Content uploaded by Ruth Hubbard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ruth Hubbard on Sep 15, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Specialist Physician Approaches to Discussing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Frail Older Adults: A Qualitative Study
Abstract
Despite the impact and importance of end-of-life discussions, little is known about how physicians discuss cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with patients and their families. The necessary components for successful communication about CPR are poorly understood and an established framework to structure these conversations is lacking. Here, we were motivated to understand how physicians approach resuscitation planning with families when older patients have limited life expectancy and a high burden of illness.
Qualitative analysis was conducted of semi-structured interviews of 28 physicians of varying medical sub-specialties in a tertiary care hospital.
Most physicians explored the surrogates' goals and values, but few provided explicit information about the patients' overall health status or expected long-term health outcome related to CPR and underlying illnesses.
There is considerable heterogeneity in physicians' approaches to CPR discussions. The principle of autonomy is dominant with less emphasis on providing adequate information for effective decision-making.
... Studies show that receiving realistic information is "very important" to those making medical decisions [6]. Further, providing details about co-morbid conditions and the probability of surviving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) significantly reduces the number of people who choose resuscitation [7]. Finally, providing information to the decision maker demonstrates the clinician's understanding of the person's health story, which allows both parties to consider the full picture. ...
Goals of care discussions typically focus on decision maker preference and underemphasize prognosis and outcomes related to frailty, resulting in poorly informed decisions. Our objective was to determine whether navigated care planning with nursing home residents or their decision makers changed care plans during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MED-LTC virtual consultation service, led by internal medicine specialists, conducted care planning conversations that balanced information-giving/physician guidance with resident autonomy. Consultation included (1) the assessment of co-morbidities, frailty, health trajectory, and capacity; (2) in-depth discussion with decision makers about health status and expected outcomes; and (3) co-development of a care plan. Non-parametric tests and logistic regression determined the significance and factors associated with a change in care plan. Sixty-three residents received virtual consultations to review care goals. Consultation resulted in less aggressive care decisions for 52 residents (83%), while 10 (16%) remained the same. One resident escalated their care plan after a mistaken diagnosis of dementia was corrected. Pre-consultation, 50 residents would have accepted intubation compared to 9 post-consultation. The de-escalation of care plans was associated with dementia, COVID-19 positive status, and advanced frailty. We conclude that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a specialist-led consultation service for frail nursing home residents significantly influenced decisions towards less aggressive care.
... Where it is considered deviant for successful subjects to decline biomedical interventions ( oyce and Mamo, 2006;Kaufman et al., 2006), similar interventions are considered inappropriate for frail subjects with senescent bo ies. For example, hospitalizations are considered inappropriate (Cardona-Morrell et al., 2017), as is aggressive care (McGregor et al., 2017), such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (Mallery et al., 2011). This results in a moral imperative to openly discuss being near the end of life. ...
The common practice of delaying and/or avoiding end-of-life conversations with medically frail older adults is an important clinical issue. Most research investigating this practice focuses on clinician training and developing conversation skills. Little is known about the socio-political factors shaping the phenomenon of end-of-life conversations between clinicians and medically frail older patients. Using the critical lens of biomedicalization we consider how two dominant discourses, successful aging and frailty, and subsequent constructions of bodies as malleable or senescent, shape patient subjectivities and influence normative expectations about appropriate healthcare conversations and the consumption of biomedicine for medically frail adults. We highlight the uneven ways medically frail older adults are clinically positioned as successful or frail agers and briefly discuss how gender, class, and race may impact this tension and ambiguity. We conclude by arguing that end-of-life conversations with medically frail older adults is constrained by the pervasiveness of the successful aging discourse and the tendency within medical institutions to construct older bodies as malleable and in need of medical intervention to promote health and longevity.
Health care professionals can enhance conversations about serious illness and medical decision-making by adopting a transparent, standardized approach. This article critiques established communication strategies, which often emphasize patient values and goals without providing the necessary medical information to align these goals with a shared understanding of prognosis. We propose an alternate strategy that (1) provides detailed explanations of medical conditions at the beginning of the conversation, (2) includes support persons in discussions, (3) considers capacity, and (4) offers tailored advice by clinicians. The proposed framework aims to provide patients (or their delegates) with the information they need to integrate their values in pursuit of well-informed medical decisions. This strategy builds trust by providing honest information about medical conditions and their trajectories. It empowers decision makers to consider realistic outcomes, allowing them to accept or reject treatments in accordance with their preferences. This article presents a thorough step-by-step guide on how to conduct a serious illness conversation and facilitate medical decision-making, including a supplement that provides example phrases for use in clinical practice.
The Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) 2 score is a prognostic tool developed to support decision-making for do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders by predicting neurological outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) based on prearrest variables. However, this scoring system requires further validation. We aimed to validate the GO-FAR 2 score for predicting good neurological outcome in Korean patients with IHCA. A single-centre registry of adult patients with IHCA from 2013 to 2017 was analysed. The primary outcome was discharge with good neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2). The patients were divided into four categories according to the GO-FAR 2 score: very poor (≥ 5), poor (2-4), average (- 3 to 1), and above-average (< - 3) likelihood of good neurological outcome. Of 1,011 patients (median age, 65 years), 63.1% were men. The rate of good neurological outcome was 16.0%. The proportions of patients categorised as having very poor, poor, average, and above-average probability of good neurological outcome were 3.9%, 18.3%, 70.2%, and 7.6%, respectively. In each category, good neurological outcome was observed in 0%, 1.1%, 16.8%, and 53.2%, respectively. Among patients in below-average categories (very poor + poor, GO-FAR 2 score ≥ 2), only 0.9% had good outcome. GO-FAR 2 score ≥ 2 showed a sensitivity of 98.8% and a negative predictive value of 99.1% in predicting good neurological outcome. The GO-FAR 2 score can predict neurological outcome after IHCA. In particular, GO-FAR 2 score ≥ 2 may support decision-making for DNAR orders.
Background
Frailty is associated with poor 30-days survival after in-hospital cardiac arrests (IHCA). The aim was to assess how pre-arrest frailty was associated with long-term survival, neurological function and patient-reported outcomes in elderly survivors after IHCA.
Methods
Patients aged ≥65 years with IHCA at Karolinska University Hospital between 2013-2021 were studied. Frailty was assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) based on clinical records and categorised into non-frail (1-4) or frail (5-7). Survival was assessed in days. Neurological function was assessed by the Cerebral Performance Category scale (CPC). A telephone interview was performed six months post-IHCA and included the questionnaires EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Results
Totally, 232 (28%) out of 817 eligible patients survived to 30-days. Out of 232, 65 (28%) were frail. Long-term survival was better for non-frail than frail patients (6months (92% versus 75%, p-value <0.01), 3 years (74% vs 22%, p-value <0.01)). The vast majority of both non-frail and frail patients had unchanged CPC from admittance to discharge from hospital (87% and 85%, respectively). The 121 non-frail patients reported better health compared to 27 frail patients (EQ-VAS median 70 versus 50 points, p-value <0.01) and less symptoms of depression than frail (16% and 52%, respectively, p-value <0.01).
Conclusion
Frail patients suffering IHCA survived with largely unchanged neurological function. Although one in five frail patients survived to three years, frailty was associated with a marked decrease in long-term survival as well as increased symptoms of depression and poorer general health.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is frequently performed on patients who, in retrospect, had a very low chance of survival. This is because all patients are ‘For cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ on admission to hospital by default, and delays occur before cardiopulmonary resuscitation can be ‘de-prescribed’. This article reviews the nature of potential harms caused by futile cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the reasons why de-prescription may be delayed, recent legal judgements relevant to timely do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision making, and the possible detrimental effects of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions on end of life care. The moral and operational feasibility of a model in which informed consent must be obtained before cardiopulmonary resuscitation is attempted in some patient groups is then explored.
Background
Considerations about the application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) should include the expected probability of survival. The survival probability after CPR may be more accurately estimated by the occurrence in time of the prearrest morbidity of patients.Objective
To identify risk factors for poor survival after CPR in relation to the dynamics of prearrest morbidity.Methods
Medical records of CPR patients were reviewed. Prearrest morbidity was established by categorizing the medical diagnoses according to 3 functional time frames: before hospital admission, on hospital admission, and during hospital admission. Indicators of poor survival after CPR were identified through a logistic regression model.Results
Included in the study were 553 CPR patients with a median age of 68 years (age range, 18-98 years); 21.7% survived to hospital discharge. Independent indicators of poor outcome were an age of 70 years or older (odds ratio [OR]=0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.4-0.9), stroke (OR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1-0.7) or renal failure (OR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1-0.8) before hospital admission, and congestive heart failure during hospital admission (OR=0.4, 95% CI=0.2-0.9). Indicators of good survival were angina pectoris before hospital admission (OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.3-.3.3) or ventricular dysrhythmia as the diagnosis on hospital admission (OR=11.0, 95% CI=4.1-33.7). Based on a logistic regression model, 17.4% of our CPR patients (n=96) were identified as having a high risk for a poor outcome (<10% survival).Conclusions
Time of prearrest morbidity has a prognostic value for survival after CPR. Patients at risk for poor survival can be identified on or during hospital admission, but the reliability and validity of the model needs further research. Although decisions will not be made by the model, its information can be useful for physicians in discussions about patient prognoses and to make decisions about CPR with more confidence.
Background: Vasopressin is an alternative to epinephrine for vasopressor therapy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but clinical experience with this treatment has been limited. Methods: We randomly assigned adults who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive two injections of either 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine, followed by additional treatment with epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission, and the secondary end point was survival to hospital discharge. Results: A total of 1,219 patients underwent randomization; 33 were excluded because of missing study-drug codes. Among the remaining 1,186 patients, 589 were assigned to receive vasopressin and 597 to receive epinephrine. The two treatment groups had similar clinical profiles. There were no significant differences in the rates of hospital admission between the vasopressin group and the epinephrine group either among patients with ventricular fibrillation (46.2 percent vs. 43.0 percent, P = 0.48) or among those with pulseless electrical activity (33.7 percent vs. 30,5 percent, P = 0.65). Among patients with asystole, however, vasopressin use was associated with significantly higher rates of hospital admission (29.0 percent vs. 20.3 percent in the epinephrine group; P -0.02) and hospital discharge (4.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P = 0.04). Among 732 patients in whom spontaneous circulation was not restored with the two injections of the study drug, additional treatment with epinephrine resulted in significant improvement in the rates of survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge in the vasopressin group, but not in the epinephrine group (hospital admission rate, 25.7 percent vs. 16.4 percent; P = 0.002; hospital discharge rate, 6.2 percent vs. 1.7 percent; P = 0.002). Cerebral performance was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: The effects of vasopressin were similar to those of epinephrine in the management of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless electrical activity, but vasopressin was superior to epinephrine in patients with asystole. Vasopressin followed by epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine alone in the treatment of refractory cardiac arrest.
Purpose
For patients hospitalized with serious illnesses, we identified factors associated with a stated preference to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), examined physician-patient communication about these issues, and determined the relationship of patients' preferences to intensity of care and survival.
Patients and methods
The study was a crosssectional evaluation of patient preferences. The setting was five geographically diverse academic acute-care medical centers participating in the SUPPORT (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments) project. Study participants were hospitalized patients ≥18 years of age with 1 of 9 serious illnesses who were interviewed between days 3 and 6 after qualifying for the study. Using standardized interviews, patients provided information on demographics, preferences for CPR and other treatments, quality of life, functional status, perceptions of prognosis, and whether the patient had discussed CPR preferences with his or her physician. Data abstracted from the medical record included physiologic measures, therapeutic intensity, whether CPR was provided, and whether there was a do-not-resuscitate order. results: Of 1,955 eligible patients, 84% were interviewed (mean age 62 years, 58% men, inhospital mortality 7%, 6-month mortality 33%). Of the respondents, 28% did not want CPR. Factors associated independently with not wanting CPR included: hospital site; diagnosis; being older; being more functionally impaired; and patient perception of a worse prognosis. Only 29% of patients had discussed their preferences with their physician; 48% of those who did not want CPR reported such discussions. After adjusting for illness severity and factors associated with CPR preferences, patients not wanting CPR had lower intensity of care; similar inhosprtal mortality; and higher mortality at 2 and 6 months following study entry.
Conclusions
The diagnosis, patients' perception of the prognosis, and hospital site were significantly associated with patients' resuscitation preferences after adjusting for patient demographics, severity of illness, and functional status. The rate of discussing CPR was low even for patients who did not want CPR. Patient preferences not to receive CPR were associated with a small decrease in intensity of care but no difference in hospital survival.