Predictors of Surrogate Decision Makers Selecting Life-Sustaining Therapy for Severe Acute Brain Injury Patients: An Analysis of US Population Survey Data

Abstract

Background

Patients with a severe acute brain injury admitted to the intensive care unit often have a poor neurological prognosis. In these situations, a clinician is responsible for conducting a goals-of-care conversation with the patient’s surrogate decision makers. The diversity in thought and background of surrogate decision makers can present challenges during these conversations. For this reason, our study aimed to identify predictive characteristics of US surrogate decision makers’ favoring life-sustaining treatment (LST) over comfort measures only for patients with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey study that had recruited 1588 subjects from an online probability-based US population sample. Seven hundred and ninety-two subjects had randomly received a hypothetical scenario regarding a relative intubated with severe acute brain injury with a prognosis of severe disability but with the potential to regain some consciousness. Seven hundred and ninety-six subjects had been randomized to a similar scenario in which the relative was projected to remain vegetative. For each scenario, we conducted univariate analyses and binary logistic regressions to determine predictors of LST selection among available respondent characteristics.

Results

15.0% of subjects selected LST for the severe disability scenario compared to 11.4% for the vegetative state scenario (p = 0.07), with those selecting LST in both groups expressing less decisional certainty. For the severe disability scenario, independent predictors of LST included having less than a high school education (adjusted OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.23–6.76), concern regarding prognostic accuracy (7.64, 3.61–16.15), and concern regarding the cost of care (4.07, 1.80–9.18). For the vegetative scenario, predictors included the youngest age group (30–44 years, 3.33, 1.02–10.86), male gender (3.26, 1.75–6.06), English as a second language (2.94, 1.09–7.89), Evangelical Protestant (3.72, 1.28–10.84) and Catholic (4.01, 1.72–9.36) affiliations, and low income (< $25 K).

Conclusion

Several demographic and decisional characteristics of US surrogate decision makers predict LST selection for patients with severe brain injury with varying degrees of poor prognosis. Surrogates concerned about the cost of medical care may nevertheless be inclined to select LST, albeit with high levels of decisional uncertainty, for patients projected to have severe disabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Creutzfeldt CJ, Engelberg RA, Healey L, et al. Palliative care needs in the neuro-ICU. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(8):1677–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schaefer. Neuro-palliative care. Pflege. 2012;25(2):144–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93215-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cai X, Robinson J, Muehlschlegel S, et al. Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in neuroscience intensive care units. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23(1):131–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kon AA, Davidson JE, Morrison W, et al. Shared decision making in ICUs: an American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(1):188–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Khan MW, Muehlschlegel S. Shared decision making in neurocritical care. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018;29(2):315–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cook DJ. Determinants in Canadian health care workers of the decision to withdraw life support from the critically ill. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(9):703.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Daly BJ, Douglas SL, O’Toole E, et al. Complexity analysis of decision-making in the critically ill. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33(10):557–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sharman M, Meert KL, Sarnaik AP. What influences parents? Decisions to limit or withdraw life support?*. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2005;6(5):513–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Quinn T, Moskowitz J, Khan MW, et al. What families need and physicians deliver: contrasting communication preferences between surrogate decision-makers and physicians during outcome prognostication in critically Ill TBI patients. Neurocrit Care. 2017;27(2):154–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-017-0427-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Turgeon AF, Dorrance K, Archambault P, et al. Factors influencing decisions by critical care physicians to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in critically ill adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Can Med Assoc J. 2019;191(24):E652–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Wendler D, Rid A. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(5):336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hwang DY, Knies AK, Mampre D, et al. Concerns of surrogate decision makers for acute brain injury patients: a US population survey. Neurology 2020.

  13. 13.

    IPSOS. 10 Differentiators of the IPSOS KnowledgePanel®. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 1]; p. 1–2. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/20-04-55_10diff_v4.pdf.

  14. 14.

    Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-worst scaling: theory and methods. In: Handbook of choice modelling. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. p. 178–201. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:elg:eechap:14820_8.

  15. 15.

    Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    McCutcheon A. Latent Class Analysis [Internet]. First Edit. Thousand Oaks, California: 1987.

  17. 17.

    Bardach N, Zhao S, Pantilat S, Johnston SC. Adjustment for do-not-resuscitate orders reverses the apparent in-hospital mortality advantage for minorities. Am J Med. 2005;118(4):400–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Garrett JM, Harris RP, Norburn JK, Patrick DL, Danis M. Life-sustaining treatments during terminal illness. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8(7):361–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02600073.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Stream S, Nolan A, Kwon S, Constable C. Factors associated with combined do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate orders: A retrospective chart review at an urban tertiary care center. Resuscitation. 2018;130:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Qureshi AI, Adil MM, Suri MFK. Rate of use and determinants of withdrawal of care among patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage in the United States. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(5):e579–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Blackhall LJ, Frank G, Murphy ST, Michel V, Palmer JM, Azen SP. Ethnicity and attitudes towards life sustaining technology. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(12):1779–89.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Cardenas-Turanzas M, Gaeta S, Ashoori A, Price KJ, Nates JL. Demographic and clinical determinants of having do not resuscitate orders in the intensive care unit of a comprehensive cancer center. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2010.0165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Chen Y, Criss SD, Watson TR, et al. Cost and utilization of lung cancer end-of-life care among racial-ethnic minority groups in the United States. Oncologist. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hopp FP, Duffy SA. Racial variations in end-of-life care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(6):658–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb04724.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Johnson RW, Newby LK, Granger CB, et al. Differences in level of care at the end of life according to race. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19(4):335–43. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2010161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ormseth CH, Falcone GJ, Jasak SD, et al. Minority patients are less likely to undergo withdrawal of care after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2018;29(3):419–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-018-0554-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cooper Z, Rivara FP, Wang J, MacKenzie EJ, Jurkovich GJ. Racial disparities in intensity of care at the end-of-life: are trauma patients the same as the rest? J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(2):857–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Zahuranec DB, Brown DL, Lisabeth LD, et al. Ethnic differences in do-not-resuscitate orders after intracerebral hemorrhage. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(10):2807–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Zurasky JA, Aiyagari V, Zazulia AR, Shackelford A, Diringer MN. Early mortality following spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology. 2005;64(4):725–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000152045.56837.58.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Murthy SB, Moradiya Y, Hanley DF, Ziai WC. Palliative care utilization in nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage in the United States*. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(3):575–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Brown CE, Engelberg RA, Sharma R, et al. Race/ethnicity socioeconomic status, and healthcare intensity at the end of life. J Palliat Med. 2018;21(9):1308–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Rhodes RL, Batchelor K, Lee SC, Halm EA. Barriers to end-of-life care for African Americans from the providers’ perspective. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2015;32(2):137–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909113507127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Yancu CN, Farmer DF, Leahman D. Barriers to hospice use and Palliative care services use by African American adults. Am J Hosp Palliat Med 2010.

  34. 34.

    Boyd EA, Lo B, Evans LR, et al. “It’s not just what the doctor tells me:” Factors that influence surrogate decision-makers’ perceptions of prognosis*. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(5):1270–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Meeker MA, Jezewski MA. Metasynthesis: withdrawing life-sustaining treatments: the experience of family decision-makers. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(2):163–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    White DB, Carson S, Anderson W, et al. A multicenter study of the causes and consequences of optimistic expectations about prognosis by surrogate decision-makers in ICUs*. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(9):1184–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Sjokvist P, Berggren L, Cook DJ. Attitudes of Swedish physicians and nurses towards the use of life-sustaining treatment. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999.

  38. 38.

    Zier LS. Surrogate Decision Makers’ Interpretation of Prognostic Information. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):360. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chapman AR, Litton E, Chamberlain J, Ho KM. The effect of prognostic data presentation format on perceived risk among surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients: A randomized comparative trial. J Crit Care 2015.

  40. 40.

    Khandelwal N, Hough CL, Downey L, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of financial stress in survivors of critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6):e530–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Hauschildt KE, Seigworth C, Kamphuis LA, et al. Financial toxicity after acute respiratory distress syndrome: a national qualitative cohort study*. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(8):1103–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.00000000000043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Dr. Hwang reports other funding from American Brain Foundation, grants from the Neurocritical Care Society, and grants from the Apple Pickers Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fraenkel reports grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease during the conduct of the study (AR060231-06). Dr. White reports grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study (K24 mentoring award HL148314).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DYH and LF were involved in conceptualization; AKK, DBW, RGH, and KNS were involved in methodology; DYH, SK, and MS contributed to formal analysis and investigation; AG and AS contributed to writing—original draft preparation; AG, ALS, AKK, SK, MS, HH, DBW, RGH, KNS, LF, and DYH contributed to writing—review and editing; DYH, DBW, RGH, KNS, and LF were involved in funding acquisition; DYH, HH, KNS, and LF were involved in resources; and DYH, HH, KNS, and LF were involved in supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Y. Hwang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Yale Human Investigation Committee (protocols #1406014207 and #1505015893). Because this is a minimal risk study, participants indicated consent by completing the survey after being presented with an introductory page that included all of the essential components of informed consent.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garg, A., Soto, A.L., Knies, A.K. et al. Predictors of Surrogate Decision Makers Selecting Life-Sustaining Therapy for Severe Acute Brain Injury Patients: An Analysis of US Population Survey Data. Neurocrit Care (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-021-01200-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intensive care units
  • Decision making
  • Palliative care
  • Family
  • Choice behavior
  • Brain injuries