title: A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: what do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Surrogates frequently are unable to predict which treatment their charges would want and also can experience significant distress as a result of making treatment decisions. A new method, the patient preference predictor (PPP), has been proposed as a possible way to supplement the process of shared decision-making to address these two concerns. The PPP predicts which treatment the patient would want based on which treatment similar patients want in similar circumstances. The present article describes the results of the first evaluation to assess whether patients support the use of a PPP.
  
  
  METHODS
  Self-administered survey of patients at a tertiary care centre.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall, 1169 respondents completed the survey (response rate=59.8%). In the event that the respondent became unable to make decisions due to a car accident, 78.9% would want the PPP to be incorporated into the process of making treatment decisions for them. In contrast, 15.2% of respondents would not want the PPP to be used for them. Respondents who endorsed the PPP cited the possibility that its use could increase the chances that they receive the treatments they prefer and/or reduce the burdens on their surrogate decision-maker.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The majority of respondents endorsed the possibility of incorporating a PPP into the process of shared decision-making based on its potential to increase surrogates' predictive accuracy and/or reduce surrogate distress. These data provide strong patient support for further research to assess whether, in practice, the use of a PPP can increase the chances that incapacitated patients receive the treatments they prefer and reduce the burden of making decisions on their surrogates.
authors.affiliation: Department of Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Wendler
authors.affiliation: Biostatistics & Clinical Epidemiology Service, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda.
authors.forename: Bob
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Wesley
authors.affiliation: St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Pavlick
authors.affiliation: Department of Social Science, Health & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Annette
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Rid
mesh_terms: D000063:Accidents, Traffic; D016223:Advance Directives; D000066491:Clinical Decision-Making / Q000941:ethics; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics; D006801:Humans; D016743:Mental Competency; D057240:Patient Preference; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D057566:Self Report; D063128:Tertiary Health Care
keywords: Aged; Autonomy; Clinical Ethics; Decision-making
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 1996 Jul 22;156(14):1558-64
references.pmid: 8687264
references.citation: J Clin Ethics. 2012 Summer;23(2):177-92
references.pmid: 22822709
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2010 Sep-Oct;40(5):36-45
references.pmid: 20964162
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2011 Mar 1;154(5):336-46
references.pmid: 21357911
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Sep;22(9):1274-9
references.pmid: 17619223
references.citation: JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):370-7
references.pmid: 24445375
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2006 Aug;34(8):2053-9
references.pmid: 16763515
references.citation: Neurology. 2006 Dec 12;67(11):2088
references.pmid: 17159132
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Jun;24(6):695-701
references.pmid: 19387750
references.citation: J Med Philos. 2014 Apr;39(2):104-29
references.pmid: 24526785
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 4;346(14):1061-6
references.pmid: 11932474
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 1993 Sep-Oct;23(5):6-14
references.pmid: 8262772
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2007 Mar;4(3):e35
references.pmid: 17388655
references.citation: J Med Philos. 2014 Apr;39(2):130-52
references.pmid: 24556152
references.citation: Death Stud. 2001 Mar;25(2):127-49
references.pmid: 11708352
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2007 Sep 10;167(16):1711-5
references.pmid: 17846389
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 1998 Jul;13(7):447-54
references.pmid: 9686710
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 1;322(5):309-15
references.pmid: 2296273
references.citation: JAMA. 2011 Jul 27;306(4):420-7
references.pmid: 21791691
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 1989 Jun;149(6):1367-72
references.pmid: 2499292
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2001 Feb 12;161(3):431-40
references.pmid: 11176769
references.citation: JAMA. 2010 Aug 25;304(8):903-4
references.pmid: 20736477
references.citation: J Palliat Med. 2000 Spring;3(1):37-48
references.pmid: 15859720
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):188-201
references.pmid: 26509317
references.citation: Am J Med. 1996 Feb;100(2):128-37
references.pmid: 8629646
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2006 Mar 13;166(5):493-7
references.pmid: 16534034