Yael Schenker1, Greer A Tiver, Seo Yeon Hong, Douglas B White. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. schenkery@upmc.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: For critically ill patients at high risk of death, reasonable treatment options include attempts at life prolongation and treatment focused on comfort. Little is known about whether and how physicians present the option of comfort care to surrogates. This study assessed how comfort care is presented to surrogates and whether physicians' beliefs are associated with whether comfort care is presented as an option. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 72 audio-recorded family conferences about treatment decisions in five ICUs at two hospitals in San Francisco, California. One hundred sixty-nine family members and 54 physicians participated. Patients were at high risk of death or severe functional impairment. Transcripts of audio-recorded conferences were coded to identify whether physicians offered comfort care as an alternative to life-sustaining treatment and to characterize the stated risks and benefits. Physicians completed a questionnaire indicating the strength of their belief that life support should be foregone. RESULTS: The inpatient mortality rate was 72 %. Using a broad definition of comfort-oriented treatment, this option was presented in 56 % (95 % CI, 44-67 %) of conferences. In clustered multivariate models, the only independent predictor of offering comfort care as an option was the strength of the physician's belief that life support should be foregone [OR 1.38 (1.14-1.66), p = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians did not explicitly inform surrogates about the option of comfort-oriented treatment in roughly half of clinician-family meetings. Physicians who more strongly believe that the appropriate goal of care is life prolongation are less likely to inform surrogates about the option of comfort care.
PURPOSE: For critically illpatients at high risk of death, reasonable treatment options include attempts at life prolongation and treatment focused on comfort. Little is known about whether and how physicians present the option of comfort care to surrogates. This study assessed how comfort care is presented to surrogates and whether physicians' beliefs are associated with whether comfort care is presented as an option. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 72 audio-recorded family conferences about treatment decisions in five ICUs at two hospitals in San Francisco, California. One hundred sixty-nine family members and 54 physicians participated. Patients were at high risk of death or severe functional impairment. Transcripts of audio-recorded conferences were coded to identify whether physicians offered comfort care as an alternative to life-sustaining treatment and to characterize the stated risks and benefits. Physicians completed a questionnaire indicating the strength of their belief that life support should be foregone. RESULTS: The inpatient mortality rate was 72 %. Using a broad definition of comfort-oriented treatment, this option was presented in 56 % (95 % CI, 44-67 %) of conferences. In clustered multivariate models, the only independent predictor of offering comfort care as an option was the strength of the physician's belief that life support should be foregone [OR 1.38 (1.14-1.66), p = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians did not explicitly inform surrogates about the option of comfort-oriented treatment in roughly half of clinician-family meetings. Physicians who more strongly believe that the appropriate goal of care is life prolongation are less likely to inform surrogates about the option of comfort care.
Authors: K E Covinsky; J D Fuller; K Yaffe; C B Johnston; M B Hamel; J Lynn; J M Teno; R S Phillips Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: K E Steinhauser; E C Clipp; M McNeilly; N A Christakis; L M McIntyre; J A Tulsky Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2000-05-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: E Azoulay; S Chevret; G Leleu; F Pochard; M Barboteu; C Adrie; P Canoui; J R Le Gall; B Schlemmer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Leslie P Scheunemann; Thomas V Cunningham; Robert M Arnold; Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk; Douglas B White Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Michael E Wilson; Lori M Rhudy; Beth A Ballinger; Ann N Tescher; Brian W Pickering; Ognjen Gajic Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Douglas B White; Catherine L Hough; Derek M Jones; Jeremy M Kahn; Maren K Olsen; Carmen L Lewis; Laura C Hanson; Shannon S Carson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alison E Turnbull; Jenna R Krall; A Parker Ruhl; J Randall Curtis; Scott D Halpern; Bryan M Lau; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Katherine R Courtright; Vanessa Madden; Nicole B Gabler; Elizabeth Cooney; Dylan S Small; Andrea Troxel; David Casarett; Mary Ersek; J Brian Cassel; Lauren Hersch Nicholas; Gabriel Escobar; Sarah H Hill; Dan O'Brien; Mark Vogel; Scott D Halpern Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-09