BACKGROUND: End-of-life discussions are associated with decreased use of life-sustaining treatments in patients dying of cancer in the outpatient setting, but little is known about discussions that take place during terminal hospitalizations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients assessed by the clinical team to have decisional capacity on admission, how many of these patients participated or had a surrogate participate in a discussion about end-of-life care, and whether patient participation was associated with treatments received. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Inpatient. PATIENTS: Adult patients with advanced cancer who died in the hospital between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007. RESULTS: Of the 145 inpatients meeting inclusion criteria, 115 patients (79%) were documented to have decisional capacity on admission. Among these patients, 46 (40%) were documented to lose decisional capacity prior to an end-of-life discussion and had the discussion held instead by a surrogate. Patients who had surrogate participation in the end-of-life discussions were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (56.5% vs 23.2%, P < 0.01), artificial nutrition (45.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.03), chemotherapy (39.1% vs 5.4%, P <0.01), and intensive care unit (ICU) treatment (56.5% vs 23.2%, P <0.01) compared to patients who participated in discussions. There was no difference between palliative treatments received. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with advanced cancer are considered to have decisional capacity at the time of their terminal hospitalization. Many lose decisional capacity before having an end-of-life discussion and have surrogate decision-makers participate in these discussions. These patients received more aggressive life-sustaining treatments prior to death and represent a missed opportunity to improve end-of-life care.
BACKGROUND: End-of-life discussions are associated with decreased use of life-sustaining treatments in patients dying of cancer in the outpatient setting, but little is known about discussions that take place during terminal hospitalizations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients assessed by the clinical team to have decisional capacity on admission, how many of these patients participated or had a surrogate participate in a discussion about end-of-life care, and whether patient participation was associated with treatments received. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Inpatient. PATIENTS: Adult patients with advanced cancer who died in the hospital between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007. RESULTS: Of the 145 inpatients meeting inclusion criteria, 115 patients (79%) were documented to have decisional capacity on admission. Among these patients, 46 (40%) were documented to lose decisional capacity prior to an end-of-life discussion and had the discussion held instead by a surrogate. Patients who had surrogate participation in the end-of-life discussions were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (56.5% vs 23.2%, P < 0.01), artificial nutrition (45.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.03), chemotherapy (39.1% vs 5.4%, P <0.01), and intensive care unit (ICU) treatment (56.5% vs 23.2%, P <0.01) compared to patients who participated in discussions. There was no difference between palliative treatments received. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with advanced cancer are considered to have decisional capacity at the time of their terminal hospitalization. Many lose decisional capacity before having an end-of-life discussion and have surrogate decision-makers participate in these discussions. These patients received more aggressive life-sustaining treatments prior to death and represent a missed opportunity to improve end-of-life care.
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: J Lynn; J M Teno; R S Phillips; A W Wu; N Desbiens; J Harrold; M T Claessens; N Wenger; B Kreling; A F Connors Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1997-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vanessa Raymont; William Bingley; Alec Buchanan; Anthony S David; Peter Hayward; Simon Wessely; Matthew Hotopf Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Oct 16-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Derek C Angus; Amber E Barnato; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Lisa A Weissfeld; R Scott Watson; Tim Rickert; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joan M Teno; Brian R Clarridge; Virginia Casey; Lisa C Welch; Terrie Wetle; Renee Shield; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Daniel P Sulmasy; Mark T Hughes; Gayane Yenokyan; Joan Kub; Peter B Terry; Alan B Astrow; Julie A Johnson; Grace Ho; Marie T Nolan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Ann C Long; Erin K Kross; Ruth A Engelberg; Lois Downey; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Anthony L Back; J Randall Curtis Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mellar P Davis; Erin A Vanenkevort; Alexander Elder; Amanda Young; Irina D Correa Ordonez; Mark J Wojtowicz; Halle Ellison; Carlos Fernandez; Zankhana Mehta; Bertrand Behm; Glen Digwood; Rajiv Panikkar Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alaina J Brown; Charlotte C Sun; Lauren S Prescott; Jolyn S Taylor; Lois M Ramondetta; Diane C Bodurka Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Shelley A Johns; Kathleen Beck-Coon; Patrick V Stutz; Tasneem L Talib; Kelly Chinh; Ann H Cottingham; Karen Schmidt; Cleveland Shields; Madison E Stout; Timothy E Stump; Patrick O Monahan; Alexia M Torke; Paul R Helft Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2019-08-04 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Paul R Duberstein; Michael Chen; Michael Hoerger; Ronald M Epstein; Laura M Perry; Sule Yilmaz; Fahad Saeed; Supriya G Mohile; Sally A Norton Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 3.612