This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
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.
Glossary
- ICU=
- intensive care unit;
- IQR=
- interquartile range;
- IRB=
- institutional review board;
- OR=
- odds ratio;
- TBI=
- traumatic brain injury;
- WLST=
- withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Submitted and externally peer reviewed. The handling editor was Editor-in-Chief José Merino, MD, MPhil, FAAN.
CME Course: NPub.org/cmelist
- Received September 26, 2022.
- Accepted in final form April 13, 2023.
- © 2023 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
