We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
CLINICAL TRIAL, PHASE II
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.
Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preference for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.
Annals of Internal Medicine 1997 July 2
BACKGROUND: Physicians are frequently unaware of patient preferences for end-of-life care. Identifying and exploring barriers to patient-physician communication about end-of-life issues may help guide physicians and their patients toward more effective discussions.
OBJECTIVE: To examine correlates and associated outcomes of patient communication and patient preferences for communication with physicians about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prolonged mechanical ventilation.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Five tertiary care hospitals.
PATIENTS: 1832 (85%) of 2162 eligible patients completed interviews.
MEASUREMENTS: Surveys of patient characteristics and preferences for end-of-life care; perceptions of prognosis, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions.
RESULTS: Fewer than one fourth (23%) of seriously ill patients had discussed preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation with their physicians. Of patients who had not discussed their preferences for resuscitation, 58% were not interested in doing so. Of patients who had not discussed and did not want to discuss their preferences, 25% did not want resuscitation. In multivariable analyses, patient factors independently associated with not wanting to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation included being of an ethnicity other than black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimating an excellent prognosis (OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.32 to 2.59]), reporting fair to excellent quality of life (OR, 1.36 [CI, 1.05 to 1.76]), and not desiring active involvement in medical decisions (OR, 1.33 [CI, 1.07 to 1.65]). Factors independently associated with wanting to discuss preferences for resuscitation but not doing so included being black (OR, 1.53 [CI, 1.11 to 2.11]) and being younger (OR, 1.14 per 10-year interval younger [CI, 1.04 to 1.25]).
CONCLUSIONS: Among seriously ill hospitalized adults, communication about preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is uncommon. A majority of patients who have not discussed preferences for end-of-life care do not want to do so. For patients who do not want to discuss their preferences, as well as patients with an unmet need for such discussions, failure to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation may result in unwanted interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To examine correlates and associated outcomes of patient communication and patient preferences for communication with physicians about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prolonged mechanical ventilation.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Five tertiary care hospitals.
PATIENTS: 1832 (85%) of 2162 eligible patients completed interviews.
MEASUREMENTS: Surveys of patient characteristics and preferences for end-of-life care; perceptions of prognosis, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions.
RESULTS: Fewer than one fourth (23%) of seriously ill patients had discussed preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation with their physicians. Of patients who had not discussed their preferences for resuscitation, 58% were not interested in doing so. Of patients who had not discussed and did not want to discuss their preferences, 25% did not want resuscitation. In multivariable analyses, patient factors independently associated with not wanting to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation included being of an ethnicity other than black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimating an excellent prognosis (OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.32 to 2.59]), reporting fair to excellent quality of life (OR, 1.36 [CI, 1.05 to 1.76]), and not desiring active involvement in medical decisions (OR, 1.33 [CI, 1.07 to 1.65]). Factors independently associated with wanting to discuss preferences for resuscitation but not doing so included being black (OR, 1.53 [CI, 1.11 to 2.11]) and being younger (OR, 1.14 per 10-year interval younger [CI, 1.04 to 1.25]).
CONCLUSIONS: Among seriously ill hospitalized adults, communication about preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is uncommon. A majority of patients who have not discussed preferences for end-of-life care do not want to do so. For patients who do not want to discuss their preferences, as well as patients with an unmet need for such discussions, failure to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation may result in unwanted interventions.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Anti-Arrhythmic Effects of Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Their Role in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: From Beta-Blockers to Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Beyond.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 Februrary 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app