Wendy G Anderson1, Jenica W Cimino, Bernard Lo. 1. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA; Palliative Care Program, University of California, San Francisco, USA; Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA. Electronic address: Wendy.Anderson@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe seriously ill patients' perspectives on expert-endorsed approaches for hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) discussions. METHODS: We created two videos depicting a hospital doctor discussing CPR with a seriously ill patient. One depicted a values-based approach with a doctor's recommendation, and one an information-focused approach without a recommendation. During semi-structured interviews, 20 seriously ill hospitalized patients viewed and commented on both videos. We conducted a thematic analysis to describe benefits and harms of specific discussion components. RESULTS: Half of participants reported no preference between the videos; 35% preferred the information-focused, and 15% the values-based. Participants' reactions to the discussion components varied. They identified both benefits and harms with components in both videos, though most felt comfortable with all components (range, 60-65%) except for the doctor's recommendation in the values-based video. Only 40% would feel comfortable receiving a recommendation, while 65% would feel comfortable with the doctor eliciting their CPR preference as in the information-focused video, p=0.03. CONCLUSION: Participants' reactions to expert-endorsed discussion components varied. Most would feel uncomfortable receiving a doctor's recommendation about CPR. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Participants' varied reactions suggest the need to tailor CPR discussions to individual patients. Many patients may find doctor's recommendations to be problematic.
OBJECTIVE: To describe seriously ill patients' perspectives on expert-endorsed approaches for hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) discussions. METHODS: We created two videos depicting a hospital doctor discussing CPR with a seriously ill patient. One depicted a values-based approach with a doctor's recommendation, and one an information-focused approach without a recommendation. During semi-structured interviews, 20 seriously ill hospitalized patients viewed and commented on both videos. We conducted a thematic analysis to describe benefits and harms of specific discussion components. RESULTS: Half of participants reported no preference between the videos; 35% preferred the information-focused, and 15% the values-based. Participants' reactions to the discussion components varied. They identified both benefits and harms with components in both videos, though most felt comfortable with all components (range, 60-65%) except for the doctor's recommendation in the values-based video. Only 40% would feel comfortable receiving a recommendation, while 65% would feel comfortable with the doctor eliciting their CPR preference as in the information-focused video, p=0.03. CONCLUSION:Participants' reactions to expert-endorsed discussion components varied. Most would feel uncomfortable receiving a doctor's recommendation about CPR. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Participants' varied reactions suggest the need to tailor CPR discussions to individual patients. Many patients may find doctor's recommendations to be problematic.
Authors: Lindsay A Dow; Robin K Matsuyama; V Ramakrishnan; Laura Kuhn; Elizabeth B Lamont; Laurel Lyckholm; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anthony L Back; Wendy G Anderson; Lynn Bunch; Lisa A Marr; James A Wallace; Holly B Yang; Robert M Arnold Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860