Sangeeta C Ahluwalia1, Fukai L Chuang, Anna Liza M Antonio, Jennifer L Malin, Karl A Lorenz, Anne M Walling. 1. Center for the Study of Healthcare Provider Behavior, Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System; Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Public Health; Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to describe the documentation, frequency, and timing of discussions about patient preferences for care and to examine patterns of palliative care and hospice use among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We prospectively abstracted the medical records of 118 patients receiving care at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility from diagnosis of stage IV disease to 12 months postdiagnosis or death. We used univariate statistics to describe the type and frequency of documentation of patient preferences and palliative care/hospice referral. We calculated the time from diagnosis to the first documentation of preferences and the time from first documentation to death. We compared documentation of patient preferences between decedents and nondecedents using χ(2) tests. RESULTS: The majority of patients (81%) had some documentation of their care preferences recorded, although decedents were significantly more likely to have had their preferences documented than nondecedents (96% v 60%; P < .000). Most (53%) patients did not have a formal advance directive documented in the medical record. The mean time from diagnosis to the first documentation of preferences was approximately 2 months. More than half of all patients (53%) and almost three-quarters of decedents (73%) had a palliative care consultation. CONCLUSION: Despite high rates of preference documentation, there remains room for improvement. Providers may need to be helped to identify patients earlier in their trajectory for appropriate palliative care services, and future work should focus on developing useful alternatives to advance directives for adequately documenting patient preferences.
PURPOSE: We sought to describe the documentation, frequency, and timing of discussions about patient preferences for care and to examine patterns of palliative care and hospice use among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We prospectively abstracted the medical records of 118 patients receiving care at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility from diagnosis of stage IV disease to 12 months postdiagnosis or death. We used univariate statistics to describe the type and frequency of documentation of patient preferences and palliative care/hospice referral. We calculated the time from diagnosis to the first documentation of preferences and the time from first documentation to death. We compared documentation of patient preferences between decedents and nondecedents using χ(2) tests. RESULTS: The majority of patients (81%) had some documentation of their care preferences recorded, although decedents were significantly more likely to have had their preferences documented than nondecedents (96% v 60%; P < .000). Most (53%) patients did not have a formal advance directive documented in the medical record. The mean time from diagnosis to the first documentation of preferences was approximately 2 months. More than half of all patients (53%) and almost three-quarters of decedents (73%) had a palliative care consultation. CONCLUSION: Despite high rates of preference documentation, there remains room for improvement. Providers may need to be helped to identify patients earlier in their trajectory for appropriate palliative care services, and future work should focus on developing useful alternatives to advance directives for adequately documenting patient preferences.
Authors: E H Bradley; A G Hallemeier; T R Fried; R Johnson-Hurzeler; E J Cherlin; S V Kasl; S M Horwitz Journal: Am J Med Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Marie Bakitas; Kathleen Doyle Lyons; Mark T Hegel; Stefan Balan; Frances C Brokaw; Janette Seville; Jay G Hull; Zhongze Li; Tor D Tosteson; Ira R Byock; Tim A Ahles Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Manali I Patel; Vandana Sundaram; Manisha Desai; Vyjeyanthi S Periyakoil; James S Kahn; Jay Bhattacharya; Steven M Asch; Arnold Milstein; M Kate Bundorf Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ayman Barakat; Sunni A Barnes; Mark A Casanova; Marvin J Stone; Kathleen M Shuey; Alan M Miller Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2013-10
Authors: N C A van der Velden; M B A van der Kleij; V Lehmann; E M A Smets; J M L Stouthard; I Henselmans; M A Hillen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Michael G Cohen; Andrew D Althouse; Robert M Arnold; Hailey W Bulls; Douglas White; Edward Chu; Margaret Rosenzweig; Kenneth Smith; Yael Schenker Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-06-12