Should We Use the IMPACT-Model for the Outcome Prognostication of TBI Patients? A Qualitative Study Assessing Physicians' Perceptions

Jesse Moskowitz, Thomas Quinn, Muhammad W Khan, Lori Shutter, Robert Goldberg, Nananda Col, Kathleen M Mazor, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Jesse Moskowitz, Thomas Quinn, Muhammad W Khan, Lori Shutter, Robert Goldberg, Nananda Col, Kathleen M Mazor, Susanne Muehlschlegel

Abstract

Introduction. Shared Decision-Making may facilitate information exchange, deliberation, and effective decision-making, but no decision aids currently exist for difficult decisions in neurocritical care patients. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards, a framework for the creation of high-quality decision aids (DA), recommends the presentation of numeric outcome and risk estimates. Efforts are underway to create a goals-of-care DA in critically-ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients. To inform its content, we examined physicians' perceptions, and use of the IMPACT-model, the most widely validated ciTBI outcome model, and explored physicians' preferences for communicating prognostic information towards families. Methods. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in 20 attending physicians (neurosurgery,neurocritical care,trauma,palliative care) at 7 U.S. academic medical centers. We used performed qualitative content analysis of transcribed interviews to identify major themes. Results. Only 12 physicians (60%) expressed awareness of the IMPACT-model; two stated that they "barely" knew the model. Seven physicians indicated using the model at least some of the time in clinical practice, although none used it exclusively to derive a patient's prognosis. Four major themes emerged: the IMPACT-model is intended for research but should not be applied to individual patients; mistrust in the IMPACT-model derivation data; the IMPACT-model is helpful in reducing prognostic variability among physicians; concern that statistical models may mislead families about a patient's prognosis. Discussion: Our study identified significant variability of the awareness, perception, and use of the IMPACT-model among physicians. While many physicians prefer to avoid conveying numeric prognostic estimates with families using the IMPACT-model, several physicians thought that they "ground" them and reduce prognostic variability among physicians. These findings may factor into the creation and implementation of future ciTBI-related DAs.

Keywords: IMPACT-model; critical care; goals-of-care decisions; outcomes; prognosis; qualitative research; shared decision making; traumatic brain injury.

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Geographic distribution of participating physicians. This map shows the number and location of participating physicians in the United States.

References

    1. Hemphill JC, 3rd, Bonovich DC, Besmertis L, Manley GT, Johnston SC. The ICH score: a simple, reliable grading scale for intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2001;32(4):891–7.
    1. Clarke JL, Johnston SC, Farrant M, Bernstein R, Tong D, Hemphill JC., 3rd External validation of the ICH score. Neurocrit Care. 2004;1(1):53–60. doi:10.1385/NCC:1:1:53.
    1. Rost NS, Smith EE, Chang Y, et al. Prediction of functional outcome in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage: the FUNC score. Stroke. 2008;39(8):2304–9. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.512202.
    1. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008;5(8):e165. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050165.
    1. Roozenbeek B, Lingsma HF, Lecky FE, et al. Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(5):1609–17. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824519ce00003246-201205000-00028.
    1. Rabinstein AA, Hemphill JC., 3rd Prognosticating after severe acute brain disease: science, art, and biases. Neurology. 2010;74(14):1086–7. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181d7d928.
    1. Zahuranec DB, Fagerlin A, Sanchez BN, et al. Variability in physician prognosis and recommendations after intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology. 2016;86(20):1864–71. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000002676.
    1. Hemphill JC, 3rd, White DB. Clinical nihilism in neuroemergencies. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2009;27(1):27–37. doi:10.1016/j.emc.2008.08.009.
    1. Hwang DY, Dell CA, Sparks MJ, et al. Clinician judgment vs formal scales for predicting intracerebral hemorrhage outcomes. Neurology. 2016;86(2):126–33. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000002266.
    1. Turgeon AF, Lauzier F, Burns KE, et al. Determination of neurologic prognosis and clinical decision making in adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a survey of Canadian intensivists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(4):1086–93. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318275d046.
    1. Turgeon AF, Lauzier F, Simard JF, et al. Mortality associated with withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a Canadian multicentre cohort study. CMAJ. 2011;183(14):1581–8. doi:10.1503/cmaj.101786.
    1. Cote N, Turgeon AF, Lauzier F, et al. Factors associated with the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a multicenter cohort study. Neurocrit Care. 2013;18(1):154–60. doi:10.1007/s12028-012-9787-9.
    1. Izzy S, Compton R, Carandang R, Hall W, Muehlschlegel S. Self-fulfilling prophecies through withdrawal of care: do they exist in traumatic brain injury, too? Neurocrit Care. 2013;19(3):347–63. doi:10.1007/s12028-013-9925-z.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
    1. Cox CE, Lewis CL, Hanson LC, et al. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(8):2327–34. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182536a63.
    1. Cox CE, White DB, Abernethy AP. A universal decision support system. Addressing the decision-making needs of patients, families, and clinicians in the setting of critical illness. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(4):366–73. doi:10.1164/rccm.201404-0728CP.
    1. Muehlschlegel S, Shutter L, Col N, Goldberg R. Decision aids and shared decision-making in neurocritical care: an unmet need in our neuro-ICUs. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23(1):127–30. doi:10.1007/s12028-014-0097-2.
    1. Kon AA, Davidson JE, Morrison W, et al. Shared decision making in ICUs: an American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(1):188–201. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001396.
    1. Shutter LA, Timmons SD. Intracranial pressure rescued by decompressive surgery after traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(12):1183–4. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1609722.
    1. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Decision aid development toolkit [cited 28 November 2016]. Available from:
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417. doi:10.1136/.
    1. Quinn T, Moskowitz J, Khan MW, et al. What families need and physicians deliver: contrasting communication preferences between surrogate decision-makers and physicians during outcome prognostication in critically ill TBI patients. Neurocrit Care. 2017;27(2):154–62. doi:10.1007/s12028-017-0427-2.
    1. Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS, et al. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(2):329–37. doi:10.1089/neu.2006.0035.
    1. Lingsma HF, Roozenbeek B, Steyerberg EW, Murray GD, Maas AI. Early prognosis in traumatic brain injury: from prophecies to predictions. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(5):543–54. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70065-X.
    1. Hallen SA, Hootsmans NA, Blaisdell L, Gutheil CM, Han PK. Physicians’ perceptions of the value of prognostic models: the benefits and risks of prognostic confidence. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):2266–77. doi:10.1111/hex.12196.
    1. Skrobik Y, Kavanagh BP. Scoring systems for the critically ill: use, misuse and abuse. Can J Anaesth. 2006;53(5):432–6. doi:10.1007/BF03022613.
    1. Di Deo P, Lingsma H, Nieboer D, et al. Clinical results and outcome improvement over time in traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2016;33(22):2019–25. doi:10.1089/neu.2015.4026.
    1. Han J, King NK, Neilson SJ, Gandhi MP, Ng I. External validation of the CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models in severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2014;31(13):1146–52. doi:10.1089/neu.2013.3003.
    1. Steyerberg EW, Murray G, Maas A. Datasets included in IMPACT [cited 2 February 2017]. Available from:
    1. Maas AI. Standardisation of data collection in traumatic brain injury: key to the future? Crit Care. 2009;13(6):1016. doi:10.1186/cc8163.
    1. Maas AI, Harrison-Felix CL, Menon D, et al. Common data elements for traumatic brain injury: recommendations from the interagency working group on demographics and clinical assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(11):1641–9. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.232.
    1. Wilde EA, Whiteneck GG, Bogner J, et al. Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(11):1650–60.e17. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033.
    1. NIH/NINDS. NINDS Common Data Elements—Traumatic brain injury 2012; version 2.0 [updated June 2012; cited 22 January 2017]. Available from:
    1. Yue JK, Vassar MJ, Lingsma HF, et al. Transforming research and clinical knowledge in traumatic brain injury pilot: multicenter implementation of the common data elements for traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30(22):1831–44. doi:10.1089/neu.2013.2970.
    1. Maas AI, Menon DK, Steyerberg EW, et al. Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(1):67–80. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575.
    1. Muehlschlegel S, Carandang R, Ouillette C, Hall W, Anderson F, Goldberg R. Frequency and impact of intensive care unit complications on moderate-severe traumatic brain injury: early results of the Outcome Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury (OPTIMISM) Study. Neurocrit Care. 2013;18(3):318–31. doi:10.1007/s12028-013-9817-2.
    1. Politi MC, Han PK, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):681–95. doi:10.1177/0272989X07307270.
    1. Diamond GA. What price perfection? Calibration and discrimination of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(1):85–9.
    1. Rockhill B. Theorizing about causes at the individual level while estimating effects at the population level: implications for prevention. Epidemiology. 2005;16(1):124–9.
    1. Zier LS, Sottile PD, Hong SY, Weissfield LA, White DB. Surrogate decision makers’ interpretation of prognostic information: a mixed-methods study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):360–6. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00008.
    1. Boyd EA, Lo B, Evans LR, et al. “It’s not just what the doctor tells me:” factors that influence surrogate decision-makers’ perceptions of prognosis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(5):1270–5. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181d8a217.
    1. Lee Char SJ, Evans LR, Malvar GL, White DB. A randomized trial of two methods to disclose prognosis to surrogate decision makers in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182(7):905–9. doi:10.1164/rccm.201002-0262OC.
    1. Reyna VF. Theories of medical decision making and health: an evidence-based approach. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):829–33. doi:10.1177/0272989X08327069.
    1. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–65. doi:10.1177/0272989X08327066.
    1. Cox CE, Wysham NG, Walton B, et al. Development and usability testing of a Web-based decision aid for families of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation. Ann Intensive Care. 2015;5:6. doi:10.1186/s13613-015-0045-0.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj