Dataset Information

Physician factors associated with discussions about end-of-life care.

ABSTRACT: Guidelines recommend advanced care planning for terminally ill patients with <1 year to live. Few data are available regarding when physicians and their terminally ill patients typically discuss end-of-life issues.A national survey was conducted of physicians caring for cancer patients about timing of discussions regarding prognosis, do not resuscitate (DNR) status, hospice, and preferred site of death with their terminally ill patients. Logistic regression was used to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with earlier discussions.Among 4074 respondents, 65% would discuss prognosis "now" (defined as patient has 4 months to 6 months to live, asymptomatic). Fewer would discuss DNR status (44%), hospice (26%), or preferred site of death (21%) immediately, with most physicians waiting for patient symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. In multivariate analyses, younger physicians more often discussed prognosis, DNR status, hospice, and site of death "now" (all P < .05). Surgeons and oncologists were more likely than noncancer specialists to discuss prognosis "now" (P = .008), but noncancer specialists were more likely than cancer specialists to discuss DNR status, hospice, and preferred site of death "now" (all P < .001).Most physicians report they would not discuss end-of-life options with terminally ill patients who are feeling well, instead waiting for symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. More research is needed to understand physicians' reasons for timing of discussions and how their propensity to aggressively treat metastatic disease influences timing, as well as how the timing of discussions influences patient and family experiences at the end of life.

SUBMITTER: Keating NL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2819541 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physician factors associated with discussions about end-of-life care.

Keating Nancy L NL Landrum Mary Beth MB Rogers Selwyn O SO Baum Susan K SK Virnig Beth A BA Huskamp Haiden A HA Earle Craig C CC Kahn Katherine L KL

Cancer 20100201 4

<h4>Background</h4>Guidelines recommend advanced care planning for terminally ill patients with <1 year to live. Few data are available regarding when physicians and their terminally ill patients typically discuss end-of-life issues.<h4>Methods</h4>A national survey was conducted of physicians caring for cancer patients about timing of discussions regarding prognosis, do not resuscitate (DNR) status, hospice, and preferred site of death with their terminally ill patients. Logistic regression was ...[more]

PMID: 20066693

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnd-of-life discussions (EOLds) occur infrequently until cancer patients become terminally ill.MethodsTo identify factors associated with the timing of EOLds, we conducted a nationwide survey of 864 medical oncologists. We surveyed the timing of EOLds held with advanced cancer patients regarding prognosis, hospice, site of death, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; and we surveyed physicians' experience of EOLds, perceptions of a good death, and beliefs regarding these issues. Multivariate analyses identified determinants of early discussions.ResultsAmong 490 physicians (response rate: 57%), 165 (34%), 65 (14%), 47 (9.8%), and 20 (4.2%) would discuss prognosis, hospice, site of death, and DNR status, respectively, "now" (i.e., at diagnosis) with a hypothetical patient with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer. In multivariate analyses, determinants of discussing prognosis "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of autonomy in experiencing a good death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34; p = .014), less perceived difficulty estimating the prognosis (OR: 0.77; p = .012), and being a hematologist (OR: 1.68; p = .016). Determinants of discussing hospice "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.58; p = .018), less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.67; p = .002), and no responsibility as treating physician at end of life (OR: 1.94; p = .031). Determinants of discussing site of death "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.83; p = .008) and less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.74; p = .034). The determinant of discussing DNR status "now" was less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.49; p = .003).ConclusionReflection by oncologists on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death is helpful for oncologists to perform appropriate EOLds.Implications for practiceOncologists' own perceptions about what is important for a "good death," perceived difficulty in estimating the prognosis, and discomfort in talking about death influence their attitudes toward end-of-life discussions. Reflection on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death are important for improving oncologists' skills in facilitating end-of-life discussions.

Project description:CONTEXT:Although patient and physician characteristics are thought to be predictive of discretionary interventions at the end of life (EoL), few studies have data on both parties. OBJECTIVE:To test the hypothesis that patient preferences and physician attitudes are both independently associated with discretionary interventions at the EoL. METHODS:We report secondary analyses of data collected prospectively from physicians (n = 38) and patients with advanced cancer (n = 265) in the Values and Options in Cancer Care study. Predictor variables were patient attitudes toward EoL care and physician-reported comfort with medical paternalism, assessed indirectly using a modified version of the Control Preference Scale. We explored whether the magnitude of the physician variable was influenced by the inclusion of particular patient treatment-preference variables (i.e., effect modification). Outcomes were a chemotherapy use score (?14 days before death [scored 2], 15-31 days before death [scored 1], and >31 days [scored 0]) and an emergency department visit/inpatient admission score (two or more admissions in the last 31 days [scored 2], one admission [1], and 0 admissions [0]) in the last month of life. RESULTS:Chemotherapy scores were nearly 0.25 points higher if patients expressed a preference for experimental treatments with unknown benefit at study entry (0.238 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.429) or reported an unfavorable attitude toward palliative care (0.247 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.450). A two-standard deviation difference in physician comfort with medical paternalism corresponded to standardized effects of 0.35 (95% CI = 0.03-0.66) for chemotherapy and 0.33 (95% CI = 0.04-0.61) for emergency department visits/inpatient admissions. There was no evidence of effect modification. CONCLUSION:Patient treatment preferences and physician attitudes are independently associated with higher levels of treatment intensity before death. Greater research, clinical, and policy attention to patient treatment preferences and physician comfort with medical paternalism might lead to improvements in care of patients with advanced disease.

Project description:BackgroundPatient participation is a key foundation of advance care planning (ACP). However, a patient himself/herself may be left out from sensitive conversations such as end-of-life (EOL) care discussions. The objectives of this study were to investigate patients' participation rate in the discussion of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) / Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation (DNAR) order, and in the discussion that the patient is at his/her EOL stage (EOL disclosure), and to explore their associated factors.MethodsThis is a retrospective chart review study. The participants were all the patients who were hospitalized and died in a university-affiliated teaching hospital (tertiary medical facility) in central Tokyo, Japan during the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The following patients were excluded: (1) cardiopulmonary arrest on arrival; (2) stillbirth; (3) under 18 years old at the time of death; and (4) refusal by their bereaved family. Presence or absence of CPR/DNAR discussion and EOL disclosure, patients' involvement in those discussions, and their associated factors were investigated.ResultsCPR/DNAR discussions were observed in 336 out of the 358 patients (93.9%). However, 224 of these discussions were carried out without a patient (patient participation rate 33.3%). Male gender (odds ratio (OR) = 2.37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-4.25]), living alone (OR = 2.51 [1.34-4.71]), and 1 year or more from the date of diagnosis (OR = 1.78 [1.03-3.10]) were associated with higher patient's participation in CPR/DNAR discussions. The EOL disclosure was observed in 341 out of the 358 patients (95.3%). However, 170 of the discussions were carried out without the patient (patient participation rate 50.1%). Patients who died of cancer (OR = 2.41[1.45-4.03]) and patients without mental illness (OR=2.41 [1.11-5.25]) were more likely to participate in EOL disclosure.ConclusionsIn this clinical sample, only up to half of the patients participated in CPR/DNAR discussions and EOL disclosure. Female, living with family, a shorter period from the diagnosis, non-cancer, and mental illness presence are risk factors for lack of patients' participation in CPR/DNAR or EOL discussions. Further attempts to facilitate patients' participation, based on their preference, are warranted.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The quality of patient-physician discussions about chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care has not been studied previously. STUDY DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS:We audiotaped encounters between 236 patients with hypertension and their primary care physicians (n = 40). PREDICTORS:Patient, physician, and encounter characteristics. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS:We described the occurrence and characteristics (content, use of technical terms, and physician assessment of patient comprehension of new concepts) of CKD discussions. We assessed patient and physician characteristics associated with CKD discussion occurrence. RESULTS:Many patients (mean age, 59 years) had uncontrolled hypertension (51%), diabetes (44%), and/or 3 or more comorbid conditions (51%). Most primary care physicians practiced (52%) fewer than 10 years. CKD discussions occurred in few (26%; n = 61) encounters, with content focused on laboratory assessment (89%), risk-factor treatment (28%), and causes (26%) of CKD. In encounters that included a CKD discussion, physicians used technical terms (28%; n = 17) and rarely assessed patients' comprehension (2%; n = 1). CKD discussions were statistically significantly less common in visits of patients with some (vs no) college education (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56), with 3 or more (vs fewer) comorbid conditions (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96), and who saw physicians with more (vs fewer) than 10 years of practice experience (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.80). CKD discussions were more common during longer encounters (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.65) and encounters in which diabetes was (vs was not) discussed (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.77). LIMITATIONS:Generalizability of our findings may be limited. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-physician discussions about CKD in high-risk primary care patients were infrequent. Physicians used technical terms and infrequently assessed patients' understanding of new CKD concepts. Efforts to improve the frequency and content of patient-physician CKD discussions in primary care could improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Dataset Information

Physician factors associated with discussions about end-of-life care.

Publications

Physician factors associated with discussions about end-of-life care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets