title: Physicians' survival predictions for patients with acute congestive heart failure.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Current guidelines suggest that patients with low likelihoods of survival may be excluded from intensive care. Patients with new or exacerbated congestive heart failure are frequently but not inevitably admitted to critical care units.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess how well physicians could predict the probability of survival for acutely ill patients with congestive heart failure, and in particular how well they could identify patients with small chances of survival.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a prospective cohort study done in the emergency departments of a university hospital, a Veterans Affairs medical center, and a community hospital. The study population was consecutive adults for whom new or exacerbated congestive heart failure, diagnosed clinically, was a major reason for the emergency department visit. Physicians caring for the study patients in the emergency departments recorded their judgments of the numeric probability that each patient would survive for 90 days and for 1 year. The patients vital status at 90 days and 1 year was ascertained by multiple means, including interview, chart review, and review of hospital and state databases.
  
  
  RESULTS
  By calibration curve analysis, the physicians underestimated survival probability at both 90 days and 1 year, particularly for patients they judged to have the lowest probabilities of survival. Their predictions had modest discriminating ability (receiver operating characteristic curve areas, 0.66 [SE = 0.020] for 90 days; 0.63 [SE = 0.017] for 1 year). The physicians identified only 15 patients they judged to have a 90-day survival probability of 10% or less, whose survival rate was actually 33.3%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Physicians have great difficulty predicting survival for patients with acute congestive heart failure and cannot identify patients with poor chances of survival. Current triage guidelines that suggest patients with poor chances of survival may be excluded from critical care may be impractical or harmful.
authors.affiliation: Division of General Internal Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, Pawtucket, USA.
authors.forename: R M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Poses
authors.forename: W R
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: D K
authors.initials: DK
authors.lastname: McClish
authors.forename: E C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: Huber
authors.forename: F L
authors.initials: FL
authors.lastname: Clemo
authors.forename: B P
authors.initials: BP
authors.lastname: Schmitt
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Alexander-Forti
authors.forename: E M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Racht
authors.forename: C C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Colenda
authors.forename: R M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Centor
mesh_terms: D000208:Acute Disease; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003422:Critical Care; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital; D005260:Female; D015276:Health Care Rationing; D006333:Heart Failure / Q000401:mortality*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010820:Physicians; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012008:Recurrence; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016019:Survival Analysis; D014218:Triage