Seriously ill hospitalized patients' perspectives on the benefits and harms of two models of hospital CPR discussions
ABSTRACT To describe seriously ill patients' perspectives on expert-endorsed approaches for hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) discussions.
We created two videos depicting a hospital doctor discussing CPR with a seriously ill patient. One depicted a values-based approach with a doctor's recommendation, and one an information-focused approach without a recommendation. During semi-structured interviews, 20 seriously ill hospitalized patients viewed and commented on both videos. We conducted a thematic analysis to describe benefits and harms of specific discussion components.
Half of participants reported no preference between the videos; 35% preferred the information-focused, and 15% the values-based. Participants' reactions to the discussion components varied. They identified both benefits and harms with components in both videos, though most felt comfortable with all components (range, 60-65%) except for the doctor's recommendation in the values-based video. Only 40% would feel comfortable receiving a recommendation, while 65% would feel comfortable with the doctor eliciting their CPR preference as in the information-focused video, p=0.03.
Participants' reactions to expert-endorsed discussion components varied. Most would feel uncomfortable receiving a doctor's recommendation about CPR.
Participants' varied reactions suggest the need to tailor CPR discussions to individual patients. Many patients may find doctor's recommendations to be problematic.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To describe how medical residents discuss do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders with patients. Prospective observational study. Inpatient medical wards of one university tertiary care center, one urban city public hospital, and one Veterans Affairs medical center. Thirty-one medical residents self-selected 31 of their English-speaking, competent patients, with whom they had DNR discussions. Three independent observers rated audiotaped discussions about DNR orders between the medical residents and their patients. Ratings assessed whether the physicians met standard criteria for requesting informed consent (e.g., disclosed the nature, benefits, risks, and outcomes), addressed the patients' values, and attended to the patients' emotional concerns. The physicians often did not provide essential information about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). While all the physicians mentioned mechanical ventilation, only 55% mentioned chest compressions and 32% mentioned intensive care. Only 13% of the physicians mentioned the patient's likelihood of survival after CPR, and no physician used a numerical estimate. The discussions lasted a median of 10 minutes and were dominated in speaking time by the physicians. The physicians initiated discussions about the patients' personal values and goals of care in 10% of the cases, and missed opportunities to do so. Medical ethicists, professional societies, and the public recommend more frequent discussions about DNR orders. Even when housestaff discuss resuscitation with patients, they may not be accomplishing the goal of increasing patient autonomy. Research and education must focus on improving the quality, as well as the quantity, of these discussions.Journal of General Internal Medicine 09/1995; 10(8):436-42. DOI:10.1007/BF02599915 · 3.42 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Discrepancies exist between reported experiences of patients when they have been given a diagnosis of cancer, published guidelines for telling a diagnosis, and patterns of communication patients rate as favorable. Several studies have identified what happened and what is important to cancer patients when told their diagnosis, but no studies have addressed subsequent communications concerning the implications of the diagnosis and treatment choices. This study extended previous research by investigating the experiences and preferences for communication about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients diagnosed with breast cancer or melanoma.METHODSA self-report questionnaire was designed for this study based on previous research and qualitative data generated from focus groups. Patients with breast cancer or melanoma answered questions about their experiences with communication at the time of diagnosis and concerning prognosis, treatment and related issues. Comparisons were made between patient experiences, preferences and published guidelines. Differences between the experiences of breast cancer and melanoma patients were tested and the relationship between communication and subsequent psychological adjustment to cancer was assessed.RESULTSPatient preferences for communication during diagnostic consultation were not always consistent with published guidelines. Type of cancer did not significantly affect patient preferences. Psychological adjustment was related to patient ratings of the quality of doctor discussion about treatment options, but not about the diagnosis of cancer and its implications. Patients who wanted more emotional support at the time of diagnosis subsequently experienced poorer psychological adjustment.CONCLUSIONS The differences in patient preferences show that a list of prescriptions for how to disclose a cancer diagnosis is too simplistic. Guidelines for clinicians should be derived from patient-based data rather than be limited only to clinical opinion. Guidelines concerning communication at the time of diagnosis also need to address discussions concerning the implications of the diagnosis and making treatment decisions. Cancer 1996;77:2630-7.Cancer 01/1996; 77(12):2630 - 2637. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960615)77:12<2630::AID-CNCR29>3.0.CO;2-S · 4.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: While the importance of providing individualised communication to cancer patients is now well recognised, little is known about the stability and validity of patients' expressed preferences for information and involvement in decision-making. This study explored the stability and possible predictors of such preferences over time. Cancer patients seeing two Medical Oncologists in an out-patient clinic at an Australian teaching hospital completed a questionnaire battery before and directly after one consultation, and before their next consultation. Eighty consecutive patients with heterogeneous cancers participated in the study. Preferences for general and specific information, involvement and support were elicited at each assessment. Locus of control and patient familiarity with the clinic were measured before the first consultation. Patient satisfaction with the consultation was assessed directly after the consultation. Demographic and disease data were recorded for each patient. General preferences for information and involvement were relatively stable, at least in the short term; however there was considerable variability in preferences for specific topics of information. Patients whose condition had recently worsened were more likely to want progressively less involvement in decision-making. Gender, the doctor seen and religion were also predictive of patient preferences. Situational factors, such as change in disease status, may alter a patient's preferences for information and involvement. If we wish to match the provision of information and support to the expressed needs of patients, we must ask patients at each consultation what those needs are.Annals of Oncology 10/1997; 8(9):857-63. · 6.58 Impact Factor