Assessment of Survival and the Decision to Engage in Palliative Care when Facing a Defeat in the ICU

Abstract

Background

Medical providers often face challenges in accurately predicting the survival of critically sick patients. Optimistic forecasts can lead to the overuse of resources, while overly cautious predictions might restrict treatments. This study examines the role of specific psychological factors, analyzed realistically and holistically, in predicting survival outcomes for intensive care unit patients.

Methods

This single-center cohort study evaluated health care providers (e.g., physicians, residents and fellows, and advanced practice practitioners) using two 7-d clinical vignettes. Providers assessed the need for mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, or palliative care. Psychological factors were measured using scales that assessed ambiguity tolerance, rationality versus emotional defensiveness, anxiety related to uncertainty, decision-making style, and risk taking. These psychological traits were analyzed using a more realistic and holistic approach, employing cluster techniques. Providers also determined whether they had enough information to evaluate the patient’s condition and compared their survival estimates to APACHE II scores.

Results

In general, engagement in MV and RRT was common by day 2, although physicians were significantly less likely to recommend RRT. Providers generally suggested starting a palliative care consultation by day 6, with a noticeable shift on day 4. Three distinct composite psychological groups emerged: optimistic denial individuals (ODI), optimistic providers (OP), and resilient providers (RP). While these composite psychological groups did not significantly influence engagement in mechanical therapies, they did affect palliative care decisions: RP were more likely to request palliative care, whereas ODI were much less likely to do so. In contrast, individual psychological traits had nonsignificant correlations with the decision to use therapies. Providers initially overestimated survival probabilities during the first 3 d compared with APACHE II survival estimates. However, after day 4, this trend reversed, with providers becoming significantly more pessimistic versus the predictive score and increasingly requesting palliative care involvement.

Conclusions

Providers’ psychological profiles, rather than their clinical experience, significantly influenced decisions about organ-support therapies and palliative care. Survival estimates showed a biphasic pattern: initially, providers overestimated survival compared with APACHE II predictions, then became more pessimistic and more likely to consult palliative care after day 4.

Highlights

• Intensive care unit survival predictions by providers followed a biphasic pattern: optimistic early on, then increasingly pessimistic after day 4.

• Psychological traits such as denial and ambiguity tolerance influenced palliative care decisions more than clinical experience did.

• Resilient providers were more likely to initiate timely palliative care, while denial-prone providers delayed it.

• Clinicians and critical care teams should be aware of how their psychological makeup can affect patient care decisions and outcomes.