Marion Danis

What Is Wrong With End‐of‐Life Care? Opinions of Bereaved Family Members

OBJECTIVE: To describe family perceptions of care at the end of life.

A Prospective Study of Advance Directives for Life-Sustaining Care

BACKGROUND The use of advance directives is recommended so that people can determine the medical care they will receive when they are no longer competent, but the effectiveness of such directives is not clear. METHODS In a prospective study conducted over a two-year period, 126 competent residents of a nursing home and 49 family members of incompetent patients were interviewed to determine their preferences with respect to hospitalization, intensive care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, artificial ventilation, surgery, and tube feeding in the event of critical illness, terminal illness, or permanent unconsciousness. Advance directives, consisting of signed statements of treatment preferences, were placed in the medical record to assist in care in the nursing home and to be forwarded to the hospital if necessary. RESULTS In an analysis of 96 outcome events (hospitalization or death in the nursing home), care was consistent with previously expressed wishes 75 percent of the time; however, the presence of the written advance directive in the medical record did not facilitate consistency. Among the 24 events in which inconsistencies occurred, care was provided more aggressively than had been requested in 6 cases, largely because of unanticipated surgery or artificial ventilation, and less aggressively than requested in 18, largely because hospitalization or cardiopulmonary resuscitation was withheld. Inconsistencies were more likely in the nursing home than in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS. The effectiveness of written advance directives is limited by inattention to them and by decisions to place priority on considerations other than the patients autonomy. Since our study was performed in only one nursing home and one hospital, other studies are necessary to determine the generalizability of our findings.

Differences in end-of-life decision making among black and white ambulatory cancer patients

OBJECTIVE: African-American (black) and white individuals have been shown to differ in their desire for life-sustaining treatments and their use of living wills for end-of-life care, but the reasons for these differences are unclear. This study-was designed to test the hypothesis that these ethnic differences exist because black patients trust the health care system less, fear inadequate medical treatment more, and feel less confident that living wills can give them more control over their terminal care.DESIGN: Cross-sectional, in-person survey conducted from November 1993 to June 1994.SETTING: Two medical oncology clinics with 40% to 50% black patient representation.PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory cancer patients, 92 black and 114 white, who were awaiting their physician visits and agreed to participate (76% of those eligible). Patients were excluded if they were under age 40 or if they had nonmelanoma skin cancer only.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Black ambulatory cancer patients wanted more life-sustaining treatments (odds ratio [OR] 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4–5.3), and were less likely to want to complete a living will at some time in the future (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.17–0.75) than were white patients after controlling for socioeconomic variables. However, these differences were not related to lack of trust or fear of inadequate medical treatment in this study population. Both groups of patients trusted the health care system and felt that physicians treated patients equally well. Neither group feared inadequate or excessive medical care, and the majority of both groups agreed that living wills would help them keep control over their terminal care.CONCLUSIONS: Black and white cancer patients make different end-of-life choices, even after adjusting for likely explanatory variables. The other factors that influence decision making remain unclear and need to be further explored if physicians are to understand and help their patients make choices for end-of-life care.

Life-sustaining treatments during terminal illness - Who wants what?

Objective: To determine patient characteristics associated with the desire for life-sustaining treatments in the event of terminal illness.Design: In-person survey from October 1986 to June 1988.Setting: 13 internal medicine and family practices in North Carolina.Patients: 2,536 patients (46% of those eligible) aged 65 years and older who were continuing care patients of participating practices, enrolled in Medicare. The patients were slightly older than the 65+ general population, 61% female, and 69% white, and most had one or more chronic illnesses.Measurements and main results: The authors asked the patients whether they would want each of six different treatments (hospitalization, intensive care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, surgery, artificial ventilation, or tube feeding) if they were to have a terminal illness. The authors combined responses into three categories ranging from the desire for more treatment to the desire for less treatment. After adjustment for other factors, 53% of women chose less treatment compared with 43% of men; 35%ofblacksvs 15% of whites and 23% of the less well educated vs 15% of the better educated expressed the desire for more treatment. High depression scores also were associated with the desire for more treatment (26% for depressed vs 18% for others).Conclusion: Patients’ choices for care in the event of terminal illness relate to an intricate set of demographic, educational, and cultural factors. These results should not be used as a shortcut to determine patient preferences for care, but may provide new insights into the basis for patients’ preferences. In discussing choices for future life-sustaining care, physicians need to explore with each individual the basis for his or her choices.

Quality of life following intensive care

Evaluations of intensive care have largely focused on survival, cost, or functional status; however, these may not be the only outcomes of interest to patients, families, and health care providers. Quality of life is an important consideration in evaluating intensive care because it influences decisions about the use of life-sustaining treatment. A study was conducted to assess the quality of life of survivors of intensive care to determine the relationship of perceived quality of life to other outcomes of intensive care. Patients at least 55 years old who received medical intensive care during 1983 (n=69) were interviewed to determine social characteristics, functional status, psychological well-being, and their perceived quality of life using a new 11-item Perceived Quality of Life scale. Functional status correlated only moderately with perceived quality of life (r=0.49, p=0.0001). Objective measures of patients’ material and social resources did not predict satisfaction. To evaluate outcome adequately, it is necessary to assess perceptions of life quality from patients who have received life-sustaining treatment.

A prospective study of the impact of patient preferences on life-sustaining treatment and hospital cost.

OBJECTIVES Ethicists advise that life-sustaining treatment decisions should be made in keeping with patient preferences. Until recently, there has been little systematic study of the impact of patient preferences on the use of various life-sustaining treatments or the consequent cost of hospital care. This prospective study was designed to answer the following questions: a) Do patient treatment preferences about the use of life-sustaining treatment influence the treatments they receive? and b) Do patient treatment preferences influence the total cost of their hospitalization? DESIGN A prospective, cohort study. SETTING A university teaching hospital. PATIENTS Hospitalized patients, at least 50 yrs of age, with short life expectancy due to end-stage heart, lung, or liver disease, metastatic cancer, or lymphoma. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Patients were interviewed to determine their desire for life-sustaining treatment and other characteristics and then were followed for 6 months to determine life-sustaining treatment use and costs during hospitalization. Two hundred forty-four patients were interviewed. Fifty-eight percent of patients expressed a desire for life-sustaining treatments to prolong life for 1 wk. During 245 subsequent hospitalizations, there were 20 episodes of mechanical ventilation, 63 episodes of intensive care, and 66 cancer treatments given. Bivariate and multivariate analyses showed no significant association between patient desire to receive treatment to prolong life and either life-sustaining treatment use (p = .59) or hospital costs (p = .20). CONCLUSION In a university teaching hospital setting, there is no systematic evidence that patient preferences determine life-sustaining treatment use or hospital costs.

Impact of patient incompetence on decisions to use or withhold life-sustaining treatment

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.

Use of life-sustaining care for the elderly.

Advanced age has been proposed as one criterion for limiting the use of life‐sustaining medical treatment, but very little is known about current practices. We retrospectively studied utilization rates of intensive care (IC) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in admissions to a university hospital over 1 year (n = 9,998), to test whether these treatments are used more selectively for elderly patients. Overall utilization rates did not vary by age. However, among 524 terminal admissions, IC was used for 63% of patients age 35–74 but for only 50% of patients 75 and older (P < 0.01). Among elderly patients, nursing home residence, diagnosis of advanced malignancy, severe chronic illness, and older age were independent predictors of withholding IC prior to death. Despite more selective use, survival rates were lower for elderly than for younger patients receiving IC (88% vs 78%, P < 0.001). CPR showed similar but non‐significant trends. Intensive care is being used less frequently prior to death for elderly patients, based on diagnosis and functional status as well as chronologic age.

A comparison of patient, family, and nurse evaluations of the usefulness of intensive care

As patient advocates, critical care nurses need to be cognizant of which treatments the patients and their families prefer. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare how nurses, their critically ill patients, and their families evaluate the usefulness of intensive care.A group of former medical intensive care patients (n = 72), or their family members if the patient had died, were asked how willing they would be to undergo (or to subject their relative to) intensive care again, if necessary. All nurses (n = 15) caring for these patients were asked a parallel, hypothetical question about the usefulness of intensive care to these patients and to themselves, were they to become sick.Analysis of matched pairs of patient (or family member) and nurse questionnaires (n = 38) revealed that: 1) nurses underestimate the usefulness of intensive care as evaluated by their patients and families; and 2) patients believe that quality of life is a less important factor in judging the usefulness of intensive care than do their nurses.

Comparison of Verapamil, Diltiazem, and Labetalol on the Bioavailability and Metabolism of Imipramine

Twelve healthy male subjects completed this randomized, placebo controlled, four‐period crossover trial to determine the effect of verapamil, diltiazem, and labetalol on the bioavailability and metabolism of imipramine. Subjects received a 7‐day course of one of four treatments; verapamil (120 mg every 8 hr), diltiazem (90 mg every 8 hr), labetalol (200 mg every 12 hr), or placebo (every 12 hr) during each study period. Imipramine (100 mg) was administered orally on the morning of day 4 of each study period. Plasma and urine samples were collected periodically over the ensuing 96 hours. Samples were assayed by HPLC for imipramine, desipramine, 2‐hydroxyimipramine, and 2‐hydroxydesipramine. Verapamil, diltiazem, and labetalol increased imipramine area under the plasma concentration time curve (relative bioavailability) as compared with placebo by 15%, 30%, and 53%, respectively. Verapamil and diltiazem did not demonstrate consistent changes in the formation of the measured metabolites. Labetalol caused a significant decrease in the amount of imipramine metabolized to 2‐hydroxyimipramine (mean decrease: 22%) and from desipramine to 2‐hydroxydesipramine (mean decrease: 8%). The molar ratios of plasma AUC of 2‐hydroxyimipramine and 2‐hydroxydesipramine to the parent compounds were significantly decreased. Since these metabolic processes are dependent on the cytochrome P450IID6 isozyme, these data suggest that labetalol decreases the oral clearance of imipramine by inhibiting this system. All three of these commonly used agents decreased the oral clearance of imipramine. These drug interactions could lead to elevated imipramine concentrations and have the potential for clinically important adverse events.