End of Life Prognosis: Is the Glass Half-Full or Half-Empty?

We all know folks who are the glass half-full type (optimist), as well as the glass half-empty type (pessimist).  When one talks to those folks, how those folks interpret what they hear depends on what “glass type” they are.   The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) ran a story about a study, Prevalence of and Factors Related to Discordance About Prognosis Between Physicians and Surrogate Decision Makers of Critically Ill Patients.  According to the abstract, “[m]isperceptions about prognosis by individuals making decisions for incapacitated critically ill patients (surrogates) are common and often attributed to poor comprehension of medical information.”

The authors noted how important it is for the health care surrogate to have information in order to make a health care decision for the patient. But, according to the study,

Numerous studies over the last 3 decades indicate that surrogates of patients with advanced illness often have optimistic expectations about prognosis. This is problematic because optimistic expectations are associated with more use of invasive treatments in dying patients and delayed integration of palliative care. Clinicians cite unrealistic expectations by surrogates as one of the most important barriers to high-quality end-of-life care in seriously ill patients.(citations omitted).  

The authors look at some of the reasons for this disparity in viewpoint (including the lack of medical knowledge by surrogates). Here is one example of their findings regarding the disparity of views:

Physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis occurred in 122 of 229 instances (53%; 95% CI, 46.8%-59.7%). Among the 229 surrogates participating in the study, 98 (43%) were more optimistic than physicians and 24 (10%) were more pessimistic. Sixty-five instances (28%) were related to a combination of misunderstandings by surrogates and differences in belief between the physician and surrogate about the patient’s prognosis; 38 (17%) were related to misunderstanding only; 7 (3%) were related to different beliefs; and data were missing for 12.

The authors explore the reasons for the surrogates’ glass half-full view and learned that the surrogates felt that a positive attitude:  “would improve the patient’s outcomes or protect themselves from emotional distress”; was justified because they knew the patient better than the doctor, including knowing if the patient were a strong person; and/or was based on their religious beliefs.

The study also explored the glass half-empty views of surrogates.  The study authors concluded that “[a]mong critically ill patients receiving care in ICUs, discordant expectations about prognosis were common betwTeen patients’ physicians and surrogate decision makers and were related to both misunderstandings by surrogates about physicians’ assessments of patients’ prognoses and differences in beliefs about patients’ prognoses.”

The article is available here for free