Discussing Prognosis in Non-Communicable Diseases: A Practical Guide

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Prognostic discussions in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent one of the most challenging yet essential skills in internal medicine. This review examines evidence-based approaches to communicating prognosis across major NCDs, including cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory conditions, diabetes, and cancer. We explore validated prognostic tools, communication frameworks, and practical strategies to navigate these difficult conversations while maintaining therapeutic alliance and patient autonomy. Understanding when, how, and what to communicate about prognosis can significantly impact patient satisfaction, treatment adherence, and end-of-life care quality.

Introduction

Non-communicable diseases account for 74% of global deaths, with cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes representing the leading causes of NCD mortality worldwide. Unlike acute conditions with more predictable trajectories, NCDs present unique prognostic challenges: prolonged disease courses with variable trajectories, multiple comorbidities complicating outcome prediction, and the tension between maintaining hope while preparing patients for realistic outcomes.

The ability to discuss prognosis effectively is not merely about delivering information—it fundamentally shapes clinical decision-making, advance care planning, and quality of life. Studies demonstrate that patients consistently desire prognostic information, yet physicians often overestimate survival and delay these crucial conversations. This review provides practical guidance for internists navigating these complex discussions.

Understanding Prognostic Uncertainty in NCDs

The Nature of Prognostic Predictions

Prognostic estimates in NCDs differ fundamentally from acute conditions. While we can predict 30-day mortality after myocardial infarction with reasonable accuracy, long-term NCD trajectories follow one of several patterns: steady decline with predictable trajectory (malignancy), gradual decline with acute exacerbations (COPD, heart failure), or prolonged gradual decline (dementia, frailty). Recognizing these patterns helps frame appropriate discussions.

Pearl: The "surprise question"—"Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year?"—has demonstrated validity across multiple NCDs. A negative response (not surprised) identifies patients who would benefit from prognostic discussions and advance care planning, with sensitivity ranging from 67% to 80% for one-year mortality prediction.

Validated Prognostic Tools

Multiple validated scoring systems exist for major NCDs, though clinicians often underutilize them. For heart failure, the Seattle Heart Failure Model incorporates 20 clinical variables to predict one-, two-, and three-year survival with reasonable accuracy (C-statistic 0.72-0.73). The BODE index (Body mass, Obstruction, Dyspnea, Exercise capacity) predicts mortality in COPD patients better than FEV1 alone.

Hack: Rather than memorizing multiple scoring systems, bookmark validated online calculators accessible during clinical encounters. The QRISK3 calculator for cardiovascular risk, Mayo Clinic's End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) calculator, and the Palliative Prognostic Index can be completed in under two minutes with readily available clinical data.

For cancer prognosis, the Palliative Performance Scale and Palliative Prognostic Score have demonstrated utility, though physician clinical prediction of survival (CPS) often adds value beyond purely objective measures. Interestingly, combining objective scores with clinical gestalt typically outperforms either alone.

When to Initiate Prognostic Discussions

Timing represents a critical yet often neglected aspect of prognostic communication. Evidence suggests earlier discussions lead to better outcomes: reduced aggressive end-of-life care, improved quality of life, and paradoxically, potentially longer survival in some studies of cancer patients.

Trigger Points for Prognostic Conversations

Several clinical scenarios should prompt prognostic discussions: at diagnosis of life-limiting illness, when considering significant treatment changes (especially treatments with substantial toxicity or burden), after hospitalization for acute decompensation in chronic disease, when functional status declines significantly, and when the patient or family raises questions about the future.

Oyster: The first outpatient visit following hospitalization for heart failure exacerbation represents an ideal yet frequently missed opportunity for prognostic discussion. Post-discharge 30-day readmission rates approach 25%, and one-year mortality exceeds 30% after heart failure hospitalization—statistics that can frame meaningful conversations about goals of care.

Research demonstrates that patients with advanced COPD often lack awareness of their prognosis despite years of specialist care. In one study, only 25% of patients with severe COPD recognized their condition as terminal, and fewer than half had discussed prognosis with their physician despite median disease duration exceeding eight years.

How to Discuss Prognosis: Communication Frameworks

The SPIKES Protocol

Originally developed for delivering bad news in oncology, the SPIKES protocol (Setting, Perception, Invitation, Knowledge, Emotions, Strategy/Summary) provides a structured approach applicable across NCDs. This six-step framework emphasizes preparing the environment, assessing patient understanding, obtaining permission to share information, delivering information in digestible portions, responding to emotions with empathy, and establishing next steps.

Pearl: The "Ask-Tell-Ask" technique embeds naturally within SPIKES. Before sharing prognostic information, ask what the patient already understands, tell them new information in clear language, then ask what questions they have. This approach ensures information is tailored to the patient's knowledge base and comprehension is verified.

Framing Prognostic Information

How we frame prognostic data significantly impacts patient understanding and emotional response. Present information in multiple formats: median survival ("Half of patients with similar conditions live longer than X months"), ranges ("Most patients live between X and Y years"), and qualitative descriptions ("Some patients live much longer, while others have shorter time frames").

Hack: Use the "best case/worst case" framework developed by Schwarze et al. for high-stakes decisions. Instead of forcing binary choices, outline the best plausible outcome, the worst plausible outcome, and the most likely outcome for a proposed treatment or disease trajectory. This approach honors uncertainty while helping patients understand the spectrum of possibilities.

Avoid common pitfalls in numerical communication. Patients better understand frequencies (10 out of 100) than percentages (10%) or probabilities (0.1). When discussing five-year survival rates, explicitly clarify that this represents patients alive five years from now, not that patients will die in five years—a frequent source of confusion.

Disease-Specific Considerations

Cardiovascular Disease

For chronic heart failure, emphasize the episodic nature of the disease trajectory. Patients may remain relatively stable for extended periods, then experience acute decompensations. The challenge lies in predicting which exacerbation will prove fatal.

Pearl: When discussing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement, include conversation about deactivation. Studies show that while 90% of patients would consider deactivation when terminally ill, fewer than 30% of physicians discuss this proactively. Early discussion normalizes the concept and prevents challenging bedside dilemmas.

Chronic Respiratory Disease

COPD and interstitial lung disease patients frequently lack understanding of their prognosis. These conditions demonstrate particular unpredictability, with sudden acute exacerbations potentially leading to death or protracted ventilator dependence.

Hack: Use the trajectory of functional decline as a more concrete prognostic marker than survival statistics. Ask patients to compare their breathlessness and activity level today versus six months or one year ago. Progressive functional decline despite optimal therapy signals advancing disease and creates a natural opening for prognostic discussion.

Diabetes Complications

For patients with advanced diabetic complications, prognostic discussions often center on specific complications rather than diabetes itself. End-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, advanced neuropathy, or cardiovascular complications each carry distinct prognostic implications.

Oyster: When discussing dialysis initiation for diabetic nephropathy, patients often underestimate the treatment burden and overestimate quality of life on dialysis. Studies show diabetic patients over 75 initiating dialysis have median survival under two years, with significant functional decline. Some may choose conservative management when fully informed—but cannot make this choice without prognostic information.

Cancer

While oncologists traditionally lead prognostic discussions for malignancies, internists frequently manage patients with advanced cancer or multiple comorbidities that complicate treatment decisions.

Pearl: When patients ask "How long do I have?", resist the urge to provide a specific timeframe. Instead, respond: "I wish I had a crystal ball. What I can tell you is what we typically see with similar situations." Then provide ranges and emphasize individual variability. This approach acknowledges uncertainty while providing useful information.

Cultural Considerations

Cultural background significantly influences prognostic communication preferences. While many Western patients prioritize autonomy and direct disclosure, patients from some cultural backgrounds prefer family-centered decision-making or indirect communication about prognosis.

Hack: Rather than making assumptions based on ethnicity, ask directly: "Different people have different preferences about medical information. Some want all the details about their prognosis, while others prefer we discuss this primarily with family members. What's your preference?" This simple question respects individual variation while acknowledging cultural diversity.

Responding to Emotional Reactions

Prognostic discussions invariably evoke strong emotions. The NURSE mnemonic (Naming, Understanding, Respecting, Supporting, Exploring) provides a framework for empathic responses. When a patient expresses sadness about a terminal diagnosis, respond with statements like "I can see this is really difficult news" (Naming), "This must be overwhelming" (Understanding), "I'm impressed by your strength in facing this" (Respecting), "I'll be here with you through this" (Supporting), and "What concerns you most?" (Exploring).

Pearl: Silence is a therapeutic tool. After delivering serious prognostic information, resist the urge to fill silence immediately. Allow patients time to process. Studies show physicians wait an average of only 22 seconds before speaking after delivering bad news—typically insufficient for emotional processing.

Documentation

Document prognostic discussions clearly in the medical record, including what was discussed, who was present, patient understanding, and patient's stated goals. This documentation serves multiple purposes: ensuring care continuity, legal protection, and facilitating subsequent discussions by other team members.

Hack: Use standardized templates for documenting serious illness conversations. Include fields for: prognosis discussed (yes/no), patient understanding, named healthcare proxy, code status preference, and primary goals stated by patient. Standardization improves documentation quality and billing accuracy (CPT code 99497 for advance care planning).

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Several errors plague prognostic discussions. First, excessive optimism: physicians consistently overestimate survival, sometimes by a factor of five. Combat this by consulting objective prognostic tools and involving palliative care colleagues for second opinions on trajectory.

Second, waiting for patients to initiate discussion. Most patients want prognostic information but hesitate to ask. The physician must open this door. Third, equating honest prognostic discussion with "giving up" or "taking away hope." Extensive research demonstrates that honest prognostic information does not increase depression or anxiety and may enhance realistic hope.

Oyster: The phrase "there's nothing more we can do" represents one of the most damaging statements in medicine. There is always something we can do—even if cure is impossible, we can always offer comfort, symptom management, and support. Reframe to: "We may not be able to cure this disease, but we can focus on maintaining your quality of life and managing symptoms."

Integrating Palliative Care

Prognostic discussions naturally intersect with palliative care. Evidence increasingly supports early palliative care integration in serious illness. For example, Temel et al. demonstrated that early palliative care in metastatic lung cancer improved quality of life and paradoxically extended survival compared to standard oncology care alone.

Pearl: Introduce palliative care as "an extra layer of support" rather than a transition signaling end-of-life. Many patients (and physicians) misunderstand palliative care as synonymous with hospice. Correct framing: "Palliative care specialists are experts in managing symptoms and helping patients navigate serious illness while you continue disease-directed treatment."

Practical Recommendations for Implementation

For practicing internists seeking to improve prognostic communication: First, identify patients who would benefit from prognostic discussions using the surprise question monthly during chart review. Second, schedule dedicated time for these conversations—they cannot be rushed into routine follow-up visits. Third, practice communication skills through role-play with colleagues or formal communication training programs like VitalTalk. Fourth, develop institutional protocols for documenting and billing these conversations. Fifth, establish multidisciplinary serious illness care teams including social work and palliative care for complex cases.

Hack: Create a personal checklist or cognitive aid for prognostic discussions. Before the conversation, review: What is my best estimate of prognosis? What prognostic factors am I basing this on? What have I told this patient previously? What does the patient already understand? What cultural or personal factors might influence this discussion? This brief preparation significantly improves communication quality.

Conclusion

Discussing prognosis in NCDs represents a core competency for internists. While challenging, these conversations profoundly impact patient care, autonomy, and dignity. By employing validated prognostic tools, structured communication frameworks, and individualized approaches, physicians can navigate these discussions with competence and compassion. The goal is not perfect prognostication—an impossible standard—but rather honest, empathic communication that empowers patients to make informed decisions aligned with their values.

As internists, we must resist the temptation to avoid these difficult conversations. Our patients deserve honest information delivered with kindness. The question is not whether to discuss prognosis, but when and how—and this review provides the practical tools to do so effectively.

---

References

1. Murray SA, Kendall M, Boyd K, Sheikh A. Illness trajectories and palliative care. BMJ. 2005;330(7498):1007-1011.

2. Downar J, Goldman R, Pinto R, Englesakis M, Adhikari NK. The "surprise question" for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2017;189(13):E484-E493.

3. Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT, et al. The Seattle Heart Failure Model: prediction of survival in heart failure. Circulation. 2006;113(11):1424-1433.

4. Celli BR, Cote CG, Marin JM, et al. The body-mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity index in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(10):1005-1012.

5. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302-311.

6. Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF, Tulsky JA, Fryer-Edwards K. Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55(3):164-177.

7. Schwarze ML, Barnato AE, Rathouz PJ, et al. Development of a list of high-risk operations for patients 65 years and older. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(4):325-331.

8. Goldstein NE, Lampert R, Bradley E, Lynn J, Krumholz HM. Management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in end-of-life care. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(11):835-838.

9. Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Nielsen EL, Au DH, Patrick DL. Patient-physician communication about end-of-life care for patients with severe COPD. Eur Respir J. 2004;24(2):200-205.

10. Davison SN, Simpson C. Hope and advance care planning in patients with end stage renal disease: qualitative interview study. BMJ. 2006;333(7574):886.

11. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733-742.

12. Hagerty RG, Butow PN, Ellis PM, et al. Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(7):1005-1053.

13. Pollak KI, Arnold RM, Jeffreys AS, et al. Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(36):5748-5752.

14. Clayton JM, Hancock KM, Butow PN, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for communicating prognosis and end-of-life issues with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness, and their caregivers. Med J Aust. 2007;186(12 Suppl):S77-S108.

15. Bernacki RE, Block SD. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):1994-2003.