Daren K Heyland1,2,3, Rebecca Heyland3, Peter Dodek4, John J You5, Tasnim Sinuff6,7, Tim Hiebert8, Xuran Jiang3, Andrew G Day3. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 3. Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 4. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences and Division of Critical Care Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Departments of Medicine, and of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Hospital and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Palliative Care Program, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical orders for the use of life-supports should be informed by patients' values and treatment preferences. The purpose of this study was to explore the internal consistency of patients' (or their family members') stated values, and the relationship between these values and expressed preferences. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study in 12 acute care hospitals in Canada. We administered a questionnaire to elderly patients and their family members about their values related to end-of-life (EOL) care, treatment preferences and decisional conflict. RESULTS: Of 513 patients and 366 family members approached, 278 patients (54%) and 225 family members (61%) consented to participate. Participants' most important stated values were to be comfortable and suffer as little as possible, to have more time with family, to avoid being attached to machines and tubes and that death not be prolonged. The least important stated value was that life be preserved. Based on prespecified expected associations between the various values measured, there were inconsistencies in participants' expressed value statements. With few exceptions, participants' expressed values were not associated with expected corresponding treatment preferences. Of the 109 (40%) patients and 95 (42%) family members who had made decisions about use of life-supports, 68 (56%) patients and 60 (59%) family members had decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making regarding medical treatments at the EOL is inadequate. To reduce decisional conflict, patients and their families need more support to clarify their values and ensure that their preferences are grounded in adequate understanding of their illness and treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01362855. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Medical orders for the use of life-supports should be informed by patients' values and treatment preferences. The purpose of this study was to explore the internal consistency of patients' (or their family members') stated values, and the relationship between these values and expressed preferences. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study in 12 acute care hospitals in Canada. We administered a questionnaire to elderly patients and their family members about their values related to end-of-life (EOL) care, treatment preferences and decisional conflict. RESULTS: Of 513 patients and 366 family members approached, 278 patients (54%) and 225 family members (61%) consented to participate. Participants' most important stated values were to be comfortable and suffer as little as possible, to have more time with family, to avoid being attached to machines and tubes and that death not be prolonged. The least important stated value was that life be preserved. Based on prespecified expected associations between the various values measured, there were inconsistencies in participants' expressed value statements. With few exceptions, participants' expressed values were not associated with expected corresponding treatment preferences. Of the 109 (40%) patients and 95 (42%) family members who had made decisions about use of life-supports, 68 (56%) patients and 60 (59%) family members had decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making regarding medical treatments at the EOL is inadequate. To reduce decisional conflict, patients and their families need more support to clarify their values and ensure that their preferences are grounded in adequate understanding of their illness and treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01362855. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical decisions; Communication; Ethics; Hospital care
Authors: Andrew S Epstein; Anjali V Desai; Camila Bernal; Danielle Romano; Peter J Wan; Molly Okpako; Kelly Anderson; Kimberly Chow; Dana Kramer; Claudia Calderon; Virginia V Klimek; Robin Rawlins-Duell; Diane L Reidy; Jessica I Goldberg; Elizabeth Cruz; Judith E Nelson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Daniel David; Deborah E Barnes; Ryan D McMahan; Ying Shi; Mary T Katen; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Rebecca L Sudore; Daren K Heyland; Hillary D Lum; Judith A C Rietjens; Ida J Korfage; Christine S Ritchie; Laura C Hanson; Diane E Meier; Steven Z Pantilat; Karl Lorenz; Michelle Howard; Michael J Green; Jessica E Simon; Mariko A Feuz; John J You Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Chetna Malhotra; Meibo Hu; Rahul Malhotra; David Sim; Fazlur Rehman Jaufeerally; Filipinas G Bundoc; Eric A Finkelstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lauren T Starr; Connie M Ulrich; Paul Junker; Liming Huang; Nina R O'Connor; Salimah H Meghani Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 2.500