Skip to main content

Nudging residents to document advance directives

Picture of this frog has no bearing on the post. I'm not saying residents are frogs in disguise.  Seriously.  It's just a cool picture, isn't it?  Credit Wikimedia Commons
So on the one hand, it seems wierd that residents ask patients about code status when they are admitted to the hospital.  Some patients don't expect it.  I remember a healthy 20 something year old guy admitted for an inflammatory bowel syndome flare saying, "Why are you asking me this?  Am I going to die?"

On the other hand, hospital admission to a medicine service is one of the few times critical advance care planning conversations occur.  This represents a major opportunity to communicate with patients about their goals, values, and preferences for end-of-life care.  Unfortunately, even when these conversations take place, the medical residents sometimes do not document this information in the medical record or discharge summary in a place where it is clearly accessible for future clinicians.

In that context, Josh Lakin and colleagues at UCSF created a remarkable incentive program for residents to document advance directives in the chart.  The study was just published in JAMA Internal Medicine.  They set a goal of increasing documentation of the following for hospiatlized patients: 1) wishes for care 2) identification of health care proxy. 

The intervention consisted of
  1. A discharge summary template with these fields
  2. A financial incentive ($400 for each resident if the entire program achieved a 75% documenationa rate)
  3. Feedback about each resident and admitting team was doing emailed out to all the teams biweekly
The results:
  • Rates of documentation improved from 22% to more than 90% at the end of the year
  • In a comparison group of a hospitalist-only service (no residents) who had the template but no financial incentive or feedback mechanism, rates stayed constantly low throughout the year.
I love this idea.  It uses behavioral economics to nudge people to do what they should be doing anyway.  Can you imagine the peer pressure with the "public reporting" among the admitting medical teams, "Oh no! Our team is falling behind! We don't want to be the ones who jeaporidize the whole program being paid for not meeting the 75% target!  Let's document!"

by: Alex Smith

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi, can anyone here please shed some light on why a MSG that is looking to hire a Geriatrician expects the doctor to see 25 patients a day? Are they living in the real world? This sounds like a mill that is only focused on the $$$$$$$$. How can a Geriatrician do justice much less have any kind of quality of life when expected to process 25 Geriatric Patients a day?

Thank you,

Barret
Carol Cross said…
Does this explain WHY DNR Code Status is so widespread in the charts of old Medicare/Medicaid patients in California.

I'm sure that it is rare indeed when an elderly patient requests CPR after talking with residents who explain how risky and futile CPR is (generally) for the elderly.

Unfortunately, the elderly don't understand that NO CPR translates to Do Not Resuscitate Code Status and that DNR status is often inappropriately used to limit life-saving treatments that the Hospitals KNOW will not be reimbursed by Medicare and the private insurers.

The problem of DNR Code Status is long standing and there have been many studies, most of which indicate that the mortality rate among patients with DNR in their hospital chart is always higher ---even when adjusted for known variables.

Somehow, paying $500 to residents to influence the elderly to shorten their lives seems immoral to me.

John Newman said…
These resident financial incentives seem to work. I've been curious, though, if they cause real cultural change or if there's a crowding-out effect where this year's incentive displaces last year's in the residents' workflow. For example, PCP notification was another highly successful incentive a couple of years ago. These days, are residents still notifying 90% of PCPs or are rates falling to pre-incentive levels? Ideas for the next study...
Alex Smith said…
Interesting John - I was wondering the same thing. How effective is the intervention after the intervention period? Is there a lasting effect due to culture change, or do we need "kickers" in the residents contracts for each of these outcomes.
Alex,
I love your term, “behavioral economics to nudge people,” even though it takes 36 characters including spaces instead of 5 (for “bribe”), although I initially considered it a euphemism. What changed my mind about this value-laden word? The psychological herd effect; not to be the one who “jeopardizes the whole program being paid for not meeting the 75% target!” The psychological perception overcomes the economic one, since $400 is a small percentage of what residents now earn in a year. But this consideration makes one skeptical regarding on changing behavior after the intervention period. What might work? Testimonials from patients who say, “I am so glad my doctor asked me….”

Stan Terman
Alex Smith said…
Hi Stan, appreciate your comment, especially the word count joke! Behavioral economics builds on some terrific work by Kahneman and Tversky, for which they were awarded the nobel prize. The hope is that once norms around documentation are changed, people will have a hard time going against the grain and NOT documenting them. So the financial incentive may not be necessary long term.

Patient feedback would also be helpful, and satisfaction (the major measure used by hospitals) just isn't enough. It's the wrong question. The right question, as you imply, is about preparation. Later, when things get rough, are they glad their doctor asked them some difficult questions and documented their preferences.
Sarah Bird said…
Interesting way to solve an issue that is prevalent in healthcare. I work in Hospice and am well aware of the unique challenges of discussing sensitive issues. It's not unheard of for hospitals here to discharge patients to Hospice with no information about Advanced Directives. My company recently published an article describing what we have to do in situations where there are no AD and the patient is unable to communicate on their own, Making Healthcare Decisions in Arizona (use of a surrogate).

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…

Does “compassionate deception” have a place in palliative care?

by: Olivia Gamboa (@Liv_g_g)

There is broad consensus in the medical community that lying to patients is unethical.  However, in the care of patients with dementia, the moral clarity of this approach blurs.  In her recent New Yorker article, “The Memory House,”  Larissa MacFarquhar provides an excellent portrait of the common devices of artifice, omission and outright deception that are frequently deployed in the care of patients with dementia.  She furthermore explores the historical and ethical underpinnings of the various approaches used in disclosing (or not) information to patients living with dementia.

Ms. MacFarquhar introduces the idea of “compassionate deception,” or the concept that withholding truths, or even promoting outright falsehoods, is a reasonable and even ethical choice for those caring for patients with dementia.  To the extent that it helps a person with dementia feel happier and calmer, allowing them to believe in a gentler reality (one in which, say, their spo…