The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review

Archives of Internal Medicine

Volumn 166, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 493-497

  Shalowitz, David I ^a   Garrett Mayer, Elizabeth ^b   Wendler, David ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICISM; FAMILY DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TERMINAL CARE; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT;

DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

ADVANCE DIRECTIVES; CAREGIVERS; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY; HUMANS; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TERMINAL CARE; TERMINALLY ILL;

EID: 33644976726     PISSN: 00039926     EISSN: 15383679     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.5.493     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990. Available at: www.fha.org/acrobat/Patient%20Self%20Determination%20Act%201990.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2006.
2. Sabatino CP. The legal and functional status of the medical proxy: suggestions for statutory reform. J Law Med Ethics. 1999;27:52-68.
3. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Proxy decision making for incompetent patients: an ethical and empirical analysis. JAMA. 1992;267:2067-2071.
4. Tonelli MR. Substituted judgment in medical practice: evidentiary standards on a sliding scale. J Law Med Ethics. 1997;25:22-29.
5. Fagerlin A, Ditto PH, Danks JH, Houts RM, Smucker WD. Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychol. 2001;20:166-175.
6. Ouslander JG, Tymchuk AJ, Rahbar B. Health care decisions among elderly long-term care residents and their potential proxies. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:1367-1372.
7. Principe-Rodriguez K, Rodriguez-Cintron W, Torres-Palacios A, Casal-Hidalgo J. Substituted judgement: should life-support decisions be made by a surrogate? P R Health Sci J. 1999;18:405-409.
8. Coppolino M, Ackerson L. Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research? Chest. 2001;119:603-612.
9. Gerety MB, Chiodo LK, Kanten DN, Tuley MR, Cornell JE. Medical treatment preferences of nursing home residents: relationship to function and concordance with surrogate decision-makers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41:953-960.
10. Marbella AM, Desbiens NA, Mueller-Rizner N, Layde PM. Surrogates' agreement with patients' resuscitation preferences: effect of age, relationship, and SUPPORT intervention: Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. J Crit Care. 1998;13:140-145.
11. Pearlman RA, Uhlmann RF, Jecker NS. Spousal understanding of patient quality of life: implications for surrogate decisions. J Clin Ethics. 1992;3:114-123.
12. Ditto PH, Danks JH, Smucker WD, et al. Advance directives as acts of communication: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:421-430.
13. Hare J, Pratt C, Nelson C. Agreement between patients and their self-selected surrogates on difficult medical decisions. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:1049-1054.
14. Houts RM, Smucker WD, Jacobson JA, Ditto PH, Danks JH. Predicting elderly outpatients' life-sustaining treatment preferences over time: the majority rules. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:39-52.
15. Layde PM, Beam CA, Broste SK, et al. Surrogates' predictions of seriously ill patients' resuscitation preferences. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4:518-523.
16. Libbus MK, Russell C. Congruence of decisions between patients and their potential surrogates about life-sustaining therapies. Image J Nurs Sch. 1995;27:135-140.
17. Seckler AB, Meier DE, Mulvihill M, Paris BE. Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions? Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:92-98.
18. Smucker WD, Houts RM, Danks JH, Ditto PH, Fagerlin A, Coppola KM. Modal preferences predict elderly patients' life-sustaining treatment choices as well as patients' chosen surrogates do. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:271-280.
19. Suhl J, Simons P, Reedy T, Garrick T. Myth of substituted judgment: surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:90-96.
20. Sulmasy DP, Haller K, Terry PB. More talk, less paper: predicting the accuracy of substituted judgments. Am J Med. 1994;96:432-438.
21. Sulmasy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, et al. The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:621-629.
22. Tomlinson T, Howe K, Notman M, Rossmiller D. An empirical study of proxy consent for elderly persons. Gerontologist. 1990;30:54-64.
23. Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA, Cain KC. Physicians' and spouses' predictions of elderly patients' resuscitation preferences. J Gerontol. 1988;43:M115-M121.
24. Zweibel NR, Cassel CK. Treatment choices at the end of life: a comparison of decisions by older patients and their physician-selected proxies. Gerontologist. 1989;29:615-621.
25. Matheis-Kraft C, Roberto KA. Influence of a values discussion on congruence between elderly women and their families on critical health care decisions. J Women Aging. 1997;9:5-22.
26. Beland DK, Froman RD. Preliminary validation of a measure of life support preferences. Image J Nurs Sch. 1995;27:307-310.
27. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forgo Life Sustaining Treatment: Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1983:132-136.
28. Bramstedt KA. Questioning the decision-making capacity of surrogates. Intern Med J. 2003;33:257-259.
29. Wendler D, Prasad K. Core safeguards for clinical research with adults who are unable to consent. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:514-523.
30. Bravo G, Dubois M-F, Paquet M. The conduct of Canadian researchers and institutional review boards regarding substituted consent for research. IRB. 2004;26:1-8.