Terminating Life-Sustaining Treatment of the Demented

Author(s):  
Daniel Callahan
Critical Care ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Pochard ◽  
Nancy Kentish-Barnes ◽  
Elie Azoulay

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 752-752
Author(s):  
Joan Carpenter ◽  
Winifred Scott ◽  
Mary Ersek ◽  
Cari Levy ◽  
Jennifer Cohen ◽  
...  

Abstract This study examined the alignment between Veterans’ end-of-life care and a Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) goal “to be comfortable.” It includes Veterans with VA inpatient or community living center stays overlapping July 2018--January 2019, with a LST template documented by January 31, 2019, and who died by April 30, 2019 (N = 18,163). Using VA and Medicare data, we found 80% of decedents with a comfort care goal received hospice and 57% a palliative care consult (compared to 57% and 46%, respectively, of decedents without a comfort care goal). Using multivariate logistic regression, a comfort care goal was associated with significantly lower odds of EOL hospital or ICU use. In the last 30 days of life, Veterans with a comfort care goal had 43% lower odds (AOR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.64) of hospitalization and 46% lower odds of ICU use (AOR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.61).


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S199-S200
Author(s):  
Olivia Kates ◽  
Elizabeth M Krantz ◽  
Juhye Lee ◽  
John Klaassen ◽  
Jessica Morris ◽  
...  

Abstract Background IDSA/SHEA guidelines recommend that antimicrobial stewardship programs support providers in antibiotic decisions for end of life care. Washington State Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms allow patients to indicate antimicrobial use preferences. We sought to characterize antimicrobial use in the last 30 days of life for cancer patients by presence of a POLST and antimicrobial use preferences. Methods We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of cancer patient deaths from January 1, 2016 - June 30, 3018. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, POLST, and antimicrobial use within 30 days before death were extracted from electronic records. To test for an association between POLST completed at least 30 days before death and inpatient antimicrobial days of therapy (DOT) in the 30 days before death, we used negative binomial models adjusted for age, sex, race, and service line (hematologic versus solid malignancy); model estimates are presented as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) Results Of 1796 patients, 406 (23%) had a POLST. 177/406 (44%) were completed less than 30 days before death, and 58/177 (32.8%) specified limited antibiotic use; 40/177 (23%) did not specify any antimicrobial use preference (Fig 1). Of 1295 patients with at least 1 inpatient day in the 30 days before death, 1070 (83%) received at least 1 inpatient antimicrobial with median DOT of 1077 per 1000 inpatient days (Tab 1). There was no difference in DOT among patients with and without a POLST > /= 30 days before death (IRR 0.92, CI 0.77, 1.10). Patients with a POLST specifying limited antibiotic use had significantly lower inpatient IV antimicrobial DOT compared to those without a POLST (IRR 0.64, CI 0.42–0.97) (Fig 2). Figure 1. Classification of Patients by Presence of POLST, Timing, and Antimicrobial Preference Content of POLST. Numbers shown represent the number of patients (percentage). Full antibiotic use refers to the selection “Use antibiotics for prolongation of life.” Limited antibiotic use refers to the selection “Do not use antibiotics except when needed for symptom management.” Table 1: Antimicrobial use for all patients and by advance directive group Figure 2. Forest plot of model estimates, represented as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for associations between POLST antimicrobial specifications completed at least 30 days before death and inpatient antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) in the 30 days before death. Estimates represent comparisons between each POLST category and no POLST completed at least 30 days before death. Dots represent the IRR and brackets extend to the lower and upper limit of the 95% CI. Blue estimates are for the inpatient antibiotic DOT outcome and red estimates are for the inpatient IV antibiotic DOT outcome. Conclusion POLST completion is rare > /= 30 days before death, with few POLSTs specifying antimicrobial use. Compared to those with no POLST in this time frame, patients who indicated that antibiotics should be used only for symptom management received significantly fewer inpatient IV antimicrobials. Early discussion of advance directives including POLST with specification of antimicrobial use preferences may promote more thoughtful use of antimicrobials near the end of life in a compassionate, patient-centered way. Disclosures Steven A. Pergam, MD, MPH, Chimerix, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Global Life Technologies, Inc. (Research Grant or Support)Merck & Co. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi-Aventis (Other Financial or Material Support, Participate in clinical trial sponsored by NIAID (U01-AI132004); vaccines for this trial are provided by Sanofi-Aventis)


Author(s):  
Mirinae Kim ◽  
Minju Kim

We qualitatively investigated end-of-life care needs. Data were collected via focus-group interviews with three groups: young adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults. The key question was, “What kind of care would you like to receive at the end of life?” Interview data were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. End-of-life care needs were classified into six categories: life-sustaining treatment needs, physical care needs, emotional care needs, environmental needs, needs for respect, and needs for preparation for death. Because the Korean culture is family-oriented and talking about death is taboo, Korean patients at the end of their life do not make decisions about life-sustaining treatment or actively prepare for death. Therefore, to provide proper end-of-life care, conversations and shared decision-making among patients and their families are crucial. Further, we must respect patients’ dignity and help them achieve a good death by understanding patients’ basic care preferences. Future research should continue examining end-of-life care needs that reflect the social and cultural context of Korea to inform instrument development.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e039470
Author(s):  
HyunChul Youn ◽  
Suk-young Lee ◽  
Han-yong Jung ◽  
Shin-Gyeom Kim ◽  
Seung‑Hyun Kim ◽  
...  

ObjectivesLife-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical conditions, and includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, haemodialysis and left ventricular assist devices. This study aimed to investigate the thoughts on life-sustaining treatment of Koreans and to assess the factors associated with deciding to not receive life-sustaining treatment if they develop a terminal disease.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingGuro-gu centre for dementia from 1 May 2018 to 31 December 2019.ParticipantsIn total, 150 individuals participated in this study.Outcome measuresThe questionnaire consisted of self-report items with some instructions, demographic characteristics, thoughts on life-sustaining treatment and psychosocial scales. The preferences of the participants were investigated on the assumption that they develop terminal cancer. The psychosocial scales included the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).ResultsWe classified our participants into two groups: individuals who wanted to receive life-sustaining treatment (IRLT) and individuals who wanted to not receive life-sustaining treatment (INLT). There were twice as many participants in the INLT group than there were in the IRLT. In making this decision, the INLT group focused more on physical and mental distress. Additionally, 32.7% of participants responded that terminal status was an optimal time for this decision, but more participants want to decide it earlier. The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were significantly higher in the INLT group than in the IRLT group. However, the INLT group had significantly lower MSPSS family scores.ConclusionOur findings can help assess issues regarding advance directives and life-sustaining treatment, and will be a reference for designing future studies on this issue.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Robertsen ◽  
Eirik Helseth ◽  
Reidun Førde

Abstract Background Prognostic uncertainty is a challenge for physicians in the neuro intensive care field. Questions about whether continued life-sustaining treatment is in a patient’s best interests arise in different phases after a severe traumatic brain injury. In-depth information about how physicians deal with ethical issues in different contexts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to seek insight into clinicians’ strategies concerning unresolved prognostic uncertainty and their ethical reasoning on the issue of limitation of life-sustaining treatment in patients with minimal or no signs of neurological improvement after severe traumatic brain injury in the later trauma hospital phase. Methods Interviews with 18 physicians working in a neurointensive care unit in a large Norwegian trauma hospital, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis focused on physicians’ strategies related to treatment-limiting decision-making. Results A divide between proactive and wait-and-see strategies emerged. Notwithstanding the hospital’s strong team culture, inter-physician variability with regard to ethical reasoning and preferred strategies was exposed. All the physicians emphasized the importance of team—family interactions. Nevertheless, their strategies differed: (1) The proactive physicians were open to consider limitations of life-sustaining treatment when the prognosis was grim. They initiated ethical discussions, took leadership in clarification and deliberation processes regarding goals and options, saw themselves as guides for the families and believed in the necessity to prepare families for both best-case and worst-case scenarios. (2) The “wait-and-see” physicians preferred open-ended treatment (no limitations). Neurologically injured patients need time to uncover their true recovery potential, they argued. They often avoided talking to the family about dying or other worst-case scenarios during this phase. Conclusions Depending on the individual physician in charge, ethical issues may rest unresolved or not addressed in the later trauma hospital phase. Nevertheless, team collaboration serves to mitigate inter-physician variability. There are problems and pitfalls to be aware of related to both proactive and wait-and-see approaches. The timing of best-interest discussions and treatment-limiting decisions remain challenging after severe traumatic brain injury. Routines for timely and open discussions with families about the range of ethically reasonable options need to be strengthened.


2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 470-471
Author(s):  
Renee Boss ◽  
Pamela Griffin ◽  
Pamela Donohue ◽  
Nancy Hutton ◽  
Beth Wieczorek

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document