CONTEXT: Better clinician understanding of patients' end-of-life treatment preferences has the potential for reducing unwanted treatment, decreasing health care costs, and improving end-of-life care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate patient preferences for life-sustaining therapies, clinicians' accuracy in understanding those preferences, and predictors of patient preference and clinician error. METHODS: This was an observational study of 196 male veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who participated in a randomized trial. Measures included patients' preferences for mechanical ventilation (MV) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if needed in their current state of health, and outpatient clinicians' beliefs about those preferences. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 54% of participants in the trial who had complete patient/clinician data on treatment preferences. Patients were more receptive to CPR than MV (76% vs. 61%; P<0.001). Preferences for both treatments were significantly associated with the importance patients assigned to avoiding life-sustaining therapies during the final week of life (MV: b=-0.11, P<0.001; CPR: b=-0.09, P=0.001). When responses were dichotomized (would/would not want treatment), clinicians' perceptions matched patient preferences in 75% of CPR cases and 61% of MV cases. Clinician errors increased as patients preferred less aggressive treatment (MV: b=-0.28, P<0.001; CPR: b=-0.32, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinicians erred more often about patients' wishes when patients did not want treatment than when they wanted it. Treatment decisions based on clinicians' perceptions could result in costly and unwanted treatments. End-of-life care could benefit from increased clinician-patient discussion about end-of-life care, particularly if discussions included patient education about risks of treatment and allowed clinicians to form and maintain accurate impressions of patients' preferences.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Better clinician understanding of patients' end-of-life treatment preferences has the potential for reducing unwanted treatment, decreasing health care costs, and improving end-of-life care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate patient preferences for life-sustaining therapies, clinicians' accuracy in understanding those preferences, and predictors of patient preference and clinician error. METHODS: This was an observational study of 196 male veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who participated in a randomized trial. Measures included patients' preferences for mechanical ventilation (MV) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if needed in their current state of health, and outpatient clinicians' beliefs about those preferences. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 54% of participants in the trial who had complete patient/clinician data on treatment preferences. Patients were more receptive to CPR than MV (76% vs. 61%; P<0.001). Preferences for both treatments were significantly associated with the importance patients assigned to avoiding life-sustaining therapies during the final week of life (MV: b=-0.11, P<0.001; CPR: b=-0.09, P=0.001). When responses were dichotomized (would/would not want treatment), clinicians' perceptions matched patient preferences in 75% of CPR cases and 61% of MV cases. Clinician errors increased as patients preferred less aggressive treatment (MV: b=-0.28, P<0.001; CPR: b=-0.32, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinicians erred more often about patients' wishes when patients did not want treatment than when they wanted it. Treatment decisions based on clinicians' perceptions could result in costly and unwanted treatments. End-of-life care could benefit from increased clinician-patient discussion about end-of-life care, particularly if discussions included patient education about risks of treatment and allowed clinicians to form and maintain accurate impressions of patients' preferences.
Authors: M T Claessens; J Lynn; Z Zhong; N A Desbiens; R S Phillips; A W Wu; F E Harrell; A F Connors Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lynn F Reinke; Christopher G Slatore; Edmunds M Udris; Brianna R Moss; Eric A Johnson; David H Au Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: William J Ehlenbach; Amber E Barnato; J Randall Curtis; William Kreuter; Thomas D Koepsell; Richard A Deyo; Renee D Stapleton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Victor D Dinglas; Caroline M Chessare; Wesley E Davis; Ann Parker; Lisa Aronson Friedman; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Clifton O Bingham; Alison E Turnbull; Dale M Needham Journal: Thorax Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Matthew E Modes; Susan R Heckbert; Ruth A Engelberg; Elizabeth L Nielsen; J Randall Curtis; Erin K Kross Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Matthew E Modes; Ruth A Engelberg; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Lyndia C Brumback; Thanh H Neville; Anne M Walling; J Randall Curtis; Erin K Kross Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Peter May; Melissa M Garrido; J Brian Cassel; Amy S Kelley; Diane E Meier; Charles Normand; Lee Stefanis; Thomas J Smith; R Sean Morrison Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Aluem Tark; Leah V Estrada; Mary E Tresgallo; Denise D Quigley; Patricia W Stone; Mansi Agarwal Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Basil G Bereza; Anders Troelsgaard Nielsen; Sverrir Valgardsson; Michiel E H Hemels; Thomas R Einarson Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2015-04-08