Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Life-sustaining Treatment (life-sustaining + treatment)
Selected AbstractsLife-Sustaining Treatments: What Do Physicians Want and Do They Express Their Wishes to Others?JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 7 2003Joseph J. Gallo MD OBJECTIVES: To assess whether older physicians have discussed their preferences for medical care at the end of life with their physicians, whether they have established an advance directive, and what life-sustaining treatment they wish in the event of incapacity to make these decisions for themselves. DESIGN: Mailed survey to a cohort of physicians. SETTING: Physicians who were medical students at the Johns Hopkins University in graduating classes from 1946 to 1964. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians who completed the advance directive questionnaire (mean age 68). MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires were sent out to known surviving physicians of the Precursors Study, an on-going study that began in 1946, asking physicians about their preferences for life-sustaining treatments. RESULTS: Of 999 physicians who were sent the survey, 765 (77%) responded. Forty-six percent of the physicians felt that their own doctors were unaware of their treatment preferences or were not sure, and of these respondents, 59% had no intention of discussing their wishes with their doctors within the next year. In contrast, 89% thought their families were probably or definitely aware of their preferences. Sixty-four percent reported that they had established an advance directive. Compared with physicians without advance directives, physicians who established an advance directive were more likely to believe that their doctors (odds ratio (OR) = 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.49,4.69) or family members (OR = 9.58, 95% CI = 5.33,17.23) were aware of their preferences for end-of-life care and were more likely to refuse treatments than those without advance directives. CONCLUSION: This survey of physicians calls attention to the gap between preferences for medical care at the end of life and expressing wishes to others through discussion and advance directives, even among physicians. [source] Are Patient Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment Really a Barrier to Hospice Enrollment for Older Adults with Serious Illness?JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 3 2006David Casarett MD OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient preferences are a barrier to hospice enrollment. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifteen ambulatory primary care and specialty clinics and three general medicine inpatient units. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred three seriously ill patients with cancer (n=65, 32%), congestive heart failure (n=77, 38%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=61, 30%) completed multiple interviews over a period of up to 24 months. MEASUREMENTS: Preferences for high- and low-burden life-sustaining treatment and site of death and concern about being kept alive by machines. RESULTS: Patients were more likely to enroll in hospice after interviews at which they said that they did not want low-burden treatment (3 patients enrolled/16 interviews at which patients did not want low-burden treatment vs 47 patients enrolled/841 interviews at which patients wanted low-burden treatment; relative risk (RR)=3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.17,9.66), as were interviews at which patients said they would not want high-burden treatment (5/28 vs 45/826; RR=3.28, 95% CI=1.14,7.62), although most patients whose preferences were consistent with hospice did not enroll before the next interview. In multivariable Cox regression models, patients with noncancer diagnoses who desired low-burden treatment (hazard ratio (HR)=0.46, 95% CI=0.33,0.68) were less likely to enroll in hospice, and those who were concerned that they would be kept alive by machines were more likely to enroll (HR=5.46, 95% CI=1.86,15.88), although in patients with cancer, neither preferences nor concerns about receiving excessive treatment were associated with hospice enrollment. Preference for site of death was not associated with hospice enrollment. CONCLUSION: Overall, few patients had treatment preferences that would make them eligible for hospice, although even in patients whose preferences were consistent with hospice, few enrolled. Efforts to improve end-of-life care should offer alternatives to hospice that do not require patients to give up life-sustaining treatment, as well as interventions to improve communication about patients' preferences. [source] Life-Sustaining Treatments: What Do Physicians Want and Do They Express Their Wishes to Others?JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 7 2003Joseph J. Gallo MD OBJECTIVES: To assess whether older physicians have discussed their preferences for medical care at the end of life with their physicians, whether they have established an advance directive, and what life-sustaining treatment they wish in the event of incapacity to make these decisions for themselves. DESIGN: Mailed survey to a cohort of physicians. SETTING: Physicians who were medical students at the Johns Hopkins University in graduating classes from 1946 to 1964. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians who completed the advance directive questionnaire (mean age 68). MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires were sent out to known surviving physicians of the Precursors Study, an on-going study that began in 1946, asking physicians about their preferences for life-sustaining treatments. RESULTS: Of 999 physicians who were sent the survey, 765 (77%) responded. Forty-six percent of the physicians felt that their own doctors were unaware of their treatment preferences or were not sure, and of these respondents, 59% had no intention of discussing their wishes with their doctors within the next year. In contrast, 89% thought their families were probably or definitely aware of their preferences. Sixty-four percent reported that they had established an advance directive. Compared with physicians without advance directives, physicians who established an advance directive were more likely to believe that their doctors (odds ratio (OR) = 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.49,4.69) or family members (OR = 9.58, 95% CI = 5.33,17.23) were aware of their preferences for end-of-life care and were more likely to refuse treatments than those without advance directives. CONCLUSION: This survey of physicians calls attention to the gap between preferences for medical care at the end of life and expressing wishes to others through discussion and advance directives, even among physicians. [source] Metasynthesis: withdrawing life-sustaining treatments: the experience of family decision-makersJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 2 2009Mary Ann Meeker Aim., The present study was undertaken to synthesise findings from qualitative investigations of family participation in decisions to withdraw and/or withhold life-sustaining treatment from a seriously ill family member. Background., As a consequence of increasing effectiveness and sophistication of available medical interventions, death is commonly preceded by a decision to withdraw or withhold potentially life-sustaining treatments. These decisions take place in a bioethical context characterised by the preeminence of self-determination, but patients are typically too ill to make their own decisions. Thus, family members are called upon to participate in these morally consequential decisions on the patient's behalf. Design., Metasynthesis Method., Metasynthesis is a form of inquiry that provides for integration of qualitative studies' findings to strengthen knowledge for practice and advance theoretical development. This metasynthesis was conducted using the constant comparative methods of grounded theory. Results., Family members engage in a process of participation in decision-making that is comprised of three major categories: reframing reality, relating and integrating. Surrogates used both cues and information as they reframed their understanding of the patient's status. Relationships with providers and with other family members powerfully influenced the decision-making process. Integrating was characterised by reconciling and going forward. This part of the process has both intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects and describes how family decision-makers find meaning in their experience and move forward in their lives. Conclusions., This synthesis provides a more comprehensive and empirically supported understanding of family members' experiences as they participate in treatment decisions for dying family members. Relevance to clinical practice., This metasynthesis provides evidence to improve family care during treatment withdrawal/withholding decision-making and a theoretical model that can be used to guide creation of clinical practice guidelines. Through increased understanding of family members' experiences, clinicians can more effectively support family decision-making processes. [source] Patient involvement in health-related decisions during prolonged critical illness,RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH, Issue 4 2007Mary Beth Happ Abstract We describe patterns of communication of patients involved in health-related decision making during prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). Data were collected using observation, interview, and record review. Twelve of 30 patients participated in decisions about initiating, withdrawing, and withholding life-sustaining treatment, surgery, artificial feeding, financial/legal issues, discharge care, and daily care procedures. Patient involvement was largely validation or confirmation of what clinicians and families had already decided. Patients' participation was enlisted by clinicians and family members even when the patients did not exhibit full decisional capacity. Patient involvement in health-related decisions during prolonged critical illness is a shared and negotiated process that requires continued empirical study and ethical analysis. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Res Nurs Health 30:361,372, 2007. [source] End-of-Life Decision Making: Practical and Ethical Issues for Health ProfessionalsAUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL ON AGEING, Issue 2 2000Colleen Cartwright Life-extending changes in medical technology and an ageing population pose practical and ethical problems relating to end-of-life decision making. Health professionals need to understand the fears and concerns of their patients, their preferred place to die, and to respect patient autonomy. Such wishes may be expressed verbally by a competent patient or through an advance directive (living will) or proxy by an incompetent patient. There is an urgent need for increased and improved training of health professionals in pain management and palliative care, and for the development of practical, ethical policies and guidelines with respect to withdrawing/withholding life-sustaining treatment. In addition, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, two of the important moral issues of the 90s, will continue to require open community debate as we move into the new millennium. Australia, in company with most other countries, has many challenges ahead in relation to end-of-life decision making. [source] MORAL FICTIONS AND MEDICAL ETHICSBIOETHICS, Issue 9 2010FRANKLIN G. MILLER ABSTRACT Conventional medical ethics and the law draw a bright line distinguishing the permitted practice of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from the forbidden practice of active euthanasia by means of a lethal injection. When clinicians justifiably withdraw life-sustaining treatment, they allow patients to die but do not cause, intend, or have moral responsibility for, the patient's death. In contrast, physicians unjustifiably kill patients whenever they intentionally administer a lethal dose of medication. We argue that the differential moral assessment of these two practices is based on a series of moral fictions , motivated false beliefs that erroneously characterize withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in order to bring accepted end-of-life practices in line with the prevailing moral norm that doctors must never kill patients. When these moral fictions are exposed, it becomes apparent that conventional medical ethics relating to end-of-life decisions is radically mistaken. [source] Are Aggressive Treatment Strategies Less Cost-Effective for Older Patients?JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 4 2001Aggressive Care for Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure, The Case of Ventilator Support OBJECTIVES: A common assumption is that life-sustaining treatments are much less cost-effective for older patients than for younger patients. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing mechanical ventilation and intensive care for patients of various ages who had acute respiratory failure. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data on acute respiratory failure from Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). SETTING: Acute hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 1,005 with acute respiratory failure; 963 received ventilator support and 42 had ventilator support withheld. MEASUREMENTS: We studied 1,005 patients enrolled in a five-center study of seriously ill patients (SUPPORT) with acute respiratory failure (pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome and an Acute Physiology Score ,10) requiring ventilator support. For cost-effectiveness analyses, we estimated life expectancy based on long-term follow-up of SUPPORT patients and estimated utilities (quality-of-life weights) using time-tradeoff questions. We used hospital fiscal data and Medicare data to estimate healthcare costs. We divided patients into three age groups (<65, 65,74, and ,75 years); for each age group, we performed separate analyses for patients with a ,50% probability of surviving at least 2 months (high-risk group) and those with a> 50% probability of surviving at least 2 months (low-risk group). RESULTS: Of the 963 patients who received ventilator support, 44% were female; 48% survived 6 months; and the median (25th, 75th percentile) age was 63 (46, 75) years. For the 42 patients for whom ventilator support was withheld, the median survival was 3 days. For low-risk patients (>50% estimated 2-month survival), the incremental cost (1998 dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved by providing ventilator support and aggressive care increased across the three age groups ($32,000 for patients age <65, $44,000 for those age 65,74, and $46,000 for those age ,75). For high-risk patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness was much less favorable and was least favorable for younger patients ($130,000 for patients age <65, $100,000 for those age 65,74, and $96,000 for those age ,75). When we varied our assumptions from 50% to 200% of our baseline estimates in sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to the costs of the index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with relatively good short-term prognoses, we found that ventilator support and aggressive care were economically worthwhile, even for patients 75 years and older. For patients with poor short-term prognoses, ventilator support and aggressive care were much less cost-effective for adults of all ages. [source] Metasynthesis: withdrawing life-sustaining treatments: the experience of family decision-makersJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 2 2009Mary Ann Meeker Aim., The present study was undertaken to synthesise findings from qualitative investigations of family participation in decisions to withdraw and/or withhold life-sustaining treatment from a seriously ill family member. Background., As a consequence of increasing effectiveness and sophistication of available medical interventions, death is commonly preceded by a decision to withdraw or withhold potentially life-sustaining treatments. These decisions take place in a bioethical context characterised by the preeminence of self-determination, but patients are typically too ill to make their own decisions. Thus, family members are called upon to participate in these morally consequential decisions on the patient's behalf. Design., Metasynthesis Method., Metasynthesis is a form of inquiry that provides for integration of qualitative studies' findings to strengthen knowledge for practice and advance theoretical development. This metasynthesis was conducted using the constant comparative methods of grounded theory. Results., Family members engage in a process of participation in decision-making that is comprised of three major categories: reframing reality, relating and integrating. Surrogates used both cues and information as they reframed their understanding of the patient's status. Relationships with providers and with other family members powerfully influenced the decision-making process. Integrating was characterised by reconciling and going forward. This part of the process has both intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects and describes how family decision-makers find meaning in their experience and move forward in their lives. Conclusions., This synthesis provides a more comprehensive and empirically supported understanding of family members' experiences as they participate in treatment decisions for dying family members. Relevance to clinical practice., This metasynthesis provides evidence to improve family care during treatment withdrawal/withholding decision-making and a theoretical model that can be used to guide creation of clinical practice guidelines. Through increased understanding of family members' experiences, clinicians can more effectively support family decision-making processes. [source] | ||||||||||||||||||||||