Dataset Information

Medical communication and decision-making about assisted hydration in the last days of life: A qualitative study of doctors experienced with end of life care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The impact of assisted hydration on symptoms and survival at the end of life is unclear. Little is known about optimal strategies for communicating and decision-making about this ethically complex topic. Hydration near end of life is known to be an important topic for family members, but conversations about assisted hydration occur infrequently despite guidance suggesting these should occur with all dying people.

Aim

To explore the views and experiences of doctors experienced in end-of-life care regarding communicating with patients and families and making decisions about assisted hydration at the end of life.

Design

Qualitative study involving framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews.

Setting/participants

Sixteen UK-based Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine doctors were recruited from hospitals, hospices and community services from October 2019 to October 2020.

Results

Participants reported clinical, practical and ethical challenges associated with this topic. The hospital setting provides barriers to high-quality communication with dying patients and their families about assisted hydration, which may contribute to the low incidence of documented assisted hydration-related conversations. Workplace culture in some hospices may make truly individualised decision-making about this topic more difficult. Lack of inclusion of patients in decision-making about assisted hydration appears to be common practice.

Conclusions

Proactive, routine discussion with dying people about hydration-related issues is indicated in all cases. There is room for debate regarding the limits of shared decision-making and the benefits of routine discussion of assisted hydration with all dying people. Clinicians have to navigate multiple barriers as they strive to provide individualised care.

SUBMITTER: Kingdon A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9248002 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with serious illness, and their families, state that better communication and decision-making with healthcare providers is a high priority to improve the quality of end-of-life care. Numerous communication tools to assist patients, family members, and clinicians in end-of-life decision-making have been published, but their effectiveness remains unclear.ObjectivesTo determine, amongst adults in ambulatory care settings, the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making on completion of advance care planning.MethodsWe searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized intervention studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each of the primary and secondary outcomes.ResultsSixty-seven studies, including 46 RCTs, were found. The majority evaluated communication tools in older patients (age >50) with no specific medical condition, but many specifically evaluated populations with cancer, lung, heart, neurologic, or renal disease. Most studies compared the use of communication tools against usual care, but several compared the tools to less-intensive advance care planning tools. The use of structured communication tools increased: the frequency of advance care planning discussions/discussions about advance directives (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.25-4.26, p = 0.007, low quality evidence) and the completion of advance directives (ADs) (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.43-2.59, p<0.001, low quality evidence); concordance between AD preferences and subsequent medical orders for use or non-use of life supporting treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.39, p = 0.028, very low quality evidence, 1 observational study); and concordance between the care desired and care received by patients (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p = 0.004, low quality evidence, 2 RCTs).ConclusionsThe use of structured communication tools may increase the frequency of discussions about and completion of advance directives, and concordance between the care desired and the care received by patients. The use of structured communication tools rather than an ad-hoc approach to end-of-life decision-making should be considered, and the selection and implementation of such tools should be tailored to address local needs and context.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42014012913.

Project description:The provision of clinically assisted hydration at the end of life is one of the most contentious issues in medicine, and indeed within the general population. The reasons for contention include: a) the lack of evidence for or against; b) the disparate opinions of healthcare professionals; and c) the generally positive opinions of patients and their carers about clinically assisted hydration.The study is a cluster randomised trial to assess the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered, randomised controlled trial of clinically assisted hydration in patients with cancer in the last days of life. Twelve sites, four National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and eight NHS/voluntary sector hospices in the United Kingdom, will be randomised to give either standard intervention A: continuance of oral intake and regular mouth care, or standard intervention B: continuance of oral intake, regular mouth care and clinically assisted hydration. Patients will be included if they: i) have a diagnosis of cancer; ii) are aged ? 18 yr; iii) have an estimated prognosis of ? 1 week and iv) are unable to maintain sufficient oral intake (1 L per day, measured/estimated); and v) are able to give informed consent. Patients will be excluded if they have contra-indications to receiving clinically assisted hydration. The primary endpoint of interest is the frequency of hyperactive delirium ('terminal agitation'), and this will be assessed using the Modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (administered every four hours). Other data to be collected include the frequency of pain, respiratory secretions ('death rattle'), dyspnoea, nausea and vomiting, adverse effects to clinically assisted hydration and overall survival. In addition, data will be collected on the use of anti-psychotic drugs, sedative drugs, analgesics, anti-secretory drugs and other end-of-life medication. The study has obtained full ethical approval.A randomised controlled trial of clinically assisted hydration in end-of-life care is urgently required. This feasibility study will allow methodological and ethical issues to be understood and addressed to ensure that a robust, adequately powered, randomised controlled trial is designed.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02344927 (registered 4 June 2014).

Project description:BackgroundEnd-stage renal disease carries a prognosis similar to cancer yet only 20 % of end-stage renal disease patients are referred to hospice. Furthermore, conversations between dialysis team members and patients about end-of-life planning are uncommon. Lack of provider training about how to communicate prognostic data may contribute to the limited number of end-of-life care discussions that take place with this chronically ill population. In this study, we will test the Shared Decision-Making Renal Supportive Care communication intervention to systematically elicit patient and caretaker preferences for end-of-life care so that care concordant with patients' goals can be provided.Methods/designThis multi-center study will deploy an intervention to improve end-of-life communication for hemodialysis patients who are at high risk of death in the ensuing six months. The intervention will be carried out as a prospective cohort with a retrospective cohort serving as the comparison group. Patients will be recruited from 16 dialysis units associated with two large academic centers in Springfield, Massachusetts and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Critical input from patient advisory boards, a stakeholder panel, and initial qualitative analysis of patient and caretaker experiences with advance care planning have informed the communication intervention. Rigorous communication training for hemodialysis social workers and providers will ensure that standardized study procedures are performed at each dialysis unit. Nephrologists and social workers will communicate prognosis and provide advance care planning in face-to-face encounters with patients and families using a social work-centered algorithm. Study outcomes including frequency and timing of hospice referrals, patient and caretaker satisfaction, quality of end-of-life discussions, and quality of death will be assessed over an 18 month period.DiscussionThe Shared Decision-Making Renal Supportive Care Communication intervention intends to improve discussions about prognosis and end-of-life care with end-stage renal disease patients. We anticipate that the intervention will help guide hemodialysis staff and providers to effectively participate in advance care planning for patients and caretakers to establish preferences and goals at the end of life.Trial registrationNCT02405312.