Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Aug;23(1):131-41.
doi: 10.1007/s12028-015-0149-2.

Patient Preferences and Surrogate Decision Making in Neuroscience Intensive Care Units

Affiliations
Review

Patient Preferences and Surrogate Decision Making in Neuroscience Intensive Care Units

Xuemei Cai et al. Neurocrit Care. 2015 Aug.

Abstract

In the neuroscience intensive care unit (NICU), most patients lack the capacity to make their own preferences known. This fact leads to situations where surrogate decision makers must fill the role of the patient in terms of making preference-based treatment decisions, oftentimes in challenging situations where prognosis is uncertain. The neurointensivist has a large responsibility and role to play in this shared decision-making process. This review covers how NICU patient preferences are determined through existing advance care documentation or surrogate decision makers and how the optimum roles of the physician and surrogate decision maker are addressed. We outline the process of reaching a shared decision between family and care team and describe a practice for conducting optimum family meetings based on studies of ICU families in crisis. We review challenges in the decision-making process between surrogate decision makers and medical teams in neurocritical care settings, as well as methods to ameliorate conflicts. Ultimately, the goal of shared decision making is to increase knowledge amongst surrogates and care providers, decrease decisional conflict, promote realistic expectations and preference-centered treatment strategies, and lift the emotional burden on families of neurocritical care patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Xuemei Cai, Jennifer Robinson, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Kevin N. Sheth, and Robert G. Holloway declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Douglas B. White has no relevant conflicts of interest and receives research support from NIH 1R01AG045176-01 and 1R01NR014663. Liana Fraenkel receives research support from the NIH 5K24AR060231-02, 5P60AR047782, and the VA Health Services Research IIR. David Y. Hwang has received an American Brain Foundation Practice Research Training Fellowship.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Model of Shared Decision Making Adapted from Curtis and colleagues

References

    1. Patient Self Determination Act. Pub. L. No. 101–508, ss 4206(a), 4751(m), 104 Stat. 1388–116, 1990.

    1. Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. 1982 Basic Books New York
    1. Holloway RG, Gramling R, Kelly AG. Estimating and communicating prognosis in advanced neurologic disease. Neurology. 2013;80:764–72. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brudney D. Choosing for another: beyond autonomy and best interests. The Hastings Center report. 2009;39:31–7. - PubMed
    1. Smedira NG, Evans BH, Grais LS, et al. Withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. The New England journal of medicine. 1990;322:309–15. - PubMed

Publication types