Exploring variables related to medical surrogate decision-making accuracy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Surrogate medical decision making is common in the United States healthcare system. Variables that may influence surrogate decision making have been proposed. Little work has examined relations between these variables and outcomes of surrogate decision making. This study investigated whether surrogates' characteristics, including their knowledge of treatment options, and interpersonal factors predicted surrogates' accuracy and intervention selections. Specifically, predictor variables included: trust in the medical profession, trait-level anxiety, depression, anxiety about COVID-19, religiosity, perceived emotional support, understanding of treatment options, empathy, willingness to accept responsibility for medical decisions, reluctance to burden others, and perceived similarity between oneself and the patient. METHODS: 154 pairs of patients and their surrogates completed an online survey. Patients indicated preferred treatments in hypothetical decision scenarios. Surrogates indicated the treatment that they thought the patient would prefer. RESULTS: When taken all together in a predictive model, the variables significantly predicted surrogates' accuracy, F (6) = 3.03, R2 = .12, p = .008. Variables also predicted selection of intensive interventions, F (4) = 5.95, R2 = .14, p = .00. Surrogates reporting greater anxiety about COVID-19 selected more intensive interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with prior research, this study found that surrogates' characteristics influence the interventions they choose, with anxiety about COVID-19 having considerable bearing on their chosen interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These findings can inform development of decision-making interventions to improve surrogates' accuracy. Providers may attend to variables highlighted by this study to support surrogates, particularly within the stressful context of COVID-19 and possible future pandemics.

Advances and challenges in conducting ethical trials involving populations lacking capacity to consent: A decade in review.

Informed consent is an essential requirement prior to clinical trial participation, however some 'vulnerable' groups, such as people with cognitive impairments and those in medical emergency situations, may lack decisional capacity to consent. This raises ethical and practical challenges when designing and conducting clinical trials involving these populations, who are frequently excluded as a result. Despite recent advances in improving informed consent processes, there has been far less attention paid to the enrolment of adults lacking capacity. Exclusion criteria are an important determinant of the external validity of clinical trial results. The exclusion of these populations, and consent-based recruitment biases which arise from the challenges of identifying and involving surrogate decision-makers, leads to trials which are not representative of the clinical population. This article discusses the involvement of adults who lack decisional capacity to consent in clinical trials and presents the advances over the previous decade and the remaining ethical challenges for the inclusion of this under-represented population in research.