Objectives: This study mapped research evidence spanning the last 10 years to identify the effect of being a surrogate decision maker for an incapacitated adult. Methods: A scoping review strategy was employed to allow for a focus on the breadth of the effect of surrogate decision making and to identify gaps in the existing research literature. Results: Surrogate decision making created emotional distress and burden for the majority of the SDMs. We found the negative effects on SDMs were linked to variety of stressors: fear of not knowing what the patient would want or being unable to fulfill the patient's actual or perceived wishes, feeling unprepared to assume the role of a SDM, and watching a loved one's health deteriorate over time. Discussion: Additional research is needed to elucidate the emotional burden of culturally diverse SDMs to determine their differences when compared to various groups.
TorkeAMSachsGAHelftPR, et al.Scope and outcomes of surrogate decision making among hospitalized older adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):370‐377. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13315
2.
TorkeAMSieglerMAbalosAMoloneyRMAlexanderGC. Physicians’ experience with surrogate decision making for hospitalized adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(9):1023‐1028. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1065-y
3.
LuceJM. End-of-life decision making in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182(1):6‐11. doi:10.1164/rccm.201001-0071CI
4.
WendlerDRidA. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(5):336‐346.
5.
HickmanRLDalyBJDouglasSLClochesyJM. Informational coping style and depressive symptoms in family decision makers. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19(5):410‐420. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2010354
6.
RumrillPDFitzgeraldSMMerchantWR. Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work. 2010;35(3):399‐404. doi:10.3233/WOR-2010-0998
7.
BradleyEGreenD. Involved, inputting or informing: “shared” decision making in adult mental health care. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):192‐200. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12601.
8.
BuckeyJWMolinaO. Honoring patient care preferences: surrogates speak. Omega (Westport). 2012;65(4):257‐280.
9.
de BoerMEDeplaMWojtkowiakJ, et al.Life-and-death decision-making in the acute phase after a severe stroke: interviews with relatives. Palliat Med. 2015;29(5):451‐457. doi:10.1177/0269216314563427
10.
SchenkerYWhiteDBCrowley-MatokaMDohanDTiverGAArnoldRM. It hurts to know…and it helps’: exploring how surrogates in the ICU cope with prognostic information. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(3):243‐249. doi:10.1089/jpm.2012.0331.
11.
SuCTMcMahanRDWilliamsBASharmaRKSudoreRL. Family matters: effects of birth order, culture, and family dynamics on surrogate decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(1):175‐182. doi:10.1111/jgs.12610
12.
TsengYPHuangLHHsuLL, et al.The family surrogates’ psychological experience of making a do-not-resuscitate decision for older relatives: a qualitative study. Contemp Nurse. 2018;54(2):195‐207. doi:10.1080/10376178.2018.1478232
13.
LovellGPSmithTKannis-DymandL. Surrogate end-of-life care decision makers’ postbereavement grief and guilt responses. Death Stud. 2015;39(10):647‐653. doi:10.1080/07481187.2015.1047062
14.
WebbJGuarinoAJ. Life after the death of a loved one: long-term distress among surrogate decision makers. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2011;13(6):378‐386. doi:10.1097/NJH.0b013e318222b089
15.
WeissDS. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised. Assessing Psychological Trauma and PTSD. The Guilford Press. 2004:168‐189.
16.
ConnerNEChaseSK. Decisions and caregiving: end of life among blacks from the perspective of informal caregivers and decision makers. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2015;32(4):454‐463. doi:10.1177/1049909114529013
17.
TanakaMOhnishiKEnzoAOkitaTAsaiA. Grounds for surrogate decision-making in Japanese clinical practice: a qualitative survey. BMC Med Ethics.2021;22(5):1-12.
