelihood; e.g., "She may not survive"). We applied univariate and multivariate binomial logistic regression to examine independent associations between prognostic language and domain of prognosis. RESULTS: We analyzed 43 clinician-family meetings for 39 patients with 78 surrogates and 27 clinicians. Clinicians made 512 statements about survival (median 0/meeting [interquartile range (IQR) 0-2]), physical function (median 2 [IQR 0-7]), cognition (median 2 [IQR 0-6]), and overall recovery (median 2 [IQR 1-4]). Most statements were nonprobabilistic (316/512 [62%]); 10 of 512 prognostic statements (2%) offered numeric estimates; and 21% (9/43) of family meetings only contained nonprobabilistic language. Compared with statements about cognition, statements about survival (odds ratio [OR] 2.50, 95% CI 1.01-6.18, p = 0.048) and physical function (OR 3.22, 95% 1.77-5.86, p < 0.001) were more frequently probabilistic. Statements about physical function were less likely to be uncertainty-based than statements about cognition (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.66, p = 0.002). DISCUSSION: Clinicians preferred not to use estimates (either numeric or qualitative) when discussing critical neurologic illness prognosis, especially when they discussed cognitive outcomes. These findings may inform interventions to improve prognostic communication in critical neurologic illness.

A Pilot Randomized Trial of an Interactive Web-based Tool to Support Surrogate Decision Makers in the Intensive Care Unit.

Rationale: Breakdowns in clinician-family communication in intensive care units (ICUs) are common, yet there are no easily scaled interventions to prevent this problem.Objectives: To assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of a communication intervention that pairs proactive family meetings with an interactive, web-based tool to help surrogates prepare for clinician-family meetings.Methods: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, patient-level randomized trial comparing the Family Support Tool with enhanced usual care in two ICUs in a tertiary-care hospital. Eligible participants included surrogates of incapacitated patients judged by their physicians to have ≥40% risk of death or severe long-term functional impairment. The intervention group received unlimited tool access, with prompts to complete specific content upon enrollment and before two scheduled family meetings. Before family meetings, research staff shared with clinicians a one-page summary of surrogates' main questions, prognostic expectations, beliefs about the patient's values, and attitudes about goals of care. The comparator group received usual care enhanced with scheduled family meetings. Feasibility outcomes included the proportion of participants who accessed the tool before the first family meeting, mean number of logins, and average tool engagement time. We assessed tool usability with the System Usability Scale, assessed tool acceptability and perceived effectiveness with internally developed questionnaires, and assessed quality of communication and shared decision-making using the Quality of Communication questionnaire.Results: Of 182 screened patients, 77 were eligible. We enrolled 52 (67.5%) patients and their primary surrogate. Ninety-six percent of intervention surrogates (24/25) accessed the tool before the first family meeting (mean engagement time, 62 min ± 27.7) and logged in 4.2 times (±2.1) on average throughout the hospitalization. Surrogates reported that the tool was highly usable (mean, 82.4/100), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5 ± 0.9), and effective (mean, 4.4/5 ± 0.2). Compared with the control group, surrogates who used the tool reported higher overall quality of communication (mean, 8.9/10 ± 1.6 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4) and higher quality in shared decision-making (mean, 8.7/10 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4), but the difference did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions: It is feasible to deploy an interactive web-based tool to support communication and shared decision-making for surrogates in ICUs. Surrogates and clinicians rated the tool as highly usable, acceptable, and effective.

Developing the family support tool: An interactive, web-based tool to help families navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs.

INTRODUCTION: Although family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker, there are no low-cost, easily-scaled interventions to address this problem. AIM OF THE STUDY: To develop and pilot-test the Family Support Tool, an interactive, web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a mixed methods, user-centered process to create the Family Support Tool, including: 1) creation of a preliminary design by an expert panel; 2) engagement of a key stakeholder panel to iteratively refine the preliminary design; 3) user testing of a low-fidelity prototype of the tool by 6 former ICU surrogates; 4) creation of a web-based prototype; and 5) user testing of the web-based prototype with 14 surrogates and ICU physicians, including semi-structured interviews and quantitative measurement of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness. RESULTS: The initial design contained a collection of videos and exercises designed to help individuals understand the surrogate's role and think through the patient's values and preferences. Based on family stakeholders' feedback about the emotional overwhelm they experience early in an ICU stay, we redesigned the tool to be viewed in sections, with the first section focused on decreasing surrogates' emotional distress, and later sections focused on helping surrogates prepare for family meetings. Surrogates actively making decisions in the ICU judged the final tool to be highly usable (mean summary score 83.5, correlating to 95th percentile when normalized to devices of its type), acceptable (mean 4.2 +/- 0.5 out of 5), and effective (mean 4.3 +/- 0.6 out of 5). All surrogates reported the tool helped them consider goals of care and all indicated they would recommend the tool to a friend. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed a web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs that has high potential for scalability. Surrogates judged the tool to be usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding to test the tool in a pilot randomized clinical trial.