IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i1p76-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Language of Prognostication in Intensive Care Units

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas B. White

    (Program in Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, dwhite@medicine.ucsf.edu, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine)

  • Ruth A. Engelberg

    (Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Harborview Medical Center; University of Washington, Seattle)

  • Marjorie D. Wenrich

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco)

  • Bernard Lo

    (Program in Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Department of Medical Education and Biomedical Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle)

  • J. Randall Curtis

    (Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Harborview Medical Center; University of Washington, Seattle)

Abstract

Rationale. Although misunderstandings about prognosis are common in intensive care units (ICUs), little is known about how physicians actually communicate prognostic information. Objectives. The authors sought to 1) develop a framework to describe the language physicians use to disclose prognosis, 2) determine whether physicians frame prognostic statements as estimates for populations or estimates for individual patients, and 3) determine whether physicians use the recommended ‘‘ask-tell-ask’’ approach when discussing prognosis. Methods. The authors conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 51 audiotaped physician-family conferences about life support decisions in ICUs. They identified each prognostic statement and used grounded theory methods to develop a framework to understand the language physicians use to communicate prognosis. Main Results. Physicians prognosticated in 50 of 51 conferences. When discussing prognosis, physicians used qualitative probability statements in 72% (36/50) of conferences, numeric statements in 20% (10/50), absolute statements in 13% (4/32), and nonprobabilistic statements in 40% (20/50). Physicians exclusively used population-based language in 10% (5/50) of conferences, single-event probability statements in 62% (31/50), and both in 28% (14/ 50). In only 2% (1/50) of conferences did physicians ask whether the family wished to hear prognostic information prior to discussing it, and in only 14% of conferences (7/50) did physicians check to verify that families understood the prognostic information. Conclusions. There is considerable variability in the language used by physicians to disclose prognosis, with only 20% of physicians using quantitative terms. Very few physicians checked whether families understood prognostic information. These findings may provide potential targets for interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas B. White & Ruth A. Engelberg & Marjorie D. Wenrich & Bernard Lo & J. Randall Curtis, 2010. "The Language of Prognostication in Intensive Care Units," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 76-83, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:76-83
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08317012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08317012
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08317012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:76-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.