PURPOSE: To study the relationship of patient incompetence to decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This prospective cohort study consisted of 311 inpatients with end-stage congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and cirrhosis. METHODS: Daily assessments were used to classify patients as incompetent if they had depressed consciousness, major psychiatric disease, or cognitive impairment throughout their hospital stay. Treatment decisions were assessed by observation and medical record review. RESULTS: Forty-eight (15%) patients were incompetent: 33 had depressed consciousness, 11 failed cognitive screens, and 4 had major psychoses. Incompetent patients were more severely ill (APACHE II score 14.9 versus 12.6, P < or = 0.05) and more commonly had cancer (73% versus 44%, P < or = 0.05). Decisions were made to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for 71% of incompetent patients, but for only 21% of competent patients (P < or = 0.001). Decisions to withhold other treatments were also more common for incompetent patients (42% versus 16%, P < or = 0.001). After controlling for differences in severity of illness, diagnosis, race, and insurance status, patient incompetence remained strongly associated with a decision to withhold CPR (odds ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 8.9) and with decisions to withhold other treatments (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 5.3). Decisions for incompetent patients were made by physicians with family surrogates 79% of the time. No decision was based on a written advanced directive. Patient preference was the rationale for 41% of decisions to withhold CPR from incompetent patients. Major conflict occurred in only 1% of all cases where a decision was made to withhold treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite current legal and ethical debate, incompetent patients are far more likely than competent patients to have life-sustaining treatment withheld. Most decisions are made by a consensus of physicians and family surrogates, and major conflicts rarely occur.
PURPOSE: To study the relationship of patient incompetence to decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This prospective cohort study consisted of 311 inpatients with end-stage congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and cirrhosis. METHODS: Daily assessments were used to classify patients as incompetent if they had depressed consciousness, major psychiatric disease, or cognitive impairment throughout their hospital stay. Treatment decisions were assessed by observation and medical record review. RESULTS: Forty-eight (15%) patients were incompetent: 33 had depressed consciousness, 11 failed cognitive screens, and 4 had major psychoses. Incompetent patients were more severely ill (APACHE II score 14.9 versus 12.6, P < or = 0.05) and more commonly had cancer (73% versus 44%, P < or = 0.05). Decisions were made to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for 71% of incompetent patients, but for only 21% of competent patients (P < or = 0.001). Decisions to withhold other treatments were also more common for incompetent patients (42% versus 16%, P < or = 0.001). After controlling for differences in severity of illness, diagnosis, race, and insurance status, patient incompetence remained strongly associated with a decision to withhold CPR (odds ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 8.9) and with decisions to withhold other treatments (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 5.3). Decisions for incompetent patients were made by physicians with family surrogates 79% of the time. No decision was based on a written advanced directive. Patient preference was the rationale for 41% of decisions to withhold CPR from incompetent patients. Major conflict occurred in only 1% of all cases where a decision was made to withhold treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite current legal and ethical debate, incompetent patients are far more likely than competent patients to have life-sustaining treatment withheld. Most decisions are made by a consensus of physicians and family surrogates, and major conflicts rarely occur.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship
Authors: David Rodríguez-Arias; Grégoire Moutel; Mark P Aulisio; Alexandra Salfati; Jean-Christophe Coffin; J L Rodríguez-Arias; L Calvo; Christian Hervé Journal: Clin Ethics Date: 2007-09
Authors: Derek W Braverman; Brian S Marcus; Paul G Wakim; Mark R Mercurio; Gary S Kopf Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Xin Gao; Holly G Prigerson; Eli L Diamond; Baohui Zhang; Alexi A Wright; Fremonta Meyer; Paul K Maciejewski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Christopher Frank; Daren K Heyland; Benjamin Chen; Donald Farquhar; Kathryn Myers; Ken Iwaasa Journal: CMAJ Date: 2003-10-14 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: David Epstein; Jennifer B Unger; Beatriz Ornelas; Jennifer C Chang; Barry P Markovitz; David Y Moromisato; Peter M Dodek; Daren K Heyland; Jeffrey I Gold Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.624