Communication Surrounding Prognostication in the ICU: More Than Mere Talk?

  • Darren S. BryanEmail author
  • Selwyn O. RogersJr
Part of the Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach book series (DDSURGERY)


Quality patient care in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit (CTICU) requires providers to attend to not only biomedical, but psychological and social needs of the patient. Furthermore, in determining the trajectory and goals of care, providers must give prognostic estimates and stand with patients and surrogates to reach appropriate and value-affirming decisions. Here, we review the literature surrounding communication of prognostic information and make evidence based recommendations for the provider in the CTICU.


Prognostication Intensive care unit Goals-of-care Surrogate decision making End-of-life Communication 


  1. 1.
    Laine C, Davidoff F. Patient-centered medicine. A professional evolution. JAMA. 1996;275:152–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:763–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engel G. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatr. 1980;137:535–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borrell-Carrio F, Suchman AL, Epstein RM. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:576–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilkinson D, Savulescu J. Knowing when to stop: futility in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24:160–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rocker G, Cook D, Sjokvist P, et al. Clinician predictions of intensive care unit mortality. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zier LS, Burack JH, Micco G, Chipman AK, Frank JA, White DB. Surrogate decision makers’ responses to physicians’ predictions of medical futility. Chest. 2009;136:110–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;38:1270–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). The SUPPORT Principal Investigators. JAMA 1995;274:1591–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chiarchiaro J, Buddadhumaruk P, Arnold RM, White DB. Quality of communication in the ICU and surrogate’s understanding of prognosis. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:542–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    White DB, Ernecoff N, Buddadhumaruk P, et al. Prevalence of and factors related to discordance about prognosis between physicians and surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients. JAMA. 2016;315:2086–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    White M, Garbez R, Carroll M, Brinker E, Howie-Esquivel J. Is “teach-back” associated with knowledge retention and hospital readmission in hospitalized heart failure patients? J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013;28:137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kemp EC, Floyd MR, McCord-Duncan E, Lang F. Patients prefer the method of “tell back-collaborative inquiry” to assess understanding of medical information. J Am Board of Fam Med: JABFM. 2008;21:24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee Char SJ, Evans LR, Malvar GL, White DB. A randomized trial of two methods to disclose prognosis to surrogate decision makers in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:905–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;30:231–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    LeClaire MM, Oakes JM, Weinert CR. Communication of prognostic information for critically ill patients. Chest. 2005;128:1728–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson WG, Cimino JW, Ernecoff NC, et al. A multicenter study of key stakeholders’ perspectives on communicating with surrogates about prognosis in intensive care units. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12:142–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sur MD, Angelos P. Ethical issues in surgical critical care: the complexity of interpersonal relationships in the surgical intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med. 2016;31:442–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Biological Sciences DivisionThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations