Profiles of Neurological Outcome Prediction Among Intensivists
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Advances in intensive care medicine have increased survival rates of patients with critical neurological conditions. The focus of prognostication for such patients is therefore shifting from predicting chances of survival to meaningful neurological recovery. This study assessed the variability in long-term outcome predictions among physicians and aimed to identify factors that may account for this variability.
Based on a clinical vignette describing a comatose patient suffering from post-anoxic brain injury intensivists were asked in a semi-structured interview about the patient’s specific neurological prognosis and about prognostication in general. Qualitative research methods were used to identify areas of variability in prognostication and to classify physicians according to specific prognostication profiles. Quantitative statistics were used to assess for associations between prognostication profiles and physicians’ demographic and practice characteristics.
Eighteen intensivists participated. Functional outcome predictions varied along an evaluative dimension (fair/good–poor) and a confidence dimension (certain–uncertain). More experienced physicians tended to be more pessimistic about the patient’s functional outcome and more certain of their prognosis. Attitudes toward quality of life varied along an evaluative dimension (good–poor) and a “style” dimension (objective–subjective). Older and more experienced physicians were more likely to express objective judgments of quality of life and to predict a worse quality of life for the patient than their younger and less experienced counterparts.
Various prognostication profiles exist among intensivists. These may be dictated by factors such as physicians’ age and clinical experience. Awareness of these associations may be a first step to more uniform prognostication.
- Razvi SSM, Bone I. Neurological consultation in the medical intensive care unit. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2003;74(Suppl III):iii16–23. doi:10.1136/jnnp.74.suppl_3.iii16.
- Bernat JL. Ethical aspects of determining and communicating prognosis in critical care. Neurocrit Care. 2004;1:107–17. doi:10.1385/NCC:1:1:107. CrossRef
- Kua JKH, Parker G, Lee C, Jorm AF. Beliefs about outcomes for mental disorders: a comparative study of primary health practitioners and psychiatrists in Singapore. Singapore Med J. 2000;41(11):542–7.
- Robertson DW. Ethical theory, ethnography, and differences between doctors and nurses in approaches to patient care. J Med Ethics. 1996;22:292–9. doi:10.1136/jme.22.5.292. CrossRef
- Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2007.
- Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;9(9):1277–88. CrossRef
- Forman J, Damschroder L. Qualitative content analysis. Adv Bioeth. 2008;11(9):39–63.
- Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA. 2000;284:478–82. doi:10.1001/jama.284.4.478. CrossRef
- Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA. 2000;284:357–62. doi:10.1001/jama.284.3.357. CrossRef
- Jeffrey D. Patient-centred ethics and communication at the end of life. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2005.
- Keenan SP, Busche KD, Chen LM, Esmail R, Inman KJ, Sibbald WJ. Withdrawal and withholding of life support in the intensive care unit: a comparison of teaching and community hospitals. The Southwestern Ontario Critical Care Research Network. Crit Care Med. 1998;26:245–51. doi:10.1097/00003246-199802000-00018. CrossRef
- Prendergast TJ, Claessens MT, Luce JM. A national survey of end-of-life care for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158:1163–7.
- Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, et al. Determinants in Canadian health care workers of the decision to withdraw life support from the critically ill. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. JAMA. 1995;273:703–8. doi:10.1001/jama.273.9.703. CrossRef
- Asch DA, Faber-Langendoen K, Shea JA, Christakis NA. The sequence of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from patients. Am J Med. 1999;107:153–6. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(99)00198-9. CrossRef
- Cook DJ, Giacomini M, Johnson N, Willms D. Life support in the intensive care unit: a qualitative investigation of technological purposes. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. CMAJ. 1999;161:1109–13.
- Marcin JP, Pollack MM, Patel KM, Sprague BM, Ruttimann UE. Prognostication and certainty in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 1999;104:868–73. doi:10.1542/peds.104.4.868. CrossRef
- Marcin JP, Pretzlaff RK, Pollack MM, Patel KM, Ruttimann UE. Certainty and mortality prediction in critically ill children. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:304–7. doi:10.1136/jme.2002.001537. CrossRef
- Rocker GM, Cook DJ, Shemie SD. Practice variation in end of life care in the ICU: implications for patients with severe brain injury. Can J Anaesth. 2006;53:814–9. CrossRef
- Rebagliato M, Cuttini M, Broggin L, et al. Neonatal end-of-life decision making: physicians’ attitudes and relationship with self-reported practices in 10 European countries. JAMA. 2000;284:2451–9. doi:10.1001/jama.284.19.2451. CrossRef
- Randolph AG, Zollo MB, Wigton RS, Yeh TS. Factors explaining variability among caregivers in the intent to restrict life-support interventions in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:435–9. doi:10.1097/00003246-199703000-00011. CrossRef
- Veloski J, Tai S, Evans AS, Nash DB. Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation. Am J Med Qual. 2005;20:151–7. doi:10.1177/1062860605274520. CrossRef
- Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of three methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:1715–22. doi:10.1001/jama.283.13.1715. CrossRef
- Profiles of Neurological Outcome Prediction Among Intensivists
Volume 11, Issue 3 , pp 345-352
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Humana Press Inc
- Additional Links
- Critical care
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Montreal, Canada
- 2. Department of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
- 3. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery and Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
- 4. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
- 5. Stanford Stroke Center, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
- 6. Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
- 7. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
- 8. National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada