Intended for healthcare professionals

Clinical Review State of the Art Review

Prognostication and shared decision making in neurocritical care

BMJ 2022; 377 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-060154 (Published 07 April 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;377:e060154
  1. Kelsey Goostrey, research coordinator1,
  2. Susanne Muehlschlegel, professor of neurocritical care1 2 3
  1. 1Department of neurology, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
  2. 2Department of anesthesiology/critical care, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
  3. 3Department of surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
  1. Correspondence to S Muehlschlegel susanne.muehlschlegel{at}umassmed.edu

Abstract

Prognostication is crucial in the neurological intensive care unit (neuroICU). Patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) are unable to make their own decisions because of the insult itself or sedation needs. Surrogate decision makers, usually family members, must make decisions on the patient’s behalf. However, many are unprepared for their role as surrogates owing to the sudden and unexpected nature of SABI. Surrogates rely on clinicians in the neuroICU to provide them with an outlook (prognosis) with which to make substituted judgments and decide on treatments and goals of care on behalf of the patient. Therefore, how a prognostic estimate is derived, and then communicated, is extremely important. Prognostication in the neuroICU is highly variable between clinicians and institutions, and evidence based guidelines are lacking. Shared decision making (SDM), where surrogates and clinicians arrive together at an individualized decision based on patient values and preferences, has been proposed as an opportunity to improve clinician-family communication and ensure that patients receive treatments they would choose. This review outlines the importance and current challenges of prognostication in the neuroICU and how prognostication and SDM intersect, based on relevant research and expert opinion.

Footnotes

  • Series explanation: State of the Art Reviews are commissioned on the basis of their relevance to academics and specialists in the US and internationally. For this reason they are written predominantly by US authors

  • Contributors and guarantor: KG contributed to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article. KG also drafted and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication. SM contributed to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article. SM critically revised the article for important intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication. SM is the guarantor of the paper and accepts full responsibility for the work and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Funding: none.

  • Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none.

  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

View Full Text

Log in

Log in through your institution

Subscribe

* For online subscription