Literature DB >> 16256898

When patients lack capacity: the roles that patients with terminal diagnoses would choose for their physicians and loved ones in making medical decisions.

Marie T Nolan1, Mark Hughes, Derek Paul Narendra, Johanna R Sood, Peter B Terry, Alan B Astrow, Joan Kub, Richard E Thompson, Daniel P Sulmasy.   

Abstract

Current approaches to end-of-life decision making are widely considered inadequate. We explored these complexities by examining how patients with terminal diagnoses would choose to involve their physicians and loved ones in making medical decisions, assuming they were able and unable to participate. Cross-sectional interviews of 130 patients recently diagnosed with fatal conditions were conducted. Patients were recruited from two academic medical centers using a modification of the Decision Control Preferences Scale, ranging from independent decision making to decision making that relies upon others. Patients were asked how they would balance their own wishes relative to the input of physician and loved ones in making medical decisions, and to weigh the input of loved ones relative to physician. Most patients (52%), assuming they had the capacity, would opt to share decision making with their physicians, but 15% would defer to their physicians and 34% would make decisions independently. Similarly, 44% would share decision making with their loved ones, but fewer (6%) would defer to their loved ones. Thirty-nine percent would rely upon their physicians' judgments about what would be best for them rather than their own wishes if they became unconscious, compared with 15% who would do so if they were conscious (P < 0.001). Nonetheless, patients were more likely to weigh their loved ones' input more heavily than their physicians' input if they were unconscious (33%) than if they were conscious (7%, P = 0.05). Race, religion, gender, diagnosis, and health status were largely unassociated with patients' decision control preferences. Patients with terminal diagnoses report a wide diversity of decision control preferences, but most would opt to share decision making with their physicians and loved ones. If unable to decide for themselves, they shift toward greater reliance on physician input relative to their own wishes but would weigh loved ones' input more heavily than physician input. Deciding for patients who cannot speak for themselves may be more complex than has previously been reflected in law, policy, or clinical ethics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16256898      PMCID: PMC2604910          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.04.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage        ISSN: 0885-3924            Impact factor:   3.612


  45 in total

1.  Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients.

Authors:  J Ende; L Kazis; A Ash; M A Moskowitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Four models of the physician-patient relationship.

Authors:  E J Emanuel; L L Emanuel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992 Apr 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  The relationship of autonomy and integrity in medical ethics.

Authors:  E D Pellegrino
Journal:  Bull Pan Am Health Organ       Date:  1990

4.  Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions?

Authors:  A B Seckler; D E Meier; M Mulvihill; B E Paris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-07-15       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Physicians' and spouses' predictions of elderly patients' resuscitation preferences.

Authors:  R F Uhlmann; R A Pearlman; K C Cain
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1988-09

6.  More talk, less paper: predicting the accuracy of substituted judgments.

Authors:  D P Sulmasy; K Haller; P B Terry
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Reliability and validity of the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire administered by telephone.

Authors:  W H Roccaforte; W J Burke; B L Bayer; S P Wengel
Journal:  J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol       Date:  1994 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.680

8.  Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play?

Authors:  L F Degner; J A Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Myth of substituted judgment. Surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable.

Authors:  J Suhl; P Simons; T Reedy; T Garrick
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1994-01-10

10.  How strictly do dialysis patients want their advance directives followed?

Authors:  A Sehgal; A Galbraith; M Chesney; P Schoenfeld; G Charles; B Lo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-01-01       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  28 in total

1.  Symptoms and fear in heart failure patients approaching end of life: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Martha Abshire; Jiayun Xu; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Patricia Davidson; Daniel Sulmasy; Joan Kub; Mark Hughes; Marie Nolan
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.036

2.  The Trial of Ascertaining Individual Preferences for Loved Ones' Role in End-of-Life Decisions (TAILORED) Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Surrogate Decision Making.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy; Mark T Hughes; Gayane Yenokyan; Joan Kub; Peter B Terry; Alan B Astrow; Julie A Johnson; Grace Ho; Marie T Nolan
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  Family understanding of seriously-ill patient preferences for family involvement in healthcare decision making.

Authors:  Rashmi K Sharma; Mark T Hughes; Marie T Nolan; Carrie Tudor; Joan Kub; Peter B Terry; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  A Qualitative Exploration of Clinician Views and Experiences of Treatment Decision-Making in Bipolar II Disorder.

Authors:  Alana Fisher; Vijaya Manicavasagar; Louise Sharpe; Rebekah Laidsaar-Powell; Ilona Juraskova
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2017-01-19

5.  The near-failure of advance directives: why they should not be abandoned altogether, but their role radically reconsidered.

Authors:  Marta Spranzi; Véronique Fournier
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-12

6.  Family health care decision making and self-efficacy with patients with ALS at the end of life.

Authors:  Marie T Nolan; Joan Kub; Mark T Hughes; Peter B Terry; Alan B Astrow; Cynthia A Carbo; Richard E Thompson; Lora Clawson; Kenneth Texeira; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  Palliat Support Care       Date:  2008-09

7.  Development and validation of the Family Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale.

Authors:  Marie T Nolan; Mark T Hughes; Joan Kub; Peter B Terry; Alan Astrow; Richard E Thompson; Lora Clawson; Kenneth Texeira; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  Palliat Support Care       Date:  2009-09

8.  Patients' Experiences of Being a Burden on Family in Terminal Illness.

Authors:  Julia Overturf Johnson; Daniel P Sulmasy; Marie T Nolan
Journal:  J Hosp Palliat Nurs       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.918

9.  Content of advance directives for individuals with advanced dementia.

Authors:  Patrick Triplett; Betty S Black; Hilary Phillips; Sarah Richardson Fahrendorf; Jack Schwartz; Andrew F Angelino; Danielle Anderson; Peter V Rabins
Journal:  J Aging Health       Date:  2008-08

10.  How would terminally ill patients have others make decisions for them in the event of decisional incapacity? A longitudinal study.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy; Mark T Hughes; Richard E Thompson; Alan B Astrow; Peter B Terry; Joan Kub; Marie T Nolan
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 5.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.