Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Lynn

Publications and source records attributed to J Lynn.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Age-related differences in care preferences, treatment decisions, and clinical outcomes of seriously ill hospitalized adults: lessons from SUPPORT.

OBJECTIVES: To review previously published findings about how patient age influenced patterns of care for seriously ill patients enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). DESIGN: An observational prospective study. SETTING: Five acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9105 seriously ill patients enrolled in SUPPORT. MEASUREMENTS: The outcomes examined included patients' preferences for aggressive care, decision making regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation and use of other life-sustaining treatments, hospital costs, intensity of resource use, and survival. RESULTS: Although older patients preferred less aggressive care than younger patients, many older patients wanted cardiopulmonary resuscitation and care focused on life extension. Patients' families and healthcare providers underestimated older patients' desire for aggressive care. After adjustment for illness severity, comorbidity, baseline function, and patients' preferences for aggressive care, older age was associated with lower hospital costs and resource intensity and higher rates of decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments. In adjusted analyses, older age was associated with a slight survival disadvantage. This survival disadvantage persisted, even after adjustment for aggressiveness of care, suggesting that the relation between age and survival is not accounted for by less aggressive treatment of older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjustment for patients' prognoses and care preferences, seriously ill hospitalized older patients were treated less aggressively than younger patients. SUPPORT cannot fully identify whether the relationship between older age and less aggressive treatment is better explained by the withholding of potentially beneficial treatments from older patients, or by the excessive provision of ineffective treatment to younger patients. However, the latter explanation is favored by the SUPPORT finding that less aggressive treatment for older patients does not contribute to the modest survival disadvantage associated with older age.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2000

Communication and decision-making in seriously ill patients: findings of the SUPPORT project. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

OBJECTIVES: The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) represents one of the largest and most comprehensive efforts to describe patient preferences in seriously ill patients, and to evaluate how effectively patient preferences are communicated. Our objective was to review findings from SUPPORT describing the communication of seriously ill patients' preferences for end-of-life care. METHODS: We identified published reports from SUPPORT describing patient preferences and the communication of those preferences. We abstracted findings that addressed each of the following questions: What patient characteristics predict patient preferences for end of life care? How well do physicians, nurses, and surrogates understand their patients' preferences, and what variables are correlated with this understanding? Does increasing the documentation of existing advance directives result in care more consistent with patients' preferences? RESULTS: Patients who are older, have cancer, are women, believe their prognoses are poor, and are more dependent in ADL function are less likely to want CPR. However, there is considerable variability and geographic variation in these preferences. Physician, nurse, and surrogate understanding of their patient's preferences is only moderately better than chance. Most patients do not discuss their preferences with their physicians, and only about half of patients who do not wish to receive CPR receive DNR orders. Factors other than the patients' preferences and prognoses, including the patient's age, the physician's specialty, and the geographic site of care were strong determinants of whether DNR orders were written. In SUPPORT patients, there was no evidence that increasing the rates of documentation of advance directives results in care that is more consistent with patients' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: SUPPORT documents that physicians and surrogates are often unaware of seriously ill patients' preferences. The care provided to patients is often not consistent with their preferences and is often associated with factors other than preferences or prognoses. Improving these deficiencies in end-of-life care may require systematic change rather than simple interventions.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2000

The effects of patient race on outcomes in seriously ill patients in SUPPORT: an overview of economic impact, medical intervention, and end-of-life decisions. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Black Americans have significantly lower life expectancy than white Americans. Racial differences in medical access, management, and DNR orders have been documented. OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of patient race on intervention and end-of-life decisions in seriously ill patients in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). DESIGN: Review of published analyses from SUPPORT. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9105 patients aged 18 years or older (15% black race) meeting diagnostic and illness severity criteria. MEASUREMENT: Analysis of data collected by chart abstraction and interviews. RESULTS: Blacks reported significant loss in savings, although adjusting for diagnosis and disease severity did not demonstrate significant racial differences. Economic hardship was associated with a preference for comfort care, except in black patients (OR 0.71; CI 95%, 0.57-0.88). Blacks received less intervention with no significant difference in survival. Pain level and control were not affected by race. Blacks were more likely to want CPR, although adjustment for self-pay or Medicaid eliminated racial differences. Blacks were more likely to continue to prefer CPR 2 months after hospitalization (28% vs 17%) and were more likely to change a DNR order to preferring CPR (40 vs 27%). Blacks also more frequently wished to discuss CPR preferences with their physicians but were less likely to have this type of communication (OR 1.53; CI 95%, 1.11-2.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patient race may impact on medical intervention and preferences in seriously ill patients. However, in this population, the differences are of modest clinical importance.

Black or African American↗
PubMed2000

Ineffectiveness of the SUPPORT intervention: review of explanations.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments -- SUPPORT -- was to improve the care of seriously ill patients by improving decision-making for patients with life-threatening illnesses. Several theories have been proposed to explain why the SUPPORT intervention was unsuccessful at improving outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To review and discuss explanations offered by others regarding why the SUPPORT intervention failed to have a discernible impact on its prespecified outcome measures. DESIGN: A descriptive review of published articles and book chapters, with synthesis of data-based and conceptual insights. METHODS: The Medline, Bioethicsline, and Ethx databases were searched for citations to SUPPORT articles between 1994 and the end of 1998. This search was supplemented by other published materials that had come to the authors' attention. RESULTS: The critiques and explanations regarding the reasons the SUPPORT intervention did not improve outcomes were catalogued and organized into 11 major categories, the first 10 of which are explored in the present study: (1) the inception cohort was biased against an effect of the intervention, (2) the intervention was not implemented as designed, (3) the intervention failed because nurses were too readily ignored, (4) the intervention was too polite, (5) the intervention presented information ineffectively, (6) the intervention did not focus on primary care physicians, (7) the intervention falsely dichotomized do not resuscitate (DNR) decisions, (8) the intervention needed more years on site or an earlier start with each patient, (9) the intervention required more appropriate outcome measures, (10) the intervention was irrelevant because usual care is not seriously flawed, (11) the conceptual model behind SUPPORT was fundamentally flawed in aiming to improve individual, patient-level decision-making as the way to improve seriously ill, hospitalized patients' experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Although some of the critiques were found to raise important concerns, we conclude in each case that the explanation offered is inadequate to explain the failure of the intervention. We urge further reflection on the fundamental assumptions that informed the design of that intervention and refer the reader to a more comprehensive treatment of that issue in the companion paper in this volume.

Communication↗
PubMed2000

Rethinking fundamental assumptions: SUPPORT's implications for future reform. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences and Risks of Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The intervention in SUPPORT, the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments, was ineffective in changing communication, decision-making, and treatment patterns despite evidence that counseling and information were delivered as planned. The previous paper in this volume shows that modest alterations in the intervention design probably did not explain the lack of substantial effects. OBJECTIVE: To explore the possibility that improved individual, patient-level decision-making is not the most effective strategy for improving end-of-life care and that improving routine practices may be more effective. DESIGN: This paper reflects our efforts to synthesize findings from SUPPORT and other sources in order to explore our conceptual models, their consistency with the data, and their leverage for change. RESULTS: Many of the assumptions underlying the model of improved decision-making are problematic. Furthermore, the results of SUPPORT suggest that implementing an effective intervention based on a normative model of shared decision-making can be quite difficult. Practice patterns and social expectations may be strong influences in shaping patients' courses of care. Innovations in system function, such as quality improvement or changing the financing incentives, may offer more powerful avenues for reform. CONCLUSIONS: SUPPORT's intervention may have failed to have an impact because strong psychological and social forces underlie present practices. System-level innovation and quality improvement in routine care may offer more powerful opportunities for improvement.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2000

Age differences in care practices and outcomes for hospitalized patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify age group differences in care practices and outcomes for seriously ill hospitalized patients with malignancy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study (SUPPORT project). SETTING: Five United States teaching hospitals; data was gathered between 1989 and 1994. SUBJECTS: Nine hundred twenty five older (age > or = 65 years), 983 middle aged (age = 45-64 years), and 274 younger (age = 18-44 years) hospitalized patients receiving care for non-small cell lung cancer, colon cancer metastasized to the liver, or multi-organ system failure associated with malignancy. MEASUREMENTS: Care practices and patient outcomes were determined from hospital records. Length of survival was identified using the National Death Index. After adjusting for important variables, including severity of illness (i.e., SUPPORT model estimate for 2-month survival, cancer condition), hospital site, selection to intervention and sociodemographic variables, age group differences in care practices and outcomes were identified using general linear models. RESULTS: Older patients with cancer had lower resource utilization during hospitalization (P < .04) and were less likely to receive cancer-related treatments (i.e., chemotherapy, platelet infusions, scheduled intravenous medications) than middle-aged and young-adult patients in the first week of hospitalization (P < or = .01). More care topics were discussed with older patients and their families then with younger patients and their families (P < .001). Length of stay and total hospital costs were lower for older and middle-aged patients than for younger patients. Although more older patients had discussions about transfer to hospice (P < .001), older patients were no more likely to be discharged with supportive care (inpatient hospice or home with home/ hospice care). Older patients died sooner than middle-aged patients (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patient age influenced care decisions and outcomes. Older patients (age > or = 65 years) received less aggressive care, had more discussions about care decisions, and died sooner than younger patients with cancer. Younger patients had longer stays, higher hospital costs, and greater probability of rehospitalization. Although well over half of patients died within 6 months of hospitalization, few patients in any age group were discharged with supportive care. Future studies should examine age differences in palliation, as well as acute care of cancer patients across inpatient and ambulatory care settings and should assess quality of care at the end of life.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

The effect of nutritional supplementation on survival in seriously ill hospitalized adults: an evaluation of the SUPPORT data. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Enteral tube and parenteral hyperalimentation are widely used nutritional support systems. Few studies examine the relation between nutritional support and patient outcomes in seriously ill hospitalized adults. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between nutritional support and survival in seriously ill patients enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). DESIGN: A prospective study of preferences, decision-making, and outcomes. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals PARTICIPANTS: 6298 patients aged 18 or older meeting diagnostic and illness severity criteria. MEASUREMENT: Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, comorbid conditions, acute physiology score, nutritional support, and functional status before hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 2149 patients received nutritional support. In patients who received artificial nutrition on hospital days 1 or 3 (Cohort 1), enteral feeding was associated with improved survival in coma (hazard: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42-0.66), and reduced survival in COPD (hazard: 1.57; 95%CI, 1.18-2.08). In patients who were hospitalized on Day 7 and received artificial nutrition on days 1, 3, or 7 (Cohort 2), enteral tube feeding (hazard: 0.35; 95%CI, 0.27-0.46) or hyperalimentation (hazard: 0.58; 95%CI, 0.38-0.90) was associated with improved survival in coma. Tube feeding was associated with decreased survival in acute respiratory failure (ARF) or multiorgan system failure (MOSF) with sepsis (hazard: 1.21; 95%CI, 10.4-1.41), cirrhosis (hazard: 2.15; 95%CI, 1.35-3.42), and COPD (hazard: 1.37; 95%CI, 1.04-1.80). Hyperalimentation was associated with decreased survival in ARF or MOSF with sepsis (hazard: 1.34; 95%CI, 1.12-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional support was associated with improved survival in coma. Enteral feeding and hyperalimentation was associated with decreased survival in ARF or MOSF with sepsis. Tube feeding was associated with decreased survival in cirrhosis and COPD. Except for patients in coma, artificial nutrition was not associated with a survival advantage.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Blood transfusion administration in seriously ill patients: an evaluation of SUPPORT data. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Administration of blood transfusion in seriously ill patients is highly variable. Limited data are available to guide transfusion decisions. OBJECTIVE: To explore characteristics of patients who received blood transfusions and decisions to forego transfusions in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). DESIGN: Prospective study of preferences, decision-making, and outcomes. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 9105 patients aged 18 years and older meeting defined diagnostic and illness severity criteria. MEASUREMENT: Data included blood transfusions, demographic characteristics, diagnoses, comorbid conditions, acute physiology score (APS), nutritional support, and functional status before hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 2863 patients (31.4%) received blood transfusions, usually early in their hospitalization. Transfused patients were more likely male (57.3 %; P = .008), with a younger mean age (56 vs 64 years), significantly higher APS (P < .001), and significantly lower 2- and 6-month survival predictions (P < .001). The patients with acute respiratory failure or multiorgan system failure with sepsis (1714; 59.9% of all patients receiving transfusions), multiorgan system failure with malignancy (480, 16.8%), and cirrhosis (248, 8.7%) were more likely to receive blood than those with other diseases. Few patients made a decision not to receive blood before (5; 0.05%) or after (126; 1.4%) study entry. Most patients with decisions to forego transfusions also had decisions against trying resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: Most transfusions occurred in patients with acute respiratory or multiorgan system failure. Few patients decide to forego transfusions. Additional investigation is necessary to evaluate blood transfusion practices in seriously ill patients.

APACHE↗
PubMed2000

Physician understanding of patient resuscitation preferences: insights and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVE: To describe physician understanding of patient preferences concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to assess the relationship of physician understanding of patient preferences with do not resuscitate (DNR) orders and in-hospital CPR. DESIGN: We evaluated physician understanding of patient CPR preference and the association of patient characteristics and physician-patient communication with physician understanding of patient CPR preferences. Among patients preferring to forego CPR, we compared attempted resuscitations and time to receive a DNR order between patients whose preference was understood or misunderstood by their physician. PATIENTS/SETTING: Seriously ill hospitalized adult patients were enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for the Outcomes of Treatments. GENERAL RESULTS: Physicians understood 86% of patient preferences for CPR, but only 46% of patient preferences to forego CPR. Younger patient age, higher physician-estimated quality of life, and higher physician prediction of 6-month survival were independently associated with both physician understanding when a patient preferred to receive CPR and physician misunderstanding when a patient preferred to forego CPR. Physicians who spoke with patients about resuscitation and had longer physician-patient relationships understood patients' preferences to forego CPR more often. Patients whose physicians understood their preference to forego CPR more often received DNR orders, received them earlier, and were significantly less likely to undergo resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often misunderstand seriously ill, hospitalized patients' resuscitation preferences, especially preferences to forego CPR. Factors associated with misunderstanding suggest that physicians infer patients' preferences without asking the patient. Patients who prefer to forego CPR but whose wishes are not understood by their physician may receive unwanted treatment.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2000

A prospective study of patient-physician communication about resuscitation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively seriously ill patients' characteristics, perceptions, and preferences associated with discussing resuscitation (CPR) with their physicians. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Five academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments who had not communicated with their physicians about CPR at admission to a hospital for life-threatening illness (n = 1288). MEASUREMENTS: Baseline surveys of patients' characteristics, health status, desires for participation in medical decision making, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Two month follow-up surveys of patients' communication of resuscitation preference. Chart reviews for clinical indicators. RESULTS: Thirty percent of patients communicated their resuscitation preference to their physician during a 2 month-period following hospital admission. Patients whose preference was to forego CPR (odds ratio (OR) 2.9;(95% CI, 1.9-4.2)) and whose preference had changed from desiring to foregoing CPR (OR 1.6; (95% CI, 1.1-2.4)) were more likely to communicate their preference than patients who continued to prefer to receive CPR. However, only 50% of patients who maintained a preference to forego CPR communicated this over a 2-month period. Having an advance directive and remaining in the hospital at 2-month follow-up were also independently associated with communication, whereas patients' preference for participation in decision-making, health status, and prognostic estimate were not. CONCLUSIONS: Communication about resuscitation preferences occurred infrequently after hospital admission for a serious illness, even among patients wishing to forego resuscitation. Factors such as declining quality of life, which were expected to be associated with communication, were not. An invitation to communicate about CPR preference is important after hospital admission for a serious illness. Novel approaches are needed to promote physician-patient discussions about resuscitation.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Predicting functional status outcomes in hospitalized patients aged 80 years and older.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a model estimating the probability of a patient aged 80 years or older having functional limitations 2 months and 12 months after being hospitalized. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Four teaching hospitals in the US. PARTICIPANTS: Enrolled patients were nonelective hospital admissions aged 80 years or older who stayed in hospital at least 48 hours. The 804 patients who survived and completed an interview at 2 months and the 450 who completed an interview at 12 months were from the 1266 patients in the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP) (76% and 47% of survivors, respectively). Median age of the 2-month survivors was 84.7 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN OUTCOMES: Patient function 2 and 12 months after enrollment was defined by the number of dependencies in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to predict functional status. Predictors included demographic characteristics, disease category, geriatric conditions, severity of physiologic imbalance, current quality of life, and exercise capacity and ADLs 2 weeks before study admission. RESULTS: Before admission, 39% of patients were functionally independent in ADLs. Of patients who survived and were interviewed at 2 months, 32% were functionally independent, and at 12 months, 36% were independent. Among patients with no baseline dependencies, 42% had developed one or more limitations 2 months later, and 41 % had limitations 12 months later. The patient's ability to perform activities of daily living at baseline was the most important predictor of functional status at both 2 and 12 months. In a multivariable predictive model, independent predictors of poorer functional status at 2 months included: worse baseline functional status and quality of life; depth of coma, if any; lower serum albumin level; presence of dementia, depression, or incontinence; being bedridden; medical record documentation of need for nursing home; and older age. Model performance, assessed using Somers' D, was 0.61 for 2 months and 0.57 for 12 months (Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) area = 0.81 and .79, respectively.) Bootstrap validation of the month 2 model also yielded a Somers' D = 0.60. The models were well calibrated over the entire risk range. The ROC area for prediction of the loss of independence was 0.76 for 2 months and 0.68 for 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Many older patients are functionally impaired at the time of hospitalization, and many develop new functional limitations. A limited amount of readily available clinical information can yield satisfactory predictions of functional status 2 months after hospitalization. Models like this may prove to be useful in clinical care. This work illuminates a potential method for risk adjustment in research studies and for monitoring quality of care.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2000

Family satisfaction with end-of-life care in seriously ill hospitalized adults.

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with family satisfaction with end-of-life care in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). DESIGN: A prospective cohort study with patients randomized to either usual care or an intervention that included clinical nurse specialists to assist in symptom control and facilitation of communication and decision-making. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Family members and other surrogate respondents for 767 seriously ill hospitalized adults who died. MEASUREMENTS: Eight questionnaire items regarding satisfaction with the patient's medical care expressed as two scores, one measuring satisfaction with patient comfort and the other measuring satisfaction with communication and decision-making. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of respondents reported dissatisfaction with patient comfort and 30% reported dissatisfaction with communication and decision-making. Factors found to be significantly associated with satisfaction with communication and decision-making were hospital site, whether death occurred during the index hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.2, 95% CI, 1.3-3.9), and for patients who died following discharge, whether the patient received the SUPPORT intervention (AOR 2.0, 1.2-3.2). For satisfaction with comfort, male surrogates reported less satisfaction (0.6, 0.4-1.0), surrogates who reported patients' preferences were followed moderately to not at all had less satisfaction (0.2, 0.1-0.4), and surrogates who reported the patient's illness had greater effect on family finances had less satisfaction (0.4, 0.2-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction scores suggest the need for improvement in end-of-life care, especially in communication and decision making. Further research is needed to understand how factors affect satisfaction with end-of-life care. An intervention like that used in SUPPORT may help family members.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Decision-making and outcomes of prolonged ICU stays in seriously ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite concern about the high costs and the uncertain benefit of prolonged treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU), there has been little research examining decision-making and outcomes for patients with prolonged ICU stays. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate decision-making and outcomes for seriously ill patients with an ICU stay of at least 14 days. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Seriously ill patients enrolled in the Study To Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Risks and Outcomes of Treatments (SUPPORT). MEASUREMENT: Patients, their surrogate decision-makers, and their physicians were interviewed about prognosis, communication, and goals of medical care. Based on age, diagnoses, comorbid illnesses, and acute physiology data, the SUPPORT Prognostic Model provided estimates of 6-month survival on study days 1, 3, 7, and 14. Hospital costs were estimated from hospital billing data. RESULTS: Of the 9105 patients enrolled in SUPPORT, 1494 (16%) had ICU stays of 14 days or longer. The median length of stay in an ICU was 4 days for the entire SUPPORT cohort and 35 days for patients who were treated in an ICU for 14 days or longer. Median hospital costs were $76,501 for patients who had ICU stays 14 days or longer and $10,916 for patients who did not have long ICU stays. Fifty-five percent of patients with long ICU stays had died by 6 months, and an additional 19% had substantial functional impairment. Among patients with ICU stays of at least 14 days, only 20% had estimates of 6-month survival that fell below 10% at any time during their hospitalization. For patients with long ICU stays, the mean predicted probability of 6-month survival was 0.46 on study Day 3 and 0.47 on study Day 14. Fewer than 40% of patients (or their surrogates) reported that their physicians had talked with them about their prognoses or preferences for life-sustaining treatment. Among the patients who preferred a palliative approach to care, only 29% thought that their care was consistent with that aim. Those who discussed their preferences for care with a physician were 1.9 times more likely to believe that treatment was in accord with their preferences for palliation (95% CI, 1.4-2.5) CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged ICU stays were expensive and were often followed by death or disability. Patients reported low rates of discussions with their physicians about their prognoses and preferences for life-sustaining treatments. Many preferred that care focus on palliation and believed that care was inconsistent with their preferences. Patients were more likely to receive care consistent with their preferences if they had discussed their care preferences with their physicians.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2000

Withholding versus withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: patient factors and documentation associated with dialysis decisions.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated prospectively the use of acute hemodialysis among hospitalized patients to identify demographic and clinical predictors of and chart documentation concerning dialysis withheld and withdrawn. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Five hundred sixty-five seriously ill hospitalized patients who had not previously undergone dialysis who developed renal failure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, preferences, and prognostic estimates associated with having dialysis withheld rather than initiated and withdrawn rather than continued. Differences in chart documentation concerning decision-making for dialysis withheld, withdrawn, and continued. RESULTS: Older patient age, cancer diagnosis, and male gender were associated with dialysis withheld rather than withdrawn. Age and gender differences persisted after adjustment for patients' aggressiveness of care preference. Worse 2-month prognosis was associated with both withholding and withdrawing dialysis. Chart documentation of decision-making was lacking more often for patients with dialysis withheld than for dialysis withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the equity of life-sustaining treatment use will require evaluation of care withheld, not just care withdrawn. Older patients and men, after accounting for prognosis and function, are more likely to have dialysis withheld than withdrawn after a trial. Further exploration is needed into this disparity and the inadequate chart documentation for patients with dialysis withheld.

APACHE↗
PubMed2000

Patients who want their family and physician to make resuscitation decisions for them: observations from SUPPORT and HELP. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which older or seriously ill inpatients would prefer to have their family and physician make resuscitation decisions for them rather than having their own stated preferences followed if they were unable to decide themselves. DESIGN: Analysis of existing data from the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP) and the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment (SUPPORT). SETTING: Five teaching hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 2203 seriously ill adult inpatients (SUPPORT) and 1226 older inpatients (HELP) who expressed preferences about resuscitation and about advance decision-making. MEASURES: We used a logistic regression model to determine which factors predicted preferences for family and physician decision-making. RESULTS: Of the 513 HELP patients in this analysis, 363 (70.8%) would prefer to have their family and physician make resuscitation decisions for them whereas 29.2% would prefer to have their own stated preferences followed if they were to lose decision-making capacity. Of the 646 SUPPORT patients, 504 (78.0%) would prefer to have their family and physician decide and 22.0% would prefer to have their advance preferences followed. Independent predictors of preference for family and physician decision-making included not wanting to be resuscitated and having a surrogate decision-maker. CONCLUSIONS: Most inpatients who are older or have serious illnesses would not want their stated resuscitation preferences followed if they were to lose decision-making capacity. Most patients in both groups would prefer that their family and physician make resuscitation decisions for them. These results underscore the need to understand resuscitation preferences within a broader context of patient values.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2000

Living and dying with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over patients' last 6 months of life. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort from the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). SETTING: Hospitalization for exacerbation of COPD at five US teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: COPD patients who died within 1 year (n = 416) among 1016 enrolled. METHODS: Interview and medical record data were organized into time windows beginning with death and ending 6 months earlier. OUTCOME MEASURES: Days in hospital, prognosis, illness severity, function, symptoms, patients' preferences, and impacts on families. RESULTS: One-year survival was 59%, 39% had > or = 3 comorbidities, and 15 to 25% of the patients' last 6 months were in hospitals. Exacerbation etiologies included respiratory infection (47%) and cardiac problems (30%). Better quality of life predicted longer survival (ARR: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.87) as did heart failure etiology of exacerbation (ARR: 0.57; CI, 0.40, 0.82). Estimates of survival by physicians and by prognostic model were well calibrated, although patients with the worst prognoses survived longer than predicted. Patients' estimates of prognosis were poorly calibrated. One-quarter of patients had serious pain throughout, and two-thirds had serious dyspnea. Patients' illnesses had a major impact on more than 25% of families. Patients' preferences for Do-Not-Resuscitate orders increased from 40% at 3 to 6 months before death to 77% within 1 month of death; their decisions not to use mechanical ventilation increased from 12 to 31%, and their preferences for resuscitation decreased from 52 to 23%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced COPD often die within 1 year and have substantial comorbidities and symptoms. Adequate description anchors improved care.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

After aging.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Aged↗