OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a video on preferences for the primary goal of care. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: Consecutive subjects 65 years of age or older (n=101) admitted to two skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) were randomized to a verbal narrative (control) or a video (intervention) describing goals-of-care options. Options included: life-prolonging (i.e., cardiopulmonary resuscitation), limited (i.e., hospitalization but no cardiopulmonary resuscitation), or comfort care (i.e., symptom relief). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was patients' preferences for comfort versus other options. Concordance of preferences with documentation in the medical record was also examined. RESULTS:Fifty-one subjects were randomized to the verbal arm and 50 to the video arm. In the verbal arm, preferences were: comfort, n=29 (57%); limited, n=4 (8%); life-prolonging, n=17 (33%); and uncertain, n=1 (2%). In the video arm, preferences were: comfort, n=40 (80%); limited, n=4 (8%); and life-prolonging, n=6 (12%). Randomization to the video was associated with greater likelihood of opting for comfort (unadjusted rate ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9, p=0.02). Among subjects in the verbal arm who chose comfort, 29% had a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (κ statistic 0.18; 95% CI-0.02 to 0.37); 33% of subjects in the video arm choosing comfort had a DNR order (κ statistic 0.06; 95% CI-0.09 to 0.22). CONCLUSION: Subjects admitted to SNFs who viewed a video were more likely than those exposed to a verbal narrative to opt for comfort. Concordance between a preference for comfort and a DNR order was low. These findings suggest a need to improve ascertainment of patients' preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233973.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a video on preferences for the primary goal of care. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: Consecutive subjects 65 years of age or older (n=101) admitted to two skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) were randomized to a verbal narrative (control) or a video (intervention) describing goals-of-care options. Options included: life-prolonging (i.e., cardiopulmonary resuscitation), limited (i.e., hospitalization but no cardiopulmonary resuscitation), or comfort care (i.e., symptom relief). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was patients' preferences for comfort versus other options. Concordance of preferences with documentation in the medical record was also examined. RESULTS: Fifty-one subjects were randomized to the verbal arm and 50 to the video arm. In the verbal arm, preferences were: comfort, n=29 (57%); limited, n=4 (8%); life-prolonging, n=17 (33%); and uncertain, n=1 (2%). In the video arm, preferences were: comfort, n=40 (80%); limited, n=4 (8%); and life-prolonging, n=6 (12%). Randomization to the video was associated with greater likelihood of opting for comfort (unadjusted rate ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9, p=0.02). Among subjects in the verbal arm who chose comfort, 29% had a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (κ statistic 0.18; 95% CI-0.02 to 0.37); 33% of subjects in the video arm choosing comfort had a DNR order (κ statistic 0.06; 95% CI-0.09 to 0.22). CONCLUSION: Subjects admitted to SNFs who viewed a video were more likely than those exposed to a verbal narrative to opt for comfort. Concordance between a preference for comfort and a DNR order was low. These findings suggest a need to improve ascertainment of patients' preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233973.
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Laurie Anne Ferguson; Aretha D Davis; Nathan C Hull; Michael J Green; Yuchiao Chang; Kristy Deep; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Lisa M Podgurski; April F Eichler; Scott R Plotkin; Jennifer S Temel; Susan L Mitchell; Yuchiao Chang; Michael J Barry; Angelo E Volandes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Susan L Mitchell; Muriel R Gillick; Yuchiao Chang; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Michael J Barry; Muriel R Gillick; Kenneth L Minaker; Yuchiao Chang; E Francis Cook; Elmer D Abbo; Areej El-Jawahri; Susan L Mitchell Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-05-28
Authors: Seth F Einterz; Robin Gilliam; Feng Chang Lin; J Marvin McBride; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Sheryl Zimmerman; Mi-Kyung Song; Feng-Chang Lin; Cherie Rosemond; Timothy S Carey; Susan L Mitchell Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Lois Downey; Anthony L Back; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Sudiptho Paul; Alexandria Z Lahdya; Patsy D Treece; Priscilla Armstrong; Ronald Peck; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Bahman Sadeghi; Anne M Walling; Patrick S Romano; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Michael K Ong Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Lacey Loomer; Jessica A Ogarek; Susan L Mitchell; Angelo E Volandes; Roee Gutman; Pedro L Gozalo; Ellen M McCreedy; Vincent Mor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 5.562