scholarly journals Prevalence and Tolerance of Prognostic Uncertainty among Thoracic Oncologists

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anand R. Habib ◽  
Richard Chen ◽  
Emily S. Magnavita ◽  
Tim Jaung ◽  
Mark M. Awad ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Robertsen ◽  
Eirik Helseth ◽  
Reidun Førde

Abstract Background Prognostic uncertainty is a challenge for physicians in the neuro intensive care field. Questions about whether continued life-sustaining treatment is in a patient’s best interests arise in different phases after a severe traumatic brain injury. In-depth information about how physicians deal with ethical issues in different contexts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to seek insight into clinicians’ strategies concerning unresolved prognostic uncertainty and their ethical reasoning on the issue of limitation of life-sustaining treatment in patients with minimal or no signs of neurological improvement after severe traumatic brain injury in the later trauma hospital phase. Methods Interviews with 18 physicians working in a neurointensive care unit in a large Norwegian trauma hospital, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis focused on physicians’ strategies related to treatment-limiting decision-making. Results A divide between proactive and wait-and-see strategies emerged. Notwithstanding the hospital’s strong team culture, inter-physician variability with regard to ethical reasoning and preferred strategies was exposed. All the physicians emphasized the importance of team—family interactions. Nevertheless, their strategies differed: (1) The proactive physicians were open to consider limitations of life-sustaining treatment when the prognosis was grim. They initiated ethical discussions, took leadership in clarification and deliberation processes regarding goals and options, saw themselves as guides for the families and believed in the necessity to prepare families for both best-case and worst-case scenarios. (2) The “wait-and-see” physicians preferred open-ended treatment (no limitations). Neurologically injured patients need time to uncover their true recovery potential, they argued. They often avoided talking to the family about dying or other worst-case scenarios during this phase. Conclusions Depending on the individual physician in charge, ethical issues may rest unresolved or not addressed in the later trauma hospital phase. Nevertheless, team collaboration serves to mitigate inter-physician variability. There are problems and pitfalls to be aware of related to both proactive and wait-and-see approaches. The timing of best-interest discussions and treatment-limiting decisions remain challenging after severe traumatic brain injury. Routines for timely and open discussions with families about the range of ethically reasonable options need to be strengthened.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Gramling ◽  
Susan Stanek ◽  
Paul K.J. Han ◽  
Paul Duberstein ◽  
Tim E. Quill ◽  
...  

Neurology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica E. Lemmon ◽  
Charlene Gamaldo ◽  
Rachel Marie E. Salas ◽  
Ankita Saxena ◽  
Tiana E. Cruz ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo characterize features of medical student exposure to difficult conversations during a neurology core clerkship.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional concurrent nested mixed methods study, and all students rotating through a required neurology clerkship between 2014 and 2015 were enrolled. Data collection included an electronic communication tracker, baseline and end-of-clerkship surveys, and 4 facilitated focus groups. Students were asked to log exposure to patient–clinician conversations about (1) new disability, (2) poor prognosis, (3) prognostic uncertainty (4), terminal diagnosis, and (5) end-of-life care.ResultsA total of 159 students were enrolled and 276 conversations were tracked. Most (70%) students observed at least 1 difficult conversation, and conversations about poor prognosis, new disability, and prognostic uncertainty were most commonly logged. At clerkship end, most students (87%) desired additional bedside training in communication skills. Exposure to one of the predefined conversation types did not improve student perceived preparedness to lead difficult conversations in the future. In focus groups, students noted that the educational value of observation of a difficult conversation could be optimized with preconversation planning and postconversation debriefing.ConclusionsDifficult conversations are common in neurology, and represent a valuable opportunity to provide communication skills training on the wards. Future curricula should consider ways to leverage these existing opportunities to enhance communication skills training.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 896-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J Anderson ◽  
Patrick C Stone ◽  
Joseph T S Low ◽  
Steven Bloch

Background: When patients are likely to die in the coming hours or days, families often want prognostic information. Prognostic uncertainty and a lack of end-of-life communication training make these conversations challenging. Aim: The objective of this study is to understand how clinicians and the relatives/friends of patients at the very end of life manage uncertainty and reference time in prognostic conversations. Design: Conversation analysis of audio-recorded conversations between clinicians and the relatives/friends of hospice inpatients. Setting/participants: Experienced palliative care clinicians and relatives/friends of imminently dying hospice inpatients. Twenty-three recorded conversations involved prognostic talk and were included in the analysis. Results: Requests for prognostic information were initiated by families in the majority of conversations. Clinicians responded using categorical time references such as ‘days’, allowing the provision of prognostic estimates without giving a precise time. Explicit terms such as ‘dying’ were rare during prognostic discussions. Instead, references to time were understood as relating to prognosis. Relatives displayed their awareness of prognostic uncertainty when requesting prognostic information, providing clinicians with ‘permission’ to be uncertain. In response, clinicians often stated their uncertainty explicitly, but presented evidence for their prognostic estimates, based on changes to the patient’s function previously discussed with the family. Conclusion: Prognostic uncertainty was managed collaboratively by clinicians and families. Clinicians were able to provide prognostic estimates while being honest about the related uncertainty, in part because relatives displayed their awareness of uncertainty within their requests. The conversation analytic method identified contributions of both clinicians and families, and identified strategies based on real interactions, which could inform communication training.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e0158982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Dennison ◽  
Ellen McCloy Smith ◽  
Katherine Bradbury ◽  
Ian Galea

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (30) ◽  
pp. 3605-3608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Temel ◽  
Alice T. Shaw ◽  
Joseph A. Greer

2019 ◽  
Vol 188 (10) ◽  
pp. 1818-1820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell P Harris

AbstractIn an accompanying article, Hofmann (Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(10):1812–1817) seeks to clarify the concept of overdiagnosis by screening. He makes a helpful suggestion to reconnect diagnosis with patient suffering, pointing out the underlying issue in overdiagnosis of prognostic uncertainty. He then divides prognostic uncertainty into developmental and progression uncertainty, using a categorical model of disease progression through indicators to manifest disease. This model could be improved by considering the heterogeneity of patient-condition combinations. This leads to an understanding of the probabilistic nature of the connection between any indicator in a specific individual and patient suffering. The model also needs to consider the time span over which the patient-condition combination leads to patient suffering. I propose a simpler approach that goes further to focus not only on overdiagnosis but also on the broader problem of diagnosis without benefit and diagnosis without net benefit. This makes measurement easier and focuses attention where it belongs: on the harm caused by overly aggressive screening programs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document