Ramona L Rhodes1, Kate Tindall2, Lei Xuan3, M Elizabeth Paulk4, Ethan A Halm5. 1. Division of Geriatrics, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA ramona.rhodes@UTSouthwestern.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 5. Division of Outcomes and Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing awareness about the importance of discussing end-of-life (EOL) care options with terminally ill patients and families, many physicians remain uncomfortable with these discussions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine perceptions of and comfort with EOL care discussions among a group of internal medicine residents and the extent to which comfort with these discussions has improved over time. METHODS: In 2013, internal medicine residents at a large academic medical center were asked to participate in an on-line survey that assessed their attitudes and experiences with discussing EOL care with terminally-ill patients. These results were compared to data from a similar survey residents in the same program completed in 2006. RESULTS: Eighty-three (50%) residents completed the 2013 survey. About half (52%) felt strongly that they were able to have open, honest discussions with patients and families, while 71% felt conflicted about whether CPR was in the patient's best interest. About half (53%) felt strongly that it was okay for them to tell a patient/family member whether or not CPR was a good idea for them. Compared to 2006 respondents, the 2013 cohort felt they had more lectures about EOL communication, and had watched an attending have an EOL discussion more often. CONCLUSIONS: Modest improvements were made over time in trainees' exposure to EOL discussions; however, many residents remain uncomfortable and conflicted with having EOL care discussions with their patients. More effective training approaches in EOL communication are needed to train the next generation of internists.
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing awareness about the importance of discussing end-of-life (EOL) care options with terminally ill patients and families, many physicians remain uncomfortable with these discussions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine perceptions of and comfort with EOL care discussions among a group of internal medicine residents and the extent to which comfort with these discussions has improved over time. METHODS: In 2013, internal medicine residents at a large academic medical center were asked to participate in an on-line survey that assessed their attitudes and experiences with discussing EOL care with terminally-ill patients. These results were compared to data from a similar survey residents in the same program completed in 2006. RESULTS: Eighty-three (50%) residents completed the 2013 survey. About half (52%) felt strongly that they were able to have open, honest discussions with patients and families, while 71% felt conflicted about whether CPR was in the patient's best interest. About half (53%) felt strongly that it was okay for them to tell a patient/family member whether or not CPR was a good idea for them. Compared to 2006 respondents, the 2013 cohort felt they had more lectures about EOL communication, and had watched an attending have an EOL discussion more often. CONCLUSIONS: Modest improvements were made over time in trainees' exposure to EOL discussions; however, many residents remain uncomfortable and conflicted with having EOL care discussions with their patients. More effective training approaches in EOL communication are needed to train the next generation of internists.
Authors: David E Weissman; Bruce Ambuel; Charles F von Gunten; Susan Block; Eric Warm; James Hallenbeck; Robert Milch; Karen Brasel; Patricia B Mullan Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Andrea Gruneir; Vincent Mor; Sherry Weitzen; Rachael Truchil; Joan Teno; Jason Roy Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Catherine M Burns; Dorothy H Broom; Wayne T Smith; Keith Dear; Paul S Craft Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-09-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: C F von Gunten; J H Von Roenn; K Johnson-Neely; J Martinez; S Weitzman Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 1995 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Ramona L Rhodes; Sabiha Kazi; Lei Xuan; Ruben Amarasingham; Ethan A Halm Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Meira Erel; Esther-Lee Marcus; Samuel N Heyman; Freda DeKeyser Ganz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.614