Mara Buchbinder1, Elizabeth R Brassfield2, Manisha Mishra3,4. 1. Department of Social Medicine, Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. mara_buchbinder@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Philosophy and School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Center for Medicine, Health, and Society at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evolving legal landscape for medical aid-in-dying (AID) in the USA raises clinical and public health challenges and concerns regarding how health care providers will accommodate AID while expanding access to high-quality end-of-life care. OBJECTIVE: To describe Vermont health care providers' experiences practicing under the "Patient Choice and Control at End of Life" Act. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews analyzed using grounded theory. PARTICIPANTS: The larger study included 144 health care providers, terminally ill patients, caregivers, policy stakeholders, and other Vermont residents working in 10 out of Vermont's 14 counties. This article reports on a subset of 37 providers who had clinical experience with the law. MAIN MEASURES: Themes from interviews. KEY RESULTS: Physicians were roughly split between hospital and community-based practices. Most were women (68%) and the largest subgroup specialized in internal or family medicine (53%). Most of the nurses and social workers were women (89%) and most worked for hospice and home health agencies (61%). We identified five domains in which participants engaged with AID: (1) clinical communication and counseling; (2) the Act 39 protocol; (3) prescribing medication; (4) planning for death; and (5) professional education. How providers experienced these five domains of clinical practice depended on their practice setting and the supportive resources available. CONCLUSION: Health care providers' participation in AID involves clinical tasks outside of responding to patients' requests and writing prescriptions. Research to identify best practices should focus on all domains of clinical practice in order to best prepare providers.
BACKGROUND: The evolving legal landscape for medical aid-in-dying (AID) in the USA raises clinical and public health challenges and concerns regarding how health care providers will accommodate AID while expanding access to high-quality end-of-life care. OBJECTIVE: To describe Vermont health care providers' experiences practicing under the "Patient Choice and Control at End of Life" Act. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews analyzed using grounded theory. PARTICIPANTS: The larger study included 144 health care providers, terminally ill patients, caregivers, policy stakeholders, and other Vermont residents working in 10 out of Vermont's 14 counties. This article reports on a subset of 37 providers who had clinical experience with the law. MAIN MEASURES: Themes from interviews. KEY RESULTS: Physicians were roughly split between hospital and community-based practices. Most were women (68%) and the largest subgroup specialized in internal or family medicine (53%). Most of the nurses and social workers were women (89%) and most worked for hospice and home health agencies (61%). We identified five domains in which participants engaged with AID: (1) clinical communication and counseling; (2) the Act 39 protocol; (3) prescribing medication; (4) planning for death; and (5) professional education. How providers experienced these five domains of clinical practice depended on their practice setting and the supportive resources available. CONCLUSION: Health care providers' participation in AID involves clinical tasks outside of responding to patients' requests and writing prescriptions. Research to identify best practices should focus on all domains of clinical practice in order to best prepare providers.
Entities:
Keywords:
end-of-life care; ethics; health policy; medical aid-in-dying; qualitative research
Authors: Lois L Miller; Theresa A Harvath; Linda Ganzini; Elizabeth R Goy; Molly A Delorit; Ann Jackson Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Helene Starks; Moreen Shannon-Dudley; Anthony L Back; Frederick R Appelbaum; F Marc Stewart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eric G Campbell; Vinay Kini; Julie Ressalam; Bridget S Mosley; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Hillary D Lum; Elizabeth R Kessler; Matthew DeCamp Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Linda Watson; Claire Link; Siwei Qi; Andrea DeIure; K Brooke Russell; Fiona Schulte; Caitlin Forbes; James Silvius; Brian Kelly; Barry D Bultz Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.677