OBJECTIVE: Tube feeding is increasingly common, despite evidence for limited medical benefits. We interviewed treating physicians to describe their expectation of benefit for patients receiving a new feeding tube, and to determine whether expected benefits vary by patient characteristics. METHODS: We recruited treating physicians and surrogate decision-makers for 288 hospitalized patients in a prospective study of new feeding tube decisions. In structured interviews, physicians provided information on patients' diagnosis and whether they expected any of eight potential medical benefits for a specific patient; surrogates provided information about the patients' function, race, age, prior residence, and ability to eat by mouth. RESULTS: We completed interviews with 173 physicians about tube feeding for 280 patients (response rate, 97%). Patients commonly had acute stroke (30%), neurodegenerative disease (16%), or head and neck cancer (22%); 70% were somewhat or severely malnourished. In half or more cases, physicians expected benefits of improved nutrition (93%), hydration (60%), prolonged life (58%), ease providing medication (55%), and less aspiration risk (49%). Physicians endorsed more expected benefits for patients with stroke or those completely unable to eat by mouth (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Treating physicians expected multiple medical benefits for a diverse population of patients receiving feeding tubes. Physicians may be unaware of evidence, or expect more optimistic outcomes for their specific patient population. Further education and decision support may improve evidence-based decision-making about feeding tubes.
OBJECTIVE: Tube feeding is increasingly common, despite evidence for limited medical benefits. We interviewed treating physicians to describe their expectation of benefit for patients receiving a new feeding tube, and to determine whether expected benefits vary by patient characteristics. METHODS: We recruited treating physicians and surrogate decision-makers for 288 hospitalized patients in a prospective study of new feeding tube decisions. In structured interviews, physicians provided information on patients' diagnosis and whether they expected any of eight potential medical benefits for a specific patient; surrogates provided information about the patients' function, race, age, prior residence, and ability to eat by mouth. RESULTS: We completed interviews with 173 physicians about tube feeding for 280 patients (response rate, 97%). Patients commonly had acute stroke (30%), neurodegenerative disease (16%), or head and neck cancer (22%); 70% were somewhat or severely malnourished. In half or more cases, physicians expected benefits of improved nutrition (93%), hydration (60%), prolonged life (58%), ease providing medication (55%), and less aspiration risk (49%). Physicians endorsed more expected benefits for patients with stroke or those completely unable to eat by mouth (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Treating physicians expected multiple medical benefits for a diverse population of patients receiving feeding tubes. Physicians may be unaware of evidence, or expect more optimistic outcomes for their specific patient population. Further education and decision support may improve evidence-based decision-making about feeding tubes.
Authors: C M Callahan; K M Haag; M Weinberger; W M Tierney; N N Buchanan; T E Stump; R Nisi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Carmen L Lewis; Christopher E Cox; Joanne M Garrett; Laura Hanson; George M Holmes; Ann Howard; Timothy S Carey Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: E Amanda Snyder; Anthony J Caprio; Kathryn Wessell; Feng Chang Lin; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Joan M Teno; Susan L Mitchell; Sylvia K Kuo; Pedro L Gozalo; Ramona L Rhodes; Julie C Lima; Vincent Mor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Timothy S Carey; Anthony J Caprio; Tae Joon Lee; Mary Ersek; Joanne Garrett; Anne Jackman; Robin Gilliam; Kathryn Wessell; Susan L Mitchell Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 5.562