Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Opening the black box: how do physicians communicate about advance directives?

Annals of Internal Medicine 1998 September 16
BACKGROUND: The quality of communication that leads to the completion of written advance directives may influence the usefulness of these documents, but the nature of that communication remains relatively unexplored.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how physicians discuss advance directives with patients.

DESIGN: Prospective study.

SETTING: Five outpatient primary care medicine practices in Durham, North Carolina, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS: 56 attending internists and 56 of their established patients. Eligible patients were at least 65 years of age or had a serious medical illness.

MEASUREMENTS: Two raters coded transcripts of audiotaped discussions about advance directives to document how physicians introduced the topic of advance directives, discussed scenarios and treatments, provided information, elicited patient values, and identified surrogate decision makers.

RESULTS: Conversations about advance directives averaged 5.6 minutes; physicians spoke for two thirds of this time. In 91% of cases, physicians discussed dire scenarios in which most patients would not want to be treated, and 48% asked patients about their preferences in reversible scenarios. Fifty-five percent of physicians discussed scenarios involving uncertainty, typically using vague language. Patients' values were rarely explored in detail. In 88% of cases, physicians discussed surrogate decision making and documents to aid in advance care planning.

CONCLUSIONS: Although they accomplished the goal of introducing patients to advance directives, discussions infrequently dealt with patients' values and attitudes toward uncertainty. Physicians may not have addressed the topic in a way that would be of substantial use in future decision making, and these discussions did not meet the standards proposed in the literature.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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