Skip to main content

Too Little Care? Too Much Care?

I wanted to get this community's thoughts on a recent article that made some headlines (see ABC news and New York Times for example).

In the Sept 26 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, Brenda Sirovich and colleagues from Dartmouth report a survey of primary care physicians, where they found that PCP felt they were providing too much care more often than too little care.

First, I want to concede the point that the ideal answer is that we need to individualize decisions and that even if most patients are getting "too much" care, there will be some patients who would benefit from getting more care.

Focusing on averages and a population perspective, I've become interested in this topic since I felt a slight tension between younger and older geriatricians about the care for older adults. It seems that in a previous generation of geriatricians, the primary concern about the care of older adults was that we were not providing enough care. For me, this is highlighted by the coining of the term "ageism" by Dr Robert Butler in the late 60's. The subtext seemed to me that older patients were being denied appropriate services even though they may benefit because they were old. Thus, a dominant theme was elders getting "Too Little" care.

Since then, it feels like a much more dominant theme in geriatrics is how elders are getting "Too Much" care. From studies focusing on poor outcomes associated with surgeries in elders to foley catheterization to medications to avoid, it feels like more geriatricians believe that too much care is being provided than too little. The studies that focus on undertreatment of elders seems to come more from subspecialists (e.g. oncologists showing that elders are being undertreated for cancers) than geriatricians.

Do folks think that geriatrics as a field has shifted from fighting to ensure that elders get appropriate care to fighting to prevent harmful care?

My sense (completely unsupported by any data) is that this has happened. Further, I think much of this reflects a shift in US medicine, where more and more interventions being done. Thus, ideal care for the older patient has not changed in intensity over the past 40 years. However, the standard of care has shifted, so that 40 years ago, the standard of care may have been slightly less aggressive than ideal and now the standard is more aggressive than ideal.

Comments

Nancy Lundebjerg said…
Alex, I am not sure that this is a generational divide for geriatricians. Rather, it's that geriatricians are fighting the same battle -- what's best for patients -- but on a new battlefield created by the convergence of two evolutionary streams --- progress in medicine and changes in how it is practiced. Seems to me like geriatricians got it then and they get it now.
ken covinsky said…
A big part of the art of Geriatric Medicine is right sizing care. Sometimes this means it is the Geriatricians role to point out that their 85 year old is not too old for a knee replacement. Sometimes it means pointing out that a screening colonoscopy in a frail 80 year old is much more likely to harm than benefit the patient.

I definitely agree with Sei that the relative emphasis in Geriatrics has shifted, and this shift seems large.

The field has become increasingly concerned about the harmful effects of too much care. I agree with Nancy that much of this reflects a response to changes in how medicine is practiced.

On the other hand I do suspect a component of this reflects changes in the culture of our field. In particular, changing attitudes may be at least partially related to the profound influence of Palliative Medicine on the practice of Geriatric Medicine. Palliative Medicine has taught us that the care our patients need is not always found in more diagnostic tests and procedures.

I suspect the Geriatrics culture shift may be very different in the United States than in other countries. The risk of harmful care and procedures is probably much lower in nations with better functioning health systems. In these countries, perhaps Geriatricians put more emphasis on making sure older patients are not excluded from care.
Andrea Allen said…
I agree with Ken that Palliative Medicine has had a beneficial effect. Perhaps in the US we will actually right-size care once we truly establish each patient's goals prior to advising about diagnostics and treatment.
I believe that my father conceptualized ageism as a broad based description of society's marginalization and prejudice toward older people.
In his own life he tended toward minimal medical interventions but favored lifestyle choices to maximize health. I agree that Dr. Butler would promote individualized goals of care, just as he did when friends asked his advice or in discussions with his patients and families.
Mike Steinman said…
The challenge for our field is in being able to hold these seemingly contradictory ideas at the same time. Patients are both receiving too much care AND too little care - for example, many patients are taking drugs that are unnecessary, but are not taking other drugs that might help them. Our patients lose out when we become overly focused on undertreatment or overtreatment.
sei said…
Ms Butler,

Thank you for clarifying your father's views. To highlight the possible shift in biases within the field of Geriatrics, I over-simplified the original conception of ageism.

Your comment refocusing on ageism as a broader social marginalization of elders reminds me of how the concept is just as relevant today as it was when first developed.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …