The Problem with Actually Tattooing DNR across Your Chest

Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, University of California, 4150 Clement St (181 G), San Francisco, CA, 94941, USA, .
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 07/2012; 27(10):1238-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2134-1
Source: PubMed
5 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the focus of emergency care is on the diagnosis and treatment of acute illnesses and injuries or the stabilization of patients for ongoing treatment, some patients may benefit from a palliative approach. Little is known about delivering palliative care in the emergency department (ED). We explore the attitudes, experiences, and beliefs of emergency providers about palliative care in the ED, using structured qualitative methods. We studied 3 focus groups with 26 providers, including 14 physicians (10 residents, 4 attending physicians), 6 nurses, 2 social workers, and 4 technicians, working in 2 academic EDs in Boston. We used a grounded theory approach to code responses, resolving discrepancies by consensus. Six distinct themes emerged: (1) participants equated palliative care with end-of-life care; (2) participants disagreed about the feasibility and desirability of providing palliative care in the ED; (3) patients for whom a palliative approach has been established often visit the ED because family members are distressed by end-of-life symptoms; (4) lack of communication between outpatient and ED providers leads to undesirable outcomes (eg, resuscitation of patients with a do-not-resuscitate order); (5) conflict around withholding life-prolonging treatment is common (eg, between patient's family and written advance directives); and (6) training in pain management is inadequate. Providers ranked improved communication and documentation from outpatient providers as their highest priority for improvement. Attitudinal and structural barriers may need to be overcome to improve palliative care in the ED. Despite targeted recruitment, attending physician participation was low.
    Annals of emergency medicine 11/2008; 54(1):86-93, 93.e1. DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.08.022 · 4.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During serious illness, patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments play an important role in medical decisions. However, little is known about life-sustaining preference stability in this population or about factors associated with preference change. We evaluated 2-month cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preference stability in a cohort of 1590 seriously ill hospitalized patients at 5 acute care teaching hospitals. Using multiple logistic regression, we measured the association of patient demographic and health-related factors (quality of life, function, depression, prognosis, and diagnostic group) with change in CPR preference between interviews. Of 1590 patients analyzed, 73% of patients preferred CPR at baseline interview and 70% chose CPR at follow-up. Preference stability was 80% overall-85% in patients initially preferring CPR and 69% in those initially choosing do not resuscitate (DNR). For patients initially preferring CPR, older age, non-African American race, and greater depression at baseline were independently associated with a change to preferring DNR at follow-up. For patients initially preferring DNR, younger age, male gender, less depression at baseline, improvement in depression between interviews, and an initial admission diagnosis of acute respiratory failure or multiorgan system failure were associated with a change to preferring CPR at follow-up. For patients initially preferring DNR, patients with substantial improvements in depression score between interviews were more than 5 times as likely to change preference to CPR than were patients with substantial worsening in depression score. More than two thirds of seriously ill patients prefer CPR for cardiac arrest and 80% had stable preferences over 2 months. Factors associated with preference change suggest that depression may lead patients to refuse life-sustaining care. Providers should evaluate mood state when eliciting patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatments.
    Archives of Internal Medicine 08/1996; 156(14):1558-64. DOI:10.1001/archinte.1996.00440130104011 · 17.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients facing medical decisions that will impact quality of life make assumptions about how they will adjust emotionally to living with health declines and disability. Despite abundant research on decision-making, we have no direct research on how accurately patients envision their future well-being and how this influences their decisions. Outside medicine, psychological research on "affective forecasting" consistently shows that people poorly predict their future ability to adapt to adversity. This finding is important for medicine, since many serious health decisions hinge on quality-of-life judgments. We describe three specific mechanisms for affective forecasting errors that may influence health decisions: focalism, in which people focus more on what will change than on what will stay the same; immune neglect, in which they fail to envision how their own coping skills will lessen their unhappiness; and failure to predict adaptation, in which people fail to envision shifts in what they value. We discuss emotional and social factors that interact with these cognitive biases. We describe how caregivers can recognize these biases in the clinical setting and suggest interventions to help patients recognize and address affective forecasting errors.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2008; 23(10):1708-12. DOI:10.1007/s11606-008-0719-5 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications