Dataset Information

Opportunity lost: end-of-life discussions in cancer patients who die in the hospital.

ABSTRACT: End-of-life discussions are associated with decreased use of life-sustaining treatments in patients dying of cancer in the outpatient setting, but little is known about discussions that take place during terminal hospitalizations.To determine the proportion of patients assessed by the clinical team to have decisional capacity on admission, how many of these patients participated or had a surrogate participate in a discussion about end-of-life care, and whether patient participation was associated with treatments received.Retrospective review.Inpatient.Adult patients with advanced cancer who died in the hospital between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007.Of the 145 inpatients meeting inclusion criteria, 115 patients (79%) were documented to have decisional capacity on admission. Among these patients, 46 (40%) were documented to lose decisional capacity prior to an end-of-life discussion and had the discussion held instead by a surrogate. Patients who had surrogate participation in the end-of-life discussions were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (56.5% vs 23.2%, P < 0.01), artificial nutrition (45.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.03), chemotherapy (39.1% vs 5.4%, P <0.01), and intensive care unit (ICU) treatment (56.5% vs 23.2%, P <0.01) compared to patients who participated in discussions. There was no difference between palliative treatments received.The majority of patients with advanced cancer are considered to have decisional capacity at the time of their terminal hospitalization. Many lose decisional capacity before having an end-of-life discussion and have surrogate decision-makers participate in these discussions. These patients received more aggressive life-sustaining treatments prior to death and represent a missed opportunity to improve end-of-life care.

SUBMITTER: Zaros MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4146526 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Opportunity lost: end-of-life discussions in cancer patients who die in the hospital.

Zaros Mark C MC Curtis J Randall JR Silveira Maria J MJ Elmore Joann G JG

Journal of hospital medicine 20121120 6

<h4>Background</h4>End-of-life discussions are associated with decreased use of life-sustaining treatments in patients dying of cancer in the outpatient setting, but little is known about discussions that take place during terminal hospitalizations.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the proportion of patients assessed by the clinical team to have decisional capacity on admission, how many of these patients participated or had a surrogate participate in a discussion about end-of-life care, and wheth ...[more]

PMID: 23169553

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:Hospitals vary substantially in their end-of-life (EOL) treatment intensity. It is unknown if patterns of EOL treatment intensity are consistent across conditions.To explore the relationship between hospitals' cancer- and non-cancer-specific EOL treatment intensity.We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of Pennsylvania acute care hospital admissions for either cancer or congestive heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) between 2001 and 2007, linked to vital statistics through 2008. We calculated Bayes's shrunken case-mix standardized (observed-to-expected) ratios of intensive care and life-sustaining treatment use among two EOL cohorts: those prospectively identified at high probability of dying on admission and those retrospectively identified as terminal admissions (decedents). We then summed these to create a hospital-specific prospective and retrospective overall EOL treatment intensity index for cancer vs. CHF/COPD.The sample included 207,523 admissions with 15% or greater predicted probability of dying on admission among 172,041 unique adults and 120,372 terminal admissions at 166 hospitals; these two cohorts overlapped by 52,986 admissions. There was substantial variation between hospitals in their standardized EOL treatment intensity ratios among cancer and CHF/COPD admissions. Within hospitals, cancer- and CHF/COPD-specific standardized EOL treatment intensity ratios were highly correlated for intensive care unit (ICU) admission (prospective ? = 0.81; retrospective ? = 0.78), ICU lengths of stay (? = 0.76; 0.64), mechanical ventilation (? = 0.73; 0.73), and hemodialysis (? = 0.60; 0.71) and less highly correlated for tracheostomy (? = 0.43; 0.53) and gastrostomy (? = 0.29; 0.30). Hospitals' overall EOL intensity index for cancer and CHF admissions were correlated (prospective ? = 0.75; retrospective ? = 0.75) and had equal group means (P-value = 0.631; 0.699).Despite substantial difference between hospitals in EOL treatment intensity, within-hospital homogeneity in EOL treatment intensity for cancer- and non-cancer populations suggests the existence of condition-insensitive institutional norms of EOL treatment.

Dataset Information

Opportunity lost: end-of-life discussions in cancer patients who die in the hospital.

Publications

Opportunity lost: end-of-life discussions in cancer patients who die in the hospital.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets