Skip to main content

What pushes doctors to talk about withdrawal of life sustaining treatments?




What changes an ICU doctors intention to discuss withdrawal of life support in a family meeting? An interesting study published this month argues that a doctors willingness to discuss withdrawal of life support depends on how sick the patient is, but not necessarily what the patient’s values are in regards to functional recovery.  Interestingly, it also depends on whether doctors are required to record the patient’s most likely 3-month functional outcome before deciding whether to discuss withdrawal of life support.

The Study

The study, by Alison Turnbull (who also on twitter @vitaincerta) and colleagues, was a three-armed randomized control trial of 630 academic intensivists recruited via e-mail invitation. Each of these intensivists reviewed a single hypothetical patient across 10 different scenarios representing a wide range of illness severities that changed the probability of in-hospital mortality (all of which included that the patient was mechanically ventilated for the past 48 hours). The intensivisits were randomized three different groups, all of which had the identical 10 scenarios except for the following differences:

  • In the control-arm, the family members believed that patient did not want continued life support without a reasonable chance of independent living in her own home. 
  • In the first experimental arm, the patient was a “fighter” and would want life-sustaining therapy even if her best possible outcome is transfer to a nursing home where she would receive help with her activities of daily living 
  • In the second experimental arm, the patient values were identical to the control group, but intensivists were required to record the patient’s estimated 3-month functional prognosis.

After each scenario, the intensivisits were then asked to response to the following question: “Would you bring up the possibility of withdrawing life support with Mrs. X’s family?” using a five-point Likert scale.

What they found:

Values made little difference.
It didn't really mater what the patient's values were regarding willingness to continue life support based on functional recovery, intensivists would or wouldn’t discuss withdrawal of life support mainly based on the severity of illness. For instance, the proportion of intensivists in the control or first experimental arm that would probably or definitely discuss withdrawal of life support ranged from about 4% for the scenario with the lowest predicted mortality to 70-75% in the scenario with highest predicted mortality (Fig. 2).

Documenting Prognosis did
In every scenario, the proportion of doctors intending to discuss withdrawal of life sustaining treatments was greatest in the group that was randomized to document functional prognosis before making a decision on whether or not they will discuss withdrawal.   This was not significant though for the two scenarios in which the probability of in-hospital death was the lowest and the last two scenarios where the probability of in-hospital death was the greatest.   As the authors state in the article, this would suggest the impact of requiring one to record a 3-month functional outcome was most important in scenarios where the patient to survived, but become dependent in ADLs.

Take home points: 

I'm still trying to digest this article's ramifications, as their is a whole lot of decision making psychology that seems to be taking place here.  One that was discussed in the article was the focusing effect.  If you want people to base decisions on a particular attribute, have them think about that attribute before any decision is made. So, if you want doctors to pay attention to the goals of the patient when deciding whether to discuss withdrawal of care, especially when that goal is to stop life support if there was no reasonable chance of living independently, then ask them to write down what they think the patient’s functional prognosis is in three months.

The other thing that seems clear that doctors make decisions about when to talk about withdrawal of life sustaining treatments based on the severity of illness, which is consistent to what we see in real life practice.  If patients are likely to survive, its unlikely that doctors will discuss withdrawal. If they are likely to die in the hospital, its likely that doctors will discuss withdrawal.  If there is a greater amount of uncertainty around prognosis, then taking time to think about longer-term functional prognosis, not just survival, can influence doctors to talk about withdrawal of life sustaining treatments.

by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comments

Jennifer Brokaw said…
I wonder if physicians would comply with a requirement to document likely 3 month functional status without a direct request from the patient's surrogate? Seems to me that the answer here lies in disseminating this information to patients and their surrogates, not necessarily to health care providers....

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Advance Care Planning before Major Surgery: A Podcast with Vicky Tang

This week's podcast is all about the intersection of geriatrics, palliative care, advanced care planning and surgery with our guest Dr. Vicky Tang.  Vicky is an assistant professor and researcher here at UCSF.  We talk about her local and national efforts focused on this intersection, including:
Her JAMA Surgery article that showed 3 out of 4 older adults undergoing high risk surgery had no advance care planning (ACP) documentation. Prehab clinics and how ACP fits into these clinicsThe Geriatric Surgery Verification Quality Improvement Program whose goal is to set the standards for geriatric surgical care including ACP discussions prior to surgeryHow frailty fits in and how to assess it (including this paper from JAGS on the value of the chair raise test) So take a listen and check out some of those links.  For those who want to take a deeper dive into how GeriPal and surgery fit together, check out these other podcasts: Zara Cooper on Trauma Surgery, Geriatrics, and Palliative Car…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …