OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient preferences are a barrier to hospice enrollment. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifteen ambulatory primary care and specialty clinics and three general medicine inpatient units. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred three seriously ill patients with cancer (n=65, 32%), congestive heart failure (n=77, 38%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=61, 30%) completed multiple interviews over a period of up to 24 months. MEASUREMENTS: Preferences for high- and low-burden life-sustaining treatment and site of death and concern about being kept alive by machines. RESULTS: Patients were more likely to enroll in hospice after interviews at which they said that they did not want low-burden treatment (3 patients enrolled/16 interviews at which patients did not want low-burden treatment vs 47 patients enrolled/841 interviews at which patients wanted low-burden treatment; relative risk (RR)=3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.17-9.66), as were interviews at which patients said they would not want high-burden treatment (5/28 vs 45/826; RR=3.28, 95% CI=1.14-7.62), although most patients whose preferences were consistent with hospice did not enroll before the next interview. In multivariable Cox regression models, patients with noncancer diagnoses who desired low-burden treatment (hazard ratio (HR)=0.46, 95% CI=0.33-0.68) were less likely to enroll in hospice, and those who were concerned that they would be kept alive by machines were more likely to enroll (HR=5.46, 95% CI=1.86-15.88), although in patients with cancer, neither preferences nor concerns about receiving excessive treatment were associated with hospice enrollment. Preference for site of death was not associated with hospice enrollment. CONCLUSION: Overall, few patients had treatment preferences that would make them eligible for hospice, although even in patients whose preferences were consistent with hospice, few enrolled. Efforts to improve end-of-life care should offer alternatives to hospice that do not require patients to give up life-sustaining treatment, as well as interventions to improve communication about patients' preferences.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient preferences are a barrier to hospice enrollment. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifteen ambulatory primary care and specialty clinics and three general medicine inpatient units. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred three seriously ill patients with cancer (n=65, 32%), congestive heart failure (n=77, 38%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=61, 30%) completed multiple interviews over a period of up to 24 months. MEASUREMENTS: Preferences for high- and low-burden life-sustaining treatment and site of death and concern about being kept alive by machines. RESULTS:Patients were more likely to enroll in hospice after interviews at which they said that they did not want low-burden treatment (3 patients enrolled/16 interviews at which patients did not want low-burden treatment vs 47 patients enrolled/841 interviews at which patients wanted low-burden treatment; relative risk (RR)=3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.17-9.66), as were interviews at which patients said they would not want high-burden treatment (5/28 vs 45/826; RR=3.28, 95% CI=1.14-7.62), although most patients whose preferences were consistent with hospice did not enroll before the next interview. In multivariable Cox regression models, patients with noncancer diagnoses who desired low-burden treatment (hazard ratio (HR)=0.46, 95% CI=0.33-0.68) were less likely to enroll in hospice, and those who were concerned that they would be kept alive by machines were more likely to enroll (HR=5.46, 95% CI=1.86-15.88), although in patients with cancer, neither preferences nor concerns about receiving excessive treatment were associated with hospice enrollment. Preference for site of death was not associated with hospice enrollment. CONCLUSION: Overall, few patients had treatment preferences that would make them eligible for hospice, although even in patients whose preferences were consistent with hospice, few enrolled. Efforts to improve end-of-life care should offer alternatives to hospice that do not require patients to give up life-sustaining treatment, as well as interventions to improve communication about patients' preferences.
Authors: Elizabeth K Vig; Helene Starks; Janelle S Taylor; Elizabeth K Hopley; Kelly Fryer-Edwards Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hans F Stabenau; Laura J Morrison; Evelyne A Gahbauer; Linda Leo-Summers; Heather G Allore; Thomas M Gill Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Claire K Ankuda; Susan L Mitchell; Pedro Gozalo; Vince Mor; David Meltzer; Joan M Teno Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Melissa D Aldridge Carlson; Colleen L Barry; Emily J Cherlin; Ruth McCorkle; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Jessica Fishman; Peter O'Dwyer; Hien L Lu; Hope R Henderson; Hope Henderson; David A Asch; David J Casarett Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan E Hickman; Christine A Nelson; Alvin H Moss; Bernard J Hammes; Allison Terwilliger; Ann Jackson; Susan W Tolle Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 2.947