Literature DB >> 10809474

Communication and decision-making in seriously ill patients: findings of the SUPPORT project. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

K E Covinsky1, J D Fuller, K Yaffe, C B Johnston, M B Hamel, J Lynn, J M Teno, R S Phillips.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) represents one of the largest and most comprehensive efforts to describe patient preferences in seriously ill patients, and to evaluate how effectively patient preferences are communicated. Our objective was to review findings from SUPPORT describing the communication of seriously ill patients' preferences for end-of-life care.
METHODS: We identified published reports from SUPPORT describing patient preferences and the communication of those preferences. We abstracted findings that addressed each of the following questions: What patient characteristics predict patient preferences for end of life care? How well do physicians, nurses, and surrogates understand their patients' preferences, and what variables are correlated with this understanding? Does increasing the documentation of existing advance directives result in care more consistent with patients' preferences?
RESULTS: Patients who are older, have cancer, are women, believe their prognoses are poor, and are more dependent in ADL function are less likely to want CPR. However, there is considerable variability and geographic variation in these preferences. Physician, nurse, and surrogate understanding of their patient's preferences is only moderately better than chance. Most patients do not discuss their preferences with their physicians, and only about half of patients who do not wish to receive CPR receive DNR orders. Factors other than the patients' preferences and prognoses, including the patient's age, the physician's specialty, and the geographic site of care were strong determinants of whether DNR orders were written. In SUPPORT patients, there was no evidence that increasing the rates of documentation of advance directives results in care that is more consistent with patients' preferences.
CONCLUSIONS: SUPPORT documents that physicians and surrogates are often unaware of seriously ill patients' preferences. The care provided to patients is often not consistent with their preferences and is often associated with factors other than preferences or prognoses. Improving these deficiencies in end-of-life care may require systematic change rather than simple interventions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10809474     DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03131.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  68 in total

1.  Bringing a generalist approach to the problems of older patients.

Authors:  K E Covinsky
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Withdrawing life support and resolution of conflict with families.

Authors:  Jenny Way; Anthony L Back; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-12-07

3.  The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda May 10, 2016, New Orleans, LA.

Authors:  Corita R Grudzen; Jana R Anderson; Christopher R Carpenter; Erik P Hess
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Proximity to disease and perception of utility: physicians' vs patients' assessment of treatment options for ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Lindsay Kennedy Brown; Akbar K Waljee; Peter D R Higgins; Jennifer F Waljee; Arden M Morris
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 5.  Hospital do-not-resuscitate orders: why they have failed and how to fix them.

Authors:  Jacqueline K Yuen; M Carrington Reid; Michael D Fetters
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Perceptions of "futile care" among caregivers in intensive care units.

Authors:  Robert Sibbald; James Downar; Laura Hawryluck
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Barriers to and enablers of advance care planning with patients in primary care: Survey of health care providers.

Authors:  Michelle Howard; Carrie Bernard; Doug Klein; Dawn Elston; Amy Tan; Marissa Slaven; Doris Barwich; John J You; Daren K Heyland
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  Predictors of Advance Care Planning in Older Women: The Nurses' Health Study.

Authors:  Jae H Kang; Julie P W Bynum; Lu Zhang; Francine Grodstein; David G Stevenson
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Outcomes That Define Successful Advance Care Planning: A Delphi Panel Consensus.

Authors:  Rebecca L Sudore; Daren K Heyland; Hillary D Lum; Judith A C Rietjens; Ida J Korfage; Christine S Ritchie; Laura C Hanson; Diane E Meier; Steven Z Pantilat; Karl Lorenz; Michelle Howard; Michael J Green; Jessica E Simon; Mariko A Feuz; John J You
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 3.612

10.  The association between treatment preferences and trajectories of care at the end-of-life.

Authors:  JoAnne Alissi Cosgriff; Margaret Pisani; Elizabeth H Bradley; John R O'Leary; Terri R Fried
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.