A consensus-based approach to providing palliative care to patients who lack decision-making capacity. ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel. American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine

Institute on Aging, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 17.81). 06/1999; 130(10):835-40. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-10-199905180-00018
Source: PubMed


Making palliative care decisions for a patient who lacks decision-making capacity presents several challenges. Other people, such as family and caregivers, must choose for the patient. The goals and values of these decision makers may conflict with those of each other and with those of the patient, who now lacks the capacity to participate in the decision. This paper presents a case study of a patient with severe Alzheimer disease who has two common clinical problems: neurogenic dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia. The case study describes a consensus-based decision-making strategy that keeps what is known about the patient's wishes and values in the foreground but also expects guidance from the physician and elicits input from family members and other people who care for and have knowledge about the patient. The steps of this process, including key clinical prompts and potential transition statements, are outlined and described. The overall goal of the case commentary is to demonstrate that physicians can guide a highly emotional and personal process in a structured manner that has meaning for the patient, family, physician, and other caregivers.

Download full-text


Available from: Diane E Meier, Apr 18, 2015

  • No preview · Article · May 2004 · The American Journal of Geriatric Cardiology
  • Source

    Full-text · Article · Jan 2007
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mr R was a 70-year-old man, legally blind from retinitis pigmentosa, who was diagnosed as having pancreatic can-cer in January 2002.He underwent a Whipple procedure at an urban academic medical center and then received radiation therapy and chemotherapy with fluorouracil and gemcitabine. To alleviate intermittent bowel obstructions, he had a ventilating gastrostomy tube placed for decom-pression of his abdomen. Over the next 9 months, he was admitted to the hospital several times for infections at the site of his gastrostomy tube, diarrhea, vomiting, and dehy-dration. He lived at home with his wife, Mrs R, who was also his partner in the marketing firm he had founded. He had one daughter, Ms L, a psychologist who lived locally, and a son, a history professor, who lived far away but visited every few weeks. Both children were active caregivers over the course of their father's illness. Despite Mrs R's own severe rheu-matoid arthritis and other health issues, she was deter-mined to care for her husband at home with the assistance of a home care nurse, Ms P, and a housekeeper to aid with daily chores. As Mr R's health deteriorated, a close friend of Ms L's ad-vised her about a local in-hospital palliative care unit. In No-vember 2002, when Mr R's pain and nausea became so se-vere that they could not be managed at home, he was admitted to the palliative care unit. At admission, Mr R was alert and oriented but bed bound due to weakness. He and his family hoped his symptoms could be quickly con-trolled so that he could return home. He received intrave-nous hydromorphone and dexamethasone for pain and in-travenous haloperidol and frequent gastrostomy tube flushings for his nausea. His symptoms initially improved and discussions ensued about his transition home. Al-though scheduled to go home with hospice care, his con-dition then declined rapidly to a point where his family did not think they could care for him at home, even with in-
    Preview · Article ·
Show more