Hospice & Palliative Medicine

The Society of Hospital Medicine held its annual meeting recently in Las Vegas, and Stephen had the opportunity to speak on the topic of "Family Meetings: The Art and the Evidence." As a special edition of Palliatively Speaking, we thought we would highlight one aspect of this subject, with other elements forthcoming in future pieces.

As a hospitalist, I stumbled and stuttered through many family meetings until I eventually found myself on more comfortable ground. Overall, I found them rewarding when they went well but stressful and deflating when they did not. The latter sensation was enough to create some avoidant behavior on my part.

After a few years of practice, my hospitalist group began shadowing one another periodically on rounds to provide feedback to our colleagues in the hope of improving the quality of our communication skills. It was then that I noticed that one of my partners was a master at these meetings. A real Rembrandt. He had the ability to deliver bad or difficult news without the dynamic in the room becoming inflammatory or out of control.

I will never forget watching him mediate a disagreement between a nurse and a patient suspected of using illicit substances while hospitalized. He flipped an antagonistic, heated situation into one where the patient, nurse, and physician all agreed on putting the past to rest and forging ahead with his proposed plan. We all left the room with a genuine sense that we had mutual purpose. In my admiration I realized that some of these skills must be teachable.

While I didn’t act on learning those communication techniques immediately after that encounter, I would eventually be formally exposed to them during my palliative medicine training. As it turns out, I still have some uncomfortable meetings with patients and families, but they come around much less frequently and when they do I now have a variety of tools to deal with challenges.

My appreciation of these tools doesn’t stop when I walk through the hospital doors each evening. I have found them to be invaluable in my personal life. In fact, learning to communicate better has been a source of renewal for me at work and staves off burnout. These techniques include active listening, motivational interviewing, demonstration of empathy, conflict resolution, and also negotiation. For the Society of Hospital Medicine meeting audience, I dissected negotiation, citing how it and the other skills can inject vitality into your interactions.

In any negotiation, it’s all about the other party. You are the smallest person in the room, the least important.

This is counterintuitive. Oftentimes at work we are trying to convince everyone how important we are. The readmissions committee should implement your plan to reduce recurrent hospitalizations. Your fellow hospitalists should recognize your value and make you the leader of the group. Patients show their appreciation for you making the right diagnosis and averting a medical calamity for them. But when you enter a family meeting, the patient and his or her loved ones are the center stage. To be successful you have to listen more and talk less. Get to understand the pictures in their heads and then summarize those thoughts and ideas back to them to show you’ve listened.

Make emotional payments. I don’t get into the meat of the meeting until I’ve done that with the patient and every family member in the room. No one holds family meetings for patients who are thriving and have outstanding outcomes. We have family meetings to figure out goals in the face of terrible diseases, when elder abuse is a possibility, when insurance-funded resources are depleted, and for a host of other difficult reasons.

This means that everyone in the room is suffering, sacrificing, scared, confused, or worried. Acknowledge them. Hold them up. Thank them. Reflect on similar moments in your life and demonstrate empathy. Apologize when things haven’t gone right for them at your hospital. These payments will pay handsome dividends as your relationship evolves.

Not manipulation. The term negotiation might bring up images of used car salespeople. I strongly disagree. In manipulation, one side wins and the other doesn’t. In negotiation, the goal is improved communication and understanding. Manipulation is about one side of the equation having knowledge that the other side is lacking and using that to achieve its means. Negotiators hope everyone at the table has the same knowledge.

This leads to two key principles of negotiations: transparency and genuineness. Patients and families are excellent at taking the temperature of the room when you sit down to meet with them. Share knowledge. Don’t have any hidden agendas. Following this principle builds trust.

Be incremental. Taking patients from comfortable, familiar territory into that which is uncomfortable or unfamiliar should not be done in one giant leap. Let’s use code status (CS) as an example because of the frequency with which it comes up (though I rarely talk about CS without first understanding the patient’s goals and hopes).

Some patients refuse to talk about CS, so I think incrementally. I ask that they consider talking about CS with me in the future. Very few people refuse to consider something. Two or three days later I ask, "Have you considered talking to me about CS?" That by itself opens up the topic for conversation. In the extremely unusual case where they still won’t engage, I then ask them, "What would it take for you to consider talking to me about this?" More incrementalism.

While this is not nearly an exhaustive list of negotiation techniques, we hope it is stimulating enough that you might be curious enough to learn more on your own and try incorporating this into your practice. If you’re motivated to do so, please feel free to contact us for reading suggestions: E-mail [email protected].

Dr. Bekanich and Dr. Fredholm are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

The Society of Hospital Medicine held its annual meeting recently in Las Vegas, and Stephen had the opportunity to speak on the topic of "Family Meetings: The Art and the Evidence." As a special edition of Palliatively Speaking, we thought we would highlight one aspect of this subject, with other elements forthcoming in future pieces.

As a hospitalist, I stumbled and stuttered through many family meetings until I eventually found myself on more comfortable ground. Overall, I found them rewarding when they went well but stressful and deflating when they did not. The latter sensation was enough to create some avoidant behavior on my part.

After a few years of practice, my hospitalist group began shadowing one another periodically on rounds to provide feedback to our colleagues in the hope of improving the quality of our communication skills. It was then that I noticed that one of my partners was a master at these meetings. A real Rembrandt. He had the ability to deliver bad or difficult news without the dynamic in the room becoming inflammatory or out of control.

I will never forget watching him mediate a disagreement between a nurse and a patient suspected of using illicit substances while hospitalized. He flipped an antagonistic, heated situation into one where the patient, nurse, and physician all agreed on putting the past to rest and forging ahead with his proposed plan. We all left the room with a genuine sense that we had mutual purpose. In my admiration I realized that some of these skills must be teachable.

While I didn’t act on learning those communication techniques immediately after that encounter, I would eventually be formally exposed to them during my palliative medicine training. As it turns out, I still have some uncomfortable meetings with patients and families, but they come around much less frequently and when they do I now have a variety of tools to deal with challenges.

My appreciation of these tools doesn’t stop when I walk through the hospital doors each evening. I have found them to be invaluable in my personal life. In fact, learning to communicate better has been a source of renewal for me at work and staves off burnout. These techniques include active listening, motivational interviewing, demonstration of empathy, conflict resolution, and also negotiation. For the Society of Hospital Medicine meeting audience, I dissected negotiation, citing how it and the other skills can inject vitality into your interactions.

In any negotiation, it’s all about the other party. You are the smallest person in the room, the least important.

This is counterintuitive. Oftentimes at work we are trying to convince everyone how important we are. The readmissions committee should implement your plan to reduce recurrent hospitalizations. Your fellow hospitalists should recognize your value and make you the leader of the group. Patients show their appreciation for you making the right diagnosis and averting a medical calamity for them. But when you enter a family meeting, the patient and his or her loved ones are the center stage. To be successful you have to listen more and talk less. Get to understand the pictures in their heads and then summarize those thoughts and ideas back to them to show you’ve listened.

Make emotional payments. I don’t get into the meat of the meeting until I’ve done that with the patient and every family member in the room. No one holds family meetings for patients who are thriving and have outstanding outcomes. We have family meetings to figure out goals in the face of terrible diseases, when elder abuse is a possibility, when insurance-funded resources are depleted, and for a host of other difficult reasons.

This means that everyone in the room is suffering, sacrificing, scared, confused, or worried. Acknowledge them. Hold them up. Thank them. Reflect on similar moments in your life and demonstrate empathy. Apologize when things haven’t gone right for them at your hospital. These payments will pay handsome dividends as your relationship evolves.

Not manipulation. The term negotiation might bring up images of used car salespeople. I strongly disagree. In manipulation, one side wins and the other doesn’t. In negotiation, the goal is improved communication and understanding. Manipulation is about one side of the equation having knowledge that the other side is lacking and using that to achieve its means. Negotiators hope everyone at the table has the same knowledge.

This leads to two key principles of negotiations: transparency and genuineness. Patients and families are excellent at taking the temperature of the room when you sit down to meet with them. Share knowledge. Don’t have any hidden agendas. Following this principle builds trust.

Be incremental. Taking patients from comfortable, familiar territory into that which is uncomfortable or unfamiliar should not be done in one giant leap. Let’s use code status (CS) as an example because of the frequency with which it comes up (though I rarely talk about CS without first understanding the patient’s goals and hopes).

Some patients refuse to talk about CS, so I think incrementally. I ask that they consider talking about CS with me in the future. Very few people refuse to consider something. Two or three days later I ask, "Have you considered talking to me about CS?" That by itself opens up the topic for conversation. In the extremely unusual case where they still won’t engage, I then ask them, "What would it take for you to consider talking to me about this?" More incrementalism.

While this is not nearly an exhaustive list of negotiation techniques, we hope it is stimulating enough that you might be curious enough to learn more on your own and try incorporating this into your practice. If you’re motivated to do so, please feel free to contact us for reading suggestions: E-mail [email protected].

Dr. Bekanich and Dr. Fredholm are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

The Society of Hospital Medicine held its annual meeting recently in Las Vegas, and Stephen had the opportunity to speak on the topic of "Family Meetings: The Art and the Evidence." As a special edition of Palliatively Speaking, we thought we would highlight one aspect of this subject, with other elements forthcoming in future pieces.

As a hospitalist, I stumbled and stuttered through many family meetings until I eventually found myself on more comfortable ground. Overall, I found them rewarding when they went well but stressful and deflating when they did not. The latter sensation was enough to create some avoidant behavior on my part.

After a few years of practice, my hospitalist group began shadowing one another periodically on rounds to provide feedback to our colleagues in the hope of improving the quality of our communication skills. It was then that I noticed that one of my partners was a master at these meetings. A real Rembrandt. He had the ability to deliver bad or difficult news without the dynamic in the room becoming inflammatory or out of control.

I will never forget watching him mediate a disagreement between a nurse and a patient suspected of using illicit substances while hospitalized. He flipped an antagonistic, heated situation into one where the patient, nurse, and physician all agreed on putting the past to rest and forging ahead with his proposed plan. We all left the room with a genuine sense that we had mutual purpose. In my admiration I realized that some of these skills must be teachable.

While I didn’t act on learning those communication techniques immediately after that encounter, I would eventually be formally exposed to them during my palliative medicine training. As it turns out, I still have some uncomfortable meetings with patients and families, but they come around much less frequently and when they do I now have a variety of tools to deal with challenges.

My appreciation of these tools doesn’t stop when I walk through the hospital doors each evening. I have found them to be invaluable in my personal life. In fact, learning to communicate better has been a source of renewal for me at work and staves off burnout. These techniques include active listening, motivational interviewing, demonstration of empathy, conflict resolution, and also negotiation. For the Society of Hospital Medicine meeting audience, I dissected negotiation, citing how it and the other skills can inject vitality into your interactions.

In any negotiation, it’s all about the other party. You are the smallest person in the room, the least important.

This is counterintuitive. Oftentimes at work we are trying to convince everyone how important we are. The readmissions committee should implement your plan to reduce recurrent hospitalizations. Your fellow hospitalists should recognize your value and make you the leader of the group. Patients show their appreciation for you making the right diagnosis and averting a medical calamity for them. But when you enter a family meeting, the patient and his or her loved ones are the center stage. To be successful you have to listen more and talk less. Get to understand the pictures in their heads and then summarize those thoughts and ideas back to them to show you’ve listened.

Make emotional payments. I don’t get into the meat of the meeting until I’ve done that with the patient and every family member in the room. No one holds family meetings for patients who are thriving and have outstanding outcomes. We have family meetings to figure out goals in the face of terrible diseases, when elder abuse is a possibility, when insurance-funded resources are depleted, and for a host of other difficult reasons.

This means that everyone in the room is suffering, sacrificing, scared, confused, or worried. Acknowledge them. Hold them up. Thank them. Reflect on similar moments in your life and demonstrate empathy. Apologize when things haven’t gone right for them at your hospital. These payments will pay handsome dividends as your relationship evolves.

Not manipulation. The term negotiation might bring up images of used car salespeople. I strongly disagree. In manipulation, one side wins and the other doesn’t. In negotiation, the goal is improved communication and understanding. Manipulation is about one side of the equation having knowledge that the other side is lacking and using that to achieve its means. Negotiators hope everyone at the table has the same knowledge.

This leads to two key principles of negotiations: transparency and genuineness. Patients and families are excellent at taking the temperature of the room when you sit down to meet with them. Share knowledge. Don’t have any hidden agendas. Following this principle builds trust.

Be incremental. Taking patients from comfortable, familiar territory into that which is uncomfortable or unfamiliar should not be done in one giant leap. Let’s use code status (CS) as an example because of the frequency with which it comes up (though I rarely talk about CS without first understanding the patient’s goals and hopes).

Some patients refuse to talk about CS, so I think incrementally. I ask that they consider talking about CS with me in the future. Very few people refuse to consider something. Two or three days later I ask, "Have you considered talking to me about CS?" That by itself opens up the topic for conversation. In the extremely unusual case where they still won’t engage, I then ask them, "What would it take for you to consider talking to me about this?" More incrementalism.

While this is not nearly an exhaustive list of negotiation techniques, we hope it is stimulating enough that you might be curious enough to learn more on your own and try incorporating this into your practice. If you’re motivated to do so, please feel free to contact us for reading suggestions: E-mail [email protected].

Dr. Bekanich and Dr. Fredholm are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

TAMPA – Outpatient palliative care consultations are associated with decreased symptom burden in women with gynecologic malignancies, but American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for referral are often ignored, according to retrospective data and a review of patient records.

In one study, 78 patients seen between June 2007 and March 2013 at an outpatient symptom management clinic for follow-up within 90 days of their initial consultation completed a questionnaire at each visit, including the nine-item Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. The responses, along with information from the patients’ charts, showed significant improvements in almost all symptoms over time, Dr. Rachel Ruskin, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, reported at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

For example, mean pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, nausea, drowsiness, and appetite scores decreased between 0.7 and 1.5 points from the median baseline scores (on a 10 point scale). A decline in shortness of breath score also approached significance.

No difference was seen with respect to symptom improvement between patients with and without disease, although there appeared to be a trend toward a difference in anxiety scores, Dr. Ruskin noted.

Patients who were treated with concurrent cancer-directed therapies had improvements in pain and fatigue, but to a lesser extent than did those who did not receive treatment, she said.

Among the 35 patients who attended at least two follow-up visits, the improvements in nausea and shortness of breath seen at the first visit persisted at the second, and symptoms of depression and drowsiness continued to improve at each visit. Of those 35 patients, 58% had ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer; 20% had uterine cancer; and 15% had cervical cancer. Most (81%) had stage III, IV, or recurrent cancer.

Mean age at study entry was 57 years, 85% of patients had disease present, and 62% were undergoing treatment. The vast majority (87%) had received chemotherapy, 30% received radiation, and 8% had undergone surgery.

In patients for whom relevant data were available, there was evidence of mild hematologic, renal, and nutritional compromise, and nearly 25% of these patients had been hospitalized within the prior month.

"Notably, in our cohort the improvement in symptoms cannot be attributed to antineoplastic therapies, since – if anything – treatment by traditional oncologic modalities was associated with less benefit in some symptoms," Dr. Ruskin said, adding that future research should focus on "which aspects of palliative care are effective and by what mechanisms," as this information would be helpful for determining best practices that can be replicated across settings and for designing prospective concurrent standard oncologic and palliative care trials.

"In the meantime, we hope that these data will encourage providers to consider referral to their outpatient palliative care colleagues," she concluded.

Findings from another study presented at the meeting suggest there is some work to do in that regard.

In that study, Dr. Carolyn Lefkowits of the University of Pittsburgh found that oncologists are falling short when it comes to following the 2012 ASCO recommendation to consider early palliative care integration for "any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden."

Of 340 women with a gynecologic malignancy who were admitted to a gynecologic oncology service between February 2012 and August 2012, only 32% were referred to palliative care, Dr. Lefkowits said.

The patients had a median age of 62 years, and an equal number had early- and late-stage disease. Nearly 25% had recurrent disease by the end of the study period.

Multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of palliative care consultation, including number of admission (odds ratio, 17.4 for greater than three vs. three or fewer admissions), admission for symptom management (OR, 22.0), and death within 6 months (OR, 15.7).

Notably, only 16% of the patients died within 6 months of the last admission during the study period, and although 25% of patients overall were referred to palliative care, 54% of those who died within 6 months were referred, suggesting that most referrals are not made for patients who are early in their disease course.

Furthermore, only 53% of patients with recurrent disease – all of whom should have been considered for palliative care integration based on the ASCO recommendations – were seen for palliative care, including 59% who had received three or more lines of chemotherapy, Dr. Lefkowits said.

The findings suggest that the group of patients referred for palliative care is characterized by high symptom burden and poor prognosis. In fact, most of those referred were likely already at the point where they would be considered hospice eligible, she said.

An analysis of referrals based on each ASCO recommendation category showed that the highest referral rate was for "symptom admission" (79%), and the lowest was for recurrent disease (52%).

"So, although the predictors of consultation are in keeping, I think, with the spirit of the ASCO recommendations, we’re still not comprehensively capturing these high-risk subgroups," Dr. Lefkowits said.

She added that she hopes the findings will serve as a "conversation starter, spurring us to address questions, including which gynecologic oncology patients are most appropriate to target for consistent palliative care referral."

Other questions to consider include which systems might help improve referral rates among those patients and which patients (and at what rates) should be referred for specialized palliative care.

All of the patients in the ASCO categories should be receiving palliative care, but it remains unclear what percentage need specialized palliative care, she said

As for improving the rate of palliative care consultations, Dr. Lois M. Ramondetta of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said during a "lecturette" following the presentations by Dr. Ruskin and Dr. Lefkowits, that "branding" is important.

One study showed that 70% of Americans don’t even know what palliative care is, and many of those who do – including both patients and health care providers – equate palliative care with end-of-life care.

Simply changing the name of the palliative care clinic at M.D. Anderson to the "supportive care clinic" led to a 40% increase in consultations, she said.

Most patients and physicians reacted favorably to the concept of supportive care, she explained, noting that palliative care should be rebranded as an extra layer of support, and it should be offered throughout the treatment process.

Studies consistently show that palliative care provides multiple benefits, including decreased hospital length of stay, fewer intensive care admissions, and reduced costs and need for potentially harmful procedures. Some studies have suggested palliative care is associated with improved overall survival, she said.

A number of efforts to improve palliative care skills and to increase referral for palliative care consultations are underway through both ASCO and the SGO, including a virtual learning collaborative being developed by ASCO, efforts to incorporate palliative care education into training and recertification programs, and the revival of a palliative care task force to address these issues.

Dr. Ruskin, Dr. Lefkowits, and Dr. Ramondetta each reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

TAMPA – Outpatient palliative care consultations are associated with decreased symptom burden in women with gynecologic malignancies, but American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for referral are often ignored, according to retrospective data and a review of patient records.

In one study, 78 patients seen between June 2007 and March 2013 at an outpatient symptom management clinic for follow-up within 90 days of their initial consultation completed a questionnaire at each visit, including the nine-item Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. The responses, along with information from the patients’ charts, showed significant improvements in almost all symptoms over time, Dr. Rachel Ruskin, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, reported at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

For example, mean pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, nausea, drowsiness, and appetite scores decreased between 0.7 and 1.5 points from the median baseline scores (on a 10 point scale). A decline in shortness of breath score also approached significance.

No difference was seen with respect to symptom improvement between patients with and without disease, although there appeared to be a trend toward a difference in anxiety scores, Dr. Ruskin noted.

Patients who were treated with concurrent cancer-directed therapies had improvements in pain and fatigue, but to a lesser extent than did those who did not receive treatment, she said.

Among the 35 patients who attended at least two follow-up visits, the improvements in nausea and shortness of breath seen at the first visit persisted at the second, and symptoms of depression and drowsiness continued to improve at each visit. Of those 35 patients, 58% had ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer; 20% had uterine cancer; and 15% had cervical cancer. Most (81%) had stage III, IV, or recurrent cancer.

Mean age at study entry was 57 years, 85% of patients had disease present, and 62% were undergoing treatment. The vast majority (87%) had received chemotherapy, 30% received radiation, and 8% had undergone surgery.

In patients for whom relevant data were available, there was evidence of mild hematologic, renal, and nutritional compromise, and nearly 25% of these patients had been hospitalized within the prior month.

"Notably, in our cohort the improvement in symptoms cannot be attributed to antineoplastic therapies, since – if anything – treatment by traditional oncologic modalities was associated with less benefit in some symptoms," Dr. Ruskin said, adding that future research should focus on "which aspects of palliative care are effective and by what mechanisms," as this information would be helpful for determining best practices that can be replicated across settings and for designing prospective concurrent standard oncologic and palliative care trials.

"In the meantime, we hope that these data will encourage providers to consider referral to their outpatient palliative care colleagues," she concluded.

Findings from another study presented at the meeting suggest there is some work to do in that regard.

In that study, Dr. Carolyn Lefkowits of the University of Pittsburgh found that oncologists are falling short when it comes to following the 2012 ASCO recommendation to consider early palliative care integration for "any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden."

Of 340 women with a gynecologic malignancy who were admitted to a gynecologic oncology service between February 2012 and August 2012, only 32% were referred to palliative care, Dr. Lefkowits said.

The patients had a median age of 62 years, and an equal number had early- and late-stage disease. Nearly 25% had recurrent disease by the end of the study period.

Multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of palliative care consultation, including number of admission (odds ratio, 17.4 for greater than three vs. three or fewer admissions), admission for symptom management (OR, 22.0), and death within 6 months (OR, 15.7).

Notably, only 16% of the patients died within 6 months of the last admission during the study period, and although 25% of patients overall were referred to palliative care, 54% of those who died within 6 months were referred, suggesting that most referrals are not made for patients who are early in their disease course.

Furthermore, only 53% of patients with recurrent disease – all of whom should have been considered for palliative care integration based on the ASCO recommendations – were seen for palliative care, including 59% who had received three or more lines of chemotherapy, Dr. Lefkowits said.

The findings suggest that the group of patients referred for palliative care is characterized by high symptom burden and poor prognosis. In fact, most of those referred were likely already at the point where they would be considered hospice eligible, she said.

An analysis of referrals based on each ASCO recommendation category showed that the highest referral rate was for "symptom admission" (79%), and the lowest was for recurrent disease (52%).

"So, although the predictors of consultation are in keeping, I think, with the spirit of the ASCO recommendations, we’re still not comprehensively capturing these high-risk subgroups," Dr. Lefkowits said.

She added that she hopes the findings will serve as a "conversation starter, spurring us to address questions, including which gynecologic oncology patients are most appropriate to target for consistent palliative care referral."

Other questions to consider include which systems might help improve referral rates among those patients and which patients (and at what rates) should be referred for specialized palliative care.

All of the patients in the ASCO categories should be receiving palliative care, but it remains unclear what percentage need specialized palliative care, she said

As for improving the rate of palliative care consultations, Dr. Lois M. Ramondetta of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said during a "lecturette" following the presentations by Dr. Ruskin and Dr. Lefkowits, that "branding" is important.

One study showed that 70% of Americans don’t even know what palliative care is, and many of those who do – including both patients and health care providers – equate palliative care with end-of-life care.

Simply changing the name of the palliative care clinic at M.D. Anderson to the "supportive care clinic" led to a 40% increase in consultations, she said.

Most patients and physicians reacted favorably to the concept of supportive care, she explained, noting that palliative care should be rebranded as an extra layer of support, and it should be offered throughout the treatment process.

Studies consistently show that palliative care provides multiple benefits, including decreased hospital length of stay, fewer intensive care admissions, and reduced costs and need for potentially harmful procedures. Some studies have suggested palliative care is associated with improved overall survival, she said.

A number of efforts to improve palliative care skills and to increase referral for palliative care consultations are underway through both ASCO and the SGO, including a virtual learning collaborative being developed by ASCO, efforts to incorporate palliative care education into training and recertification programs, and the revival of a palliative care task force to address these issues.

Dr. Ruskin, Dr. Lefkowits, and Dr. Ramondetta each reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

TAMPA – Outpatient palliative care consultations are associated with decreased symptom burden in women with gynecologic malignancies, but American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for referral are often ignored, according to retrospective data and a review of patient records.

In one study, 78 patients seen between June 2007 and March 2013 at an outpatient symptom management clinic for follow-up within 90 days of their initial consultation completed a questionnaire at each visit, including the nine-item Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. The responses, along with information from the patients’ charts, showed significant improvements in almost all symptoms over time, Dr. Rachel Ruskin, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, reported at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

For example, mean pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, nausea, drowsiness, and appetite scores decreased between 0.7 and 1.5 points from the median baseline scores (on a 10 point scale). A decline in shortness of breath score also approached significance.

No difference was seen with respect to symptom improvement between patients with and without disease, although there appeared to be a trend toward a difference in anxiety scores, Dr. Ruskin noted.

Patients who were treated with concurrent cancer-directed therapies had improvements in pain and fatigue, but to a lesser extent than did those who did not receive treatment, she said.

Among the 35 patients who attended at least two follow-up visits, the improvements in nausea and shortness of breath seen at the first visit persisted at the second, and symptoms of depression and drowsiness continued to improve at each visit. Of those 35 patients, 58% had ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer; 20% had uterine cancer; and 15% had cervical cancer. Most (81%) had stage III, IV, or recurrent cancer.

Mean age at study entry was 57 years, 85% of patients had disease present, and 62% were undergoing treatment. The vast majority (87%) had received chemotherapy, 30% received radiation, and 8% had undergone surgery.

In patients for whom relevant data were available, there was evidence of mild hematologic, renal, and nutritional compromise, and nearly 25% of these patients had been hospitalized within the prior month.

"Notably, in our cohort the improvement in symptoms cannot be attributed to antineoplastic therapies, since – if anything – treatment by traditional oncologic modalities was associated with less benefit in some symptoms," Dr. Ruskin said, adding that future research should focus on "which aspects of palliative care are effective and by what mechanisms," as this information would be helpful for determining best practices that can be replicated across settings and for designing prospective concurrent standard oncologic and palliative care trials.

"In the meantime, we hope that these data will encourage providers to consider referral to their outpatient palliative care colleagues," she concluded.

Findings from another study presented at the meeting suggest there is some work to do in that regard.

In that study, Dr. Carolyn Lefkowits of the University of Pittsburgh found that oncologists are falling short when it comes to following the 2012 ASCO recommendation to consider early palliative care integration for "any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden."

Of 340 women with a gynecologic malignancy who were admitted to a gynecologic oncology service between February 2012 and August 2012, only 32% were referred to palliative care, Dr. Lefkowits said.

The patients had a median age of 62 years, and an equal number had early- and late-stage disease. Nearly 25% had recurrent disease by the end of the study period.

Multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of palliative care consultation, including number of admission (odds ratio, 17.4 for greater than three vs. three or fewer admissions), admission for symptom management (OR, 22.0), and death within 6 months (OR, 15.7).

Notably, only 16% of the patients died within 6 months of the last admission during the study period, and although 25% of patients overall were referred to palliative care, 54% of those who died within 6 months were referred, suggesting that most referrals are not made for patients who are early in their disease course.

Furthermore, only 53% of patients with recurrent disease – all of whom should have been considered for palliative care integration based on the ASCO recommendations – were seen for palliative care, including 59% who had received three or more lines of chemotherapy, Dr. Lefkowits said.

The findings suggest that the group of patients referred for palliative care is characterized by high symptom burden and poor prognosis. In fact, most of those referred were likely already at the point where they would be considered hospice eligible, she said.

An analysis of referrals based on each ASCO recommendation category showed that the highest referral rate was for "symptom admission" (79%), and the lowest was for recurrent disease (52%).

"So, although the predictors of consultation are in keeping, I think, with the spirit of the ASCO recommendations, we’re still not comprehensively capturing these high-risk subgroups," Dr. Lefkowits said.

She added that she hopes the findings will serve as a "conversation starter, spurring us to address questions, including which gynecologic oncology patients are most appropriate to target for consistent palliative care referral."

Other questions to consider include which systems might help improve referral rates among those patients and which patients (and at what rates) should be referred for specialized palliative care.

All of the patients in the ASCO categories should be receiving palliative care, but it remains unclear what percentage need specialized palliative care, she said

As for improving the rate of palliative care consultations, Dr. Lois M. Ramondetta of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said during a "lecturette" following the presentations by Dr. Ruskin and Dr. Lefkowits, that "branding" is important.

One study showed that 70% of Americans don’t even know what palliative care is, and many of those who do – including both patients and health care providers – equate palliative care with end-of-life care.

Simply changing the name of the palliative care clinic at M.D. Anderson to the "supportive care clinic" led to a 40% increase in consultations, she said.

Most patients and physicians reacted favorably to the concept of supportive care, she explained, noting that palliative care should be rebranded as an extra layer of support, and it should be offered throughout the treatment process.

Studies consistently show that palliative care provides multiple benefits, including decreased hospital length of stay, fewer intensive care admissions, and reduced costs and need for potentially harmful procedures. Some studies have suggested palliative care is associated with improved overall survival, she said.

A number of efforts to improve palliative care skills and to increase referral for palliative care consultations are underway through both ASCO and the SGO, including a virtual learning collaborative being developed by ASCO, efforts to incorporate palliative care education into training and recertification programs, and the revival of a palliative care task force to address these issues.

Dr. Ruskin, Dr. Lefkowits, and Dr. Ramondetta each reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Among 100 hip fracture patients at Salem (Ore.) Hospital, those fed within 24 hours left the hospital sooner, and fewer of them died. Other patients went up to a week without being fed.

Doctors might have overlooked nutrition or been put off by the notion that gastronomy feeding tubes don’t help in end-stage dementia. The Salem patients, however, didn’t have end-stage dementia and were being fed by nasogastric tubes. In an interview, Dr. Cynthia Wallace, medical director of Vibra Specialty Hospital in nearby Portland, explained that it’s time to broaden who’s authorized to order nutritional consults, so that patients don’t fall through the cracks.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Among 100 hip fracture patients at Salem (Ore.) Hospital, those fed within 24 hours left the hospital sooner, and fewer of them died. Other patients went up to a week without being fed.

Doctors might have overlooked nutrition or been put off by the notion that gastronomy feeding tubes don’t help in end-stage dementia. The Salem patients, however, didn’t have end-stage dementia and were being fed by nasogastric tubes. In an interview, Dr. Cynthia Wallace, medical director of Vibra Specialty Hospital in nearby Portland, explained that it’s time to broaden who’s authorized to order nutritional consults, so that patients don’t fall through the cracks.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Among 100 hip fracture patients at Salem (Ore.) Hospital, those fed within 24 hours left the hospital sooner, and fewer of them died. Other patients went up to a week without being fed.

Doctors might have overlooked nutrition or been put off by the notion that gastronomy feeding tubes don’t help in end-stage dementia. The Salem patients, however, didn’t have end-stage dementia and were being fed by nasogastric tubes. In an interview, Dr. Cynthia Wallace, medical director of Vibra Specialty Hospital in nearby Portland, explained that it’s time to broaden who’s authorized to order nutritional consults, so that patients don’t fall through the cracks.

[email protected]

Question: A 71-year-old woman with heart disease and breast cancer was hospitalized for uncontrolled diabetes and a hip fracture. There, she suffered two grand mal seizures that could not be controlled with anticonvulsants, and the patient lapsed into coma. Her daughter became the surrogate decision maker, and she made it clear that her mother always said she wanted everything done.

After several weeks, the physicians decided that further care would be futile. The chair of the ethics committee took the view that the family’s opinion was not relevant, because cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was not a genuine therapeutic option and would be "medically contraindicated, inhumane, and unethical." Accordingly, the attending physician entered a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order despite strong protest from the daughter. The patient died shortly thereafter without receiving CPR.

In this actual case where the daughter filed a negligence lawsuit against the hospital, which of the following statements is incorrect?

A. The defendant’s expert relied upon the position paper of the American Thoracic Society, which states that life support "can be limited without the consent of patient or surrogate when the intervention is judged to be futile."

B. Futile intervention may be defined as treatment that would be highly unlikely to result in a meaningful survival of the patient.

C. The jury found that if competent, the patient would have wanted CPR and would have wanted ventilation until death.

D. The jury found such treatment would be futile.

E. The jury entered a verdict of negligence.

Answer: E. The above narrative is based on Gilgunn v. Massachusetts General Hospital (verdict issued April 21, 1995) and adapted from an article by the prominent ethicist Alexander M. Capron.¹ All of the options listed were evident at trial, except that it was a defense verdict, i.e., no negligence. The case remains the best-known litigated example of medical futility. In earlier cases such as Wanglie² and Baby K,³ the courts had avoided addressing the issue directly.

Gilgunn supports the notion that futility of CPR can trump a patient’s family insistence on having such intervention. But being a trial court verdict, it lacks the precedential authority that an appellate decision would confer.

The verdict also was not without its critics. As Mr. Capron wrote:

"But to allow Mrs. Gilgunn’s physicians to impose this view, however widely held, on their patient is the equivalent of allowing them to abandon the patient. We still need means ... to reach a social consensus on whether health professionals should have authority to decide, among the interventions patients (or surrogates) will accept, which will actually be provided and which they may withhold based upon their evaluation of the worth of the outcome. When we come to adopt such policies, we would do well to ponder long and hard before adopting a utilitarian measure that affords the waning lives of the most vulnerable in our society less protection from unilateral decisions by powerful professionals."¹

In 1999, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed with a trial court’s order to issue a DNR order for a neglected 2-year-old child who was born prematurely with serious medical problems and virtually nonexistent cognition, but who could still experience pain.⁴ The biological mother and putative father appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held, among other things, that the standard of proof required for issuance of a DNR order is clear and convincing evidence, and the applicable standard is the best interests of the child test rather than a substituted judgment standard. However, this case pitted the biological parents against a court-appointed guardian, rather than the medical providers.

The American Medical Association’s current Code of Ethics urges that when neither a patient nor surrogate is able or available to make a decision regarding CPR, an attending physician contemplating a DNR order should consult another physician or a hospital ethics committee if one is available.⁵ If the physician determines that a request for resuscitation would not be medically effective, "the physician should seek to resolve the conflict through a fair decision-making process, when time permits." In an earlier version,⁶ the AMA stated: "CPR may be withheld if, in the judgment of the treating physician, an attempt to resuscitate the patient would be futile."

DNR orders are at the heart of the futility conundrum, especially because CPR is a highly invasive, low-success procedure (notable exceptions exist, however). Medical futility denotes treatment that cannot confer an overall benefit on the whole person even if it can restore some physiologic variable.⁷ The Latin word "futilis" means leaky, and in Greek mythology, the daughters of Danaus were condemned in the underworld to draw water in leaky sieves, conveying the full meaning of futility.

The debate is over whether an intervention, however hopeless and ineffective, can ever be characterized as completely futile. Moreover, without absolute certainty, will this suffice to override a patient’s insistence on having that treatment?

Others have countered that absoluteness is an unrealistic standard, and that inhumane suffering and costs are relevant factors to ponder. The AMA has clearly stated that "physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefiting their patients," and "patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them."⁸

One legal consequence of discontinuing medical treatment that ends with a patient’s demise is the specter of criminal prosecution, although charges of homicide are unlikely to prevail.

In a landmark California case, Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County,⁹ the court recognized that "a physician is authorized under the standards of medical practice to discontinue a form of therapy which in his medical judgment is useless. ... If the treating physicians have determined that continued use of a respirator is useless, then they may decide to discontinue it without fear of civil or criminal liability."

In Kansas v. Naramore,¹⁰ the state appeals court reversed and entered a verdict of acquittal despite a jury finding Dr. Naramore guilty over his provision of palliative treatment. The court noted that the burden of proof to establish the criminal guilt of a physician for acts arising out of providing medical treatment is higher than that necessary to find medical malpractice or to impose medical licensure discipline. It held that "with no direct evidence of criminal intent, it is highly disturbing that testimony by such an impressive array of apparently objective medical experts, who found the defendant’s actions to be not only noncriminal, but medically appropriate, can be dismissed as ‘unbelievable’ and not even capable of generating reasonable doubt."

Notwithstanding widely accepted ethical notions of medical futility, there are state and federal statutes touching on DNR orders that warrant careful attention.

For example, New York Public Health Law Section 2962, paragraph 1, states: "Every person admitted to a hospital shall be presumed to consent to the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, unless there is consent to the issuance of an order not to resuscitate as provided in this article." This raises the question as to whether it is ever legally permissible to enter a unilateral DNR order against the wishes of the patient.

On the other hand, Hawaii Revised Statutes 327E-13(d) notes: "This chapter shall not authorize or require a health care provider or institution to provide health care contrary to generally accepted health care standards." This has been interpreted as allowing the prevailing standard of care to serve as the yardstick of propriety.

Finally, the federal "antidumping" law governing emergency treatment in hospitals, widely known as EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act), requires all emergency departments to provide treatment necessary to prevent the material deterioration of the individual’s condition. This would always include the use of CPR unless specifically rejected by the patient or surrogate, because the law does not contain a "standard of care" or futility exception.

References

1. Capron, A.M., Abandoning a Waning Life. Hastings Center Report 1995;25:24-6.

2. In re the conservatorship of Helga M. Wanglie, No. PX-91-283, District Probate Division, 4th Judicial District of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.

3. In the Matter of Baby "K", 16 F.3d F. Supp. 590 (E.D. VA 1993). WL 38674 (4th Cir. 1994).

4. In re K.I., 735 A.2d 448 (D.C. Ct. App. 1999).

5. Code of Ethics of the AMA, section 2.22, 2012-2013 edition.

6. JAMA 1991;265:1868-71.

7. Ann. Int. Med. 1990;112:949-54.

8. Code of Ethics of the AMA, section 2.035, 2012-2013 edition.

9. Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 147 Cal. App. 3d 1006 (1983).

10. Kansas v. Naramore, 965 P.2d 211 (Kan. 1998).

Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. It is adapted from the author’s book, "Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk" (2006). For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Question: A 71-year-old woman with heart disease and breast cancer was hospitalized for uncontrolled diabetes and a hip fracture. There, she suffered two grand mal seizures that could not be controlled with anticonvulsants, and the patient lapsed into coma. Her daughter became the surrogate decision maker, and she made it clear that her mother always said she wanted everything done.

After several weeks, the physicians decided that further care would be futile. The chair of the ethics committee took the view that the family’s opinion was not relevant, because cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was not a genuine therapeutic option and would be "medically contraindicated, inhumane, and unethical." Accordingly, the attending physician entered a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order despite strong protest from the daughter. The patient died shortly thereafter without receiving CPR.

In this actual case where the daughter filed a negligence lawsuit against the hospital, which of the following statements is incorrect?

A. The defendant’s expert relied upon the position paper of the American Thoracic Society, which states that life support "can be limited without the consent of patient or surrogate when the intervention is judged to be futile."

B. Futile intervention may be defined as treatment that would be highly unlikely to result in a meaningful survival of the patient.

C. The jury found that if competent, the patient would have wanted CPR and would have wanted ventilation until death.

D. The jury found such treatment would be futile.

E. The jury entered a verdict of negligence.

Answer: E. The above narrative is based on Gilgunn v. Massachusetts General Hospital (verdict issued April 21, 1995) and adapted from an article by the prominent ethicist Alexander M. Capron.¹ All of the options listed were evident at trial, except that it was a defense verdict, i.e., no negligence. The case remains the best-known litigated example of medical futility. In earlier cases such as Wanglie² and Baby K,³ the courts had avoided addressing the issue directly.

Gilgunn supports the notion that futility of CPR can trump a patient’s family insistence on having such intervention. But being a trial court verdict, it lacks the precedential authority that an appellate decision would confer.

The verdict also was not without its critics. As Mr. Capron wrote:

"But to allow Mrs. Gilgunn’s physicians to impose this view, however widely held, on their patient is the equivalent of allowing them to abandon the patient. We still need means ... to reach a social consensus on whether health professionals should have authority to decide, among the interventions patients (or surrogates) will accept, which will actually be provided and which they may withhold based upon their evaluation of the worth of the outcome. When we come to adopt such policies, we would do well to ponder long and hard before adopting a utilitarian measure that affords the waning lives of the most vulnerable in our society less protection from unilateral decisions by powerful professionals."¹

In 1999, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed with a trial court’s order to issue a DNR order for a neglected 2-year-old child who was born prematurely with serious medical problems and virtually nonexistent cognition, but who could still experience pain.⁴ The biological mother and putative father appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held, among other things, that the standard of proof required for issuance of a DNR order is clear and convincing evidence, and the applicable standard is the best interests of the child test rather than a substituted judgment standard. However, this case pitted the biological parents against a court-appointed guardian, rather than the medical providers.

The American Medical Association’s current Code of Ethics urges that when neither a patient nor surrogate is able or available to make a decision regarding CPR, an attending physician contemplating a DNR order should consult another physician or a hospital ethics committee if one is available.⁵ If the physician determines that a request for resuscitation would not be medically effective, "the physician should seek to resolve the conflict through a fair decision-making process, when time permits." In an earlier version,⁶ the AMA stated: "CPR may be withheld if, in the judgment of the treating physician, an attempt to resuscitate the patient would be futile."

DNR orders are at the heart of the futility conundrum, especially because CPR is a highly invasive, low-success procedure (notable exceptions exist, however). Medical futility denotes treatment that cannot confer an overall benefit on the whole person even if it can restore some physiologic variable.⁷ The Latin word "futilis" means leaky, and in Greek mythology, the daughters of Danaus were condemned in the underworld to draw water in leaky sieves, conveying the full meaning of futility.

The debate is over whether an intervention, however hopeless and ineffective, can ever be characterized as completely futile. Moreover, without absolute certainty, will this suffice to override a patient’s insistence on having that treatment?

Others have countered that absoluteness is an unrealistic standard, and that inhumane suffering and costs are relevant factors to ponder. The AMA has clearly stated that "physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefiting their patients," and "patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them."⁸

One legal consequence of discontinuing medical treatment that ends with a patient’s demise is the specter of criminal prosecution, although charges of homicide are unlikely to prevail.

In a landmark California case, Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County,⁹ the court recognized that "a physician is authorized under the standards of medical practice to discontinue a form of therapy which in his medical judgment is useless. ... If the treating physicians have determined that continued use of a respirator is useless, then they may decide to discontinue it without fear of civil or criminal liability."

In Kansas v. Naramore,¹⁰ the state appeals court reversed and entered a verdict of acquittal despite a jury finding Dr. Naramore guilty over his provision of palliative treatment. The court noted that the burden of proof to establish the criminal guilt of a physician for acts arising out of providing medical treatment is higher than that necessary to find medical malpractice or to impose medical licensure discipline. It held that "with no direct evidence of criminal intent, it is highly disturbing that testimony by such an impressive array of apparently objective medical experts, who found the defendant’s actions to be not only noncriminal, but medically appropriate, can be dismissed as ‘unbelievable’ and not even capable of generating reasonable doubt."

Notwithstanding widely accepted ethical notions of medical futility, there are state and federal statutes touching on DNR orders that warrant careful attention.

For example, New York Public Health Law Section 2962, paragraph 1, states: "Every person admitted to a hospital shall be presumed to consent to the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, unless there is consent to the issuance of an order not to resuscitate as provided in this article." This raises the question as to whether it is ever legally permissible to enter a unilateral DNR order against the wishes of the patient.

On the other hand, Hawaii Revised Statutes 327E-13(d) notes: "This chapter shall not authorize or require a health care provider or institution to provide health care contrary to generally accepted health care standards." This has been interpreted as allowing the prevailing standard of care to serve as the yardstick of propriety.

Finally, the federal "antidumping" law governing emergency treatment in hospitals, widely known as EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act), requires all emergency departments to provide treatment necessary to prevent the material deterioration of the individual’s condition. This would always include the use of CPR unless specifically rejected by the patient or surrogate, because the law does not contain a "standard of care" or futility exception.

References

1. Capron, A.M., Abandoning a Waning Life. Hastings Center Report 1995;25:24-6.

2. In re the conservatorship of Helga M. Wanglie, No. PX-91-283, District Probate Division, 4th Judicial District of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.

3. In the Matter of Baby "K", 16 F.3d F. Supp. 590 (E.D. VA 1993). WL 38674 (4th Cir. 1994).

4. In re K.I., 735 A.2d 448 (D.C. Ct. App. 1999).

5. Code of Ethics of the AMA, section 2.22, 2012-2013 edition.

6. JAMA 1991;265:1868-71.

7. Ann. Int. Med. 1990;112:949-54.

8. Code of Ethics of the AMA, section 2.035, 2012-2013 edition.

9. Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 147 Cal. App. 3d 1006 (1983).

10. Kansas v. Naramore, 965 P.2d 211 (Kan. 1998).

Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. It is adapted from the author’s book, "Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk" (2006). For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Question: A 71-year-old woman with heart disease and breast cancer was hospitalized for uncontrolled diabetes and a hip fracture. There, she suffered two grand mal seizures that could not be controlled with anticonvulsants, and the patient lapsed into coma. Her daughter became the surrogate decision maker, and she made it clear that her mother always said she wanted everything done.

After several weeks, the physicians decided that further care would be futile. The chair of the ethics committee took the view that the family’s opinion was not relevant, because cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was not a genuine therapeutic option and would be "medically contraindicated, inhumane, and unethical." Accordingly, the attending physician entered a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order despite strong protest from the daughter. The patient died shortly thereafter without receiving CPR.

In this actual case where the daughter filed a negligence lawsuit against the hospital, which of the following statements is incorrect?

A. The defendant’s expert relied upon the position paper of the American Thoracic Society, which states that life support "can be limited without the consent of patient or surrogate when the intervention is judged to be futile."

B. Futile intervention may be defined as treatment that would be highly unlikely to result in a meaningful survival of the patient.

C. The jury found that if competent, the patient would have wanted CPR and would have wanted ventilation until death.

D. The jury found such treatment would be futile.

E. The jury entered a verdict of negligence.

Answer: E. The above narrative is based on Gilgunn v. Massachusetts General Hospital (verdict issued April 21, 1995) and adapted from an article by the prominent ethicist Alexander M. Capron.¹ All of the options listed were evident at trial, except that it was a defense verdict, i.e., no negligence. The case remains the best-known litigated example of medical futility. In earlier cases such as Wanglie² and Baby K,³ the courts had avoided addressing the issue directly.

Gilgunn supports the notion that futility of CPR can trump a patient’s family insistence on having such intervention. But being a trial court verdict, it lacks the precedential authority that an appellate decision would confer.

The verdict also was not without its critics. As Mr. Capron wrote:

"But to allow Mrs. Gilgunn’s physicians to impose this view, however widely held, on their patient is the equivalent of allowing them to abandon the patient. We still need means ... to reach a social consensus on whether health professionals should have authority to decide, among the interventions patients (or surrogates) will accept, which will actually be provided and which they may withhold based upon their evaluation of the worth of the outcome. When we come to adopt such policies, we would do well to ponder long and hard before adopting a utilitarian measure that affords the waning lives of the most vulnerable in our society less protection from unilateral decisions by powerful professionals."¹

In 1999, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed with a trial court’s order to issue a DNR order for a neglected 2-year-old child who was born prematurely with serious medical problems and virtually nonexistent cognition, but who could still experience pain.⁴ The biological mother and putative father appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held, among other things, that the standard of proof required for issuance of a DNR order is clear and convincing evidence, and the applicable standard is the best interests of the child test rather than a substituted judgment standard. However, this case pitted the biological parents against a court-appointed guardian, rather than the medical providers.

The American Medical Association’s current Code of Ethics urges that when neither a patient nor surrogate is able or available to make a decision regarding CPR, an attending physician contemplating a DNR order should consult another physician or a hospital ethics committee if one is available.⁵ If the physician determines that a request for resuscitation would not be medically effective, "the physician should seek to resolve the conflict through a fair decision-making process, when time permits." In an earlier version,⁶ the AMA stated: "CPR may be withheld if, in the judgment of the treating physician, an attempt to resuscitate the patient would be futile."

DNR orders are at the heart of the futility conundrum, especially because CPR is a highly invasive, low-success procedure (notable exceptions exist, however). Medical futility denotes treatment that cannot confer an overall benefit on the whole person even if it can restore some physiologic variable.⁷ The Latin word "futilis" means leaky, and in Greek mythology, the daughters of Danaus were condemned in the underworld to draw water in leaky sieves, conveying the full meaning of futility.

The debate is over whether an intervention, however hopeless and ineffective, can ever be characterized as completely futile. Moreover, without absolute certainty, will this suffice to override a patient’s insistence on having that treatment?

Others have countered that absoluteness is an unrealistic standard, and that inhumane suffering and costs are relevant factors to ponder. The AMA has clearly stated that "physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefiting their patients," and "patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them."⁸

One legal consequence of discontinuing medical treatment that ends with a patient’s demise is the specter of criminal prosecution, although charges of homicide are unlikely to prevail.

In a landmark California case, Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County,⁹ the court recognized that "a physician is authorized under the standards of medical practice to discontinue a form of therapy which in his medical judgment is useless. ... If the treating physicians have determined that continued use of a respirator is useless, then they may decide to discontinue it without fear of civil or criminal liability."

In Kansas v. Naramore,¹⁰ the state appeals court reversed and entered a verdict of acquittal despite a jury finding Dr. Naramore guilty over his provision of palliative treatment. The court noted that the burden of proof to establish the criminal guilt of a physician for acts arising out of providing medical treatment is higher than that necessary to find medical malpractice or to impose medical licensure discipline. It held that "with no direct evidence of criminal intent, it is highly disturbing that testimony by such an impressive array of apparently objective medical experts, who found the defendant’s actions to be not only noncriminal, but medically appropriate, can be dismissed as ‘unbelievable’ and not even capable of generating reasonable doubt."

Notwithstanding widely accepted ethical notions of medical futility, there are state and federal statutes touching on DNR orders that warrant careful attention.

For example, New York Public Health Law Section 2962, paragraph 1, states: "Every person admitted to a hospital shall be presumed to consent to the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, unless there is consent to the issuance of an order not to resuscitate as provided in this article." This raises the question as to whether it is ever legally permissible to enter a unilateral DNR order against the wishes of the patient.

On the other hand, Hawaii Revised Statutes 327E-13(d) notes: "This chapter shall not authorize or require a health care provider or institution to provide health care contrary to generally accepted health care standards." This has been interpreted as allowing the prevailing standard of care to serve as the yardstick of propriety.

Finally, the federal "antidumping" law governing emergency treatment in hospitals, widely known as EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act), requires all emergency departments to provide treatment necessary to prevent the material deterioration of the individual’s condition. This would always include the use of CPR unless specifically rejected by the patient or surrogate, because the law does not contain a "standard of care" or futility exception.

References

1. Capron, A.M., Abandoning a Waning Life. Hastings Center Report 1995;25:24-6.

2. In re the conservatorship of Helga M. Wanglie, No. PX-91-283, District Probate Division, 4th Judicial District of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.

3. In the Matter of Baby "K", 16 F.3d F. Supp. 590 (E.D. VA 1993). WL 38674 (4th Cir. 1994).

4. In re K.I., 735 A.2d 448 (D.C. Ct. App. 1999).

5. Code of Ethics of the AMA, section 2.22, 2012-2013 edition.

6. JAMA 1991;265:1868-71.

7. Ann. Int. Med. 1990;112:949-54.

8. Code of Ethics of the AMA, section 2.035, 2012-2013 edition.

9. Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 147 Cal. App. 3d 1006 (1983).

10. Kansas v. Naramore, 965 P.2d 211 (Kan. 1998).

Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. It is adapted from the author’s book, "Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk" (2006). For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

PHOENIX – Hope remains for patients with advanced cancers, even after curative-intent surgery fails them, investigators reported at the annual Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Symposium.

A study of the effects of an online decision aid for advance care planning showed that patients whose cancers had advanced despite initial curative-intent surgery had degrees of hope and desires for the aggressiveness of additional therapy similar to those of patients who had undergone palliative therapy only, said Dr. Niraj J. Gusani, FACS, of Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa.

"As we do more advance care planning, stratify patients, and get them into these programs to help them figure out what their wishes really are, we should treat everybody the same , and they should all have a durable advance care planning process, maybe using a decision aid such as this," he said.

The results show that outcomes beyond whether a patient lives or dies also matter, commented Dr. Steven Chen, FACS, from City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif.

"The thing that patients care about at least as much as how long they’re going to live is how well they’re going to live until they die," he said in an interview. Dr. Chen was not involved in the study, but comoderated the poster discussion session where it was presented.

"Almost all of my patients have very advanced cancers with poor prognosis, and it’s all about their quality of life and how they’re going to feel," Dr. Gusani agreed. "They intuitively get that they have a poor prognosis, but if we can get them through with a better experience with their time and they are able to maintain their hope, then it makes a world of difference for the patient and the family as well."

Multimedia advance care planning

Dr. Gusani and his colleagues looked at data from a clinical trial evaluating the effects of an online multimedia decision aid tool for patients with advanced-stage disease. The program, called Making Your Wishes Known: Planning Your Medical Future, was developed by two of the authors.

The program "provides tailored education, values-clarification exercises, and a decision-making tool that translates an individual’s values and preferences into a specific medical plan than can be implemented by a health care team," they wrote.

The investigators hypothesized that patients who went into surgery hoping for or expecting a cure might opt for more aggressive treatment at the end of life and have more hope and/or less hopelessness than patients who underwent treatments that they knew would not be curative.

The researchers administered the advance care planning program to 159 patients from the parent clinical trial, in which 200 patients with stage IV cancers who were judged to have less than 12 months to live were randomly assigned to receive either standard advance care planning or the decision aid. All of the patients had non–central nervous system and nonhematologic malignancies and were classified as having had initial curative-intent surgery or treatment without curative intent (e.g., palliative therapy and tumor debulking).

Making patients’ wishes known

Both at baseline and after the intervention, the patients were rated for hope on the 12-item Herth Hope Index, with scores from 12 (low hope) to 48 (high hope), and for hopelessness on the 7-item Beck Hopelessness Scale, in which 0 is no hopelessness and 7 is the highest level of despair.

The patients were also asked to rate their desires for aggressiveness of additional therapy by choosing one of six general wishes statements. For this scale, questions 1-4 were deemed to be more aggressive, and 5-6 less aggressive.

Additionally, patients who used the decision aid were rated on a treatment aggressiveness scale scored from 0 (least aggressive) to 40 (most) based on their responses to questions within the decision aid that asked about their wishes for eight different treatments (such as mechanical ventilation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation) under five clinical scenarios (such as stroke or dementia).

In all, 46 of 95 patients (48%) who had originally had curative-intent surgery received the control intervention, and 49 (52%) received the decision aid. Of the 64 patients who had non–curative-intent therapy, 35 (52%) received standard advance care planning and 31 (48%) received the Making Your Wishes Known aid.

After either intervention, patients who had curative-intent surgery had a slight but not significant increase in hope, and patients in the non–curative-intent group had a slight but not significant decrease. There was no significant between-group difference.

Similarly, each group had a slight decrease in hopelessness scores, with no significant differences between the groups.

There were also no significant variations in the distribution of the general wishes statements between the curative and noncurative groups or between the decision-aid and control groups, nor were there differences in the median treatment aggressiveness score of patients who used the decision aid, regardless of whether they had initially had curative-intent surgery.

"Regardless of what they choose in terms of their level of aggressiveness, the patients are more satisfied with their decision, they feel more informed, and caregiver satisfaction has improved with the decision aid compared with traditional materials," Dr. Gusani said.

"This is really important work," commented Dr. Sandra L. Wong of the University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, who comoderated the poster discussion session.

The study was supported by Penn State College of Medicine. Dr. Gusani, Dr. Chen, and Dr. Wong reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

PHOENIX – Hope remains for patients with advanced cancers, even after curative-intent surgery fails them, investigators reported at the annual Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Symposium.

A study of the effects of an online decision aid for advance care planning showed that patients whose cancers had advanced despite initial curative-intent surgery had degrees of hope and desires for the aggressiveness of additional therapy similar to those of patients who had undergone palliative therapy only, said Dr. Niraj J. Gusani, FACS, of Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa.

"As we do more advance care planning, stratify patients, and get them into these programs to help them figure out what their wishes really are, we should treat everybody the same , and they should all have a durable advance care planning process, maybe using a decision aid such as this," he said.

The results show that outcomes beyond whether a patient lives or dies also matter, commented Dr. Steven Chen, FACS, from City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif.

"The thing that patients care about at least as much as how long they’re going to live is how well they’re going to live until they die," he said in an interview. Dr. Chen was not involved in the study, but comoderated the poster discussion session where it was presented.

"Almost all of my patients have very advanced cancers with poor prognosis, and it’s all about their quality of life and how they’re going to feel," Dr. Gusani agreed. "They intuitively get that they have a poor prognosis, but if we can get them through with a better experience with their time and they are able to maintain their hope, then it makes a world of difference for the patient and the family as well."

Multimedia advance care planning

Dr. Gusani and his colleagues looked at data from a clinical trial evaluating the effects of an online multimedia decision aid tool for patients with advanced-stage disease. The program, called Making Your Wishes Known: Planning Your Medical Future, was developed by two of the authors.

The program "provides tailored education, values-clarification exercises, and a decision-making tool that translates an individual’s values and preferences into a specific medical plan than can be implemented by a health care team," they wrote.

The investigators hypothesized that patients who went into surgery hoping for or expecting a cure might opt for more aggressive treatment at the end of life and have more hope and/or less hopelessness than patients who underwent treatments that they knew would not be curative.

The researchers administered the advance care planning program to 159 patients from the parent clinical trial, in which 200 patients with stage IV cancers who were judged to have less than 12 months to live were randomly assigned to receive either standard advance care planning or the decision aid. All of the patients had non–central nervous system and nonhematologic malignancies and were classified as having had initial curative-intent surgery or treatment without curative intent (e.g., palliative therapy and tumor debulking).

Making patients’ wishes known

Both at baseline and after the intervention, the patients were rated for hope on the 12-item Herth Hope Index, with scores from 12 (low hope) to 48 (high hope), and for hopelessness on the 7-item Beck Hopelessness Scale, in which 0 is no hopelessness and 7 is the highest level of despair.

The patients were also asked to rate their desires for aggressiveness of additional therapy by choosing one of six general wishes statements. For this scale, questions 1-4 were deemed to be more aggressive, and 5-6 less aggressive.

Additionally, patients who used the decision aid were rated on a treatment aggressiveness scale scored from 0 (least aggressive) to 40 (most) based on their responses to questions within the decision aid that asked about their wishes for eight different treatments (such as mechanical ventilation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation) under five clinical scenarios (such as stroke or dementia).

In all, 46 of 95 patients (48%) who had originally had curative-intent surgery received the control intervention, and 49 (52%) received the decision aid. Of the 64 patients who had non–curative-intent therapy, 35 (52%) received standard advance care planning and 31 (48%) received the Making Your Wishes Known aid.

After either intervention, patients who had curative-intent surgery had a slight but not significant increase in hope, and patients in the non–curative-intent group had a slight but not significant decrease. There was no significant between-group difference.

Similarly, each group had a slight decrease in hopelessness scores, with no significant differences between the groups.

There were also no significant variations in the distribution of the general wishes statements between the curative and noncurative groups or between the decision-aid and control groups, nor were there differences in the median treatment aggressiveness score of patients who used the decision aid, regardless of whether they had initially had curative-intent surgery.

"Regardless of what they choose in terms of their level of aggressiveness, the patients are more satisfied with their decision, they feel more informed, and caregiver satisfaction has improved with the decision aid compared with traditional materials," Dr. Gusani said.

"This is really important work," commented Dr. Sandra L. Wong of the University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, who comoderated the poster discussion session.

The study was supported by Penn State College of Medicine. Dr. Gusani, Dr. Chen, and Dr. Wong reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

PHOENIX – Hope remains for patients with advanced cancers, even after curative-intent surgery fails them, investigators reported at the annual Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Symposium.

A study of the effects of an online decision aid for advance care planning showed that patients whose cancers had advanced despite initial curative-intent surgery had degrees of hope and desires for the aggressiveness of additional therapy similar to those of patients who had undergone palliative therapy only, said Dr. Niraj J. Gusani, FACS, of Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa.

"As we do more advance care planning, stratify patients, and get them into these programs to help them figure out what their wishes really are, we should treat everybody the same , and they should all have a durable advance care planning process, maybe using a decision aid such as this," he said.

The results show that outcomes beyond whether a patient lives or dies also matter, commented Dr. Steven Chen, FACS, from City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif.

"The thing that patients care about at least as much as how long they’re going to live is how well they’re going to live until they die," he said in an interview. Dr. Chen was not involved in the study, but comoderated the poster discussion session where it was presented.

"Almost all of my patients have very advanced cancers with poor prognosis, and it’s all about their quality of life and how they’re going to feel," Dr. Gusani agreed. "They intuitively get that they have a poor prognosis, but if we can get them through with a better experience with their time and they are able to maintain their hope, then it makes a world of difference for the patient and the family as well."

Multimedia advance care planning

Dr. Gusani and his colleagues looked at data from a clinical trial evaluating the effects of an online multimedia decision aid tool for patients with advanced-stage disease. The program, called Making Your Wishes Known: Planning Your Medical Future, was developed by two of the authors.

The program "provides tailored education, values-clarification exercises, and a decision-making tool that translates an individual’s values and preferences into a specific medical plan than can be implemented by a health care team," they wrote.

The investigators hypothesized that patients who went into surgery hoping for or expecting a cure might opt for more aggressive treatment at the end of life and have more hope and/or less hopelessness than patients who underwent treatments that they knew would not be curative.

The researchers administered the advance care planning program to 159 patients from the parent clinical trial, in which 200 patients with stage IV cancers who were judged to have less than 12 months to live were randomly assigned to receive either standard advance care planning or the decision aid. All of the patients had non–central nervous system and nonhematologic malignancies and were classified as having had initial curative-intent surgery or treatment without curative intent (e.g., palliative therapy and tumor debulking).

Making patients’ wishes known

Both at baseline and after the intervention, the patients were rated for hope on the 12-item Herth Hope Index, with scores from 12 (low hope) to 48 (high hope), and for hopelessness on the 7-item Beck Hopelessness Scale, in which 0 is no hopelessness and 7 is the highest level of despair.

The patients were also asked to rate their desires for aggressiveness of additional therapy by choosing one of six general wishes statements. For this scale, questions 1-4 were deemed to be more aggressive, and 5-6 less aggressive.

Additionally, patients who used the decision aid were rated on a treatment aggressiveness scale scored from 0 (least aggressive) to 40 (most) based on their responses to questions within the decision aid that asked about their wishes for eight different treatments (such as mechanical ventilation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation) under five clinical scenarios (such as stroke or dementia).

In all, 46 of 95 patients (48%) who had originally had curative-intent surgery received the control intervention, and 49 (52%) received the decision aid. Of the 64 patients who had non–curative-intent therapy, 35 (52%) received standard advance care planning and 31 (48%) received the Making Your Wishes Known aid.

After either intervention, patients who had curative-intent surgery had a slight but not significant increase in hope, and patients in the non–curative-intent group had a slight but not significant decrease. There was no significant between-group difference.

Similarly, each group had a slight decrease in hopelessness scores, with no significant differences between the groups.

There were also no significant variations in the distribution of the general wishes statements between the curative and noncurative groups or between the decision-aid and control groups, nor were there differences in the median treatment aggressiveness score of patients who used the decision aid, regardless of whether they had initially had curative-intent surgery.

"Regardless of what they choose in terms of their level of aggressiveness, the patients are more satisfied with their decision, they feel more informed, and caregiver satisfaction has improved with the decision aid compared with traditional materials," Dr. Gusani said.

"This is really important work," commented Dr. Sandra L. Wong of the University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, who comoderated the poster discussion session.

The study was supported by Penn State College of Medicine. Dr. Gusani, Dr. Chen, and Dr. Wong reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SAN FRANCISCO – Palliative care in the intensive care unit reduces the length of stay in the ICU and the hospital without changing mortality rates or family satisfaction, according to a review of the literature.

Although measurements of family satisfaction overall didn’t change much from palliative care of a loved one in the ICU, some measures of components of satisfaction increased with palliative care, such as improved communication with the physician, better consensus around the goals of care, and decreased anxiety and depression in family members, reported Dr. Rebecca A. Aslakson of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her colleagues.

Dr. Aslakson presented the findings at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society for Critical Care Medicine.

Dr. Aslakson and her associates were unable to perform a formal meta-analysis of the 37 published trials of palliative care in the ICU because of the heterogeneity of the studies, which looked at more than 40 different outcomes.

Instead, their systematic review grouped results under four outcomes that commonly were measured, and assessed those either by the number of studies or by the number of patients studied.

ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in 13 of 21 studies (62%) that used this outcome and in 59% of 9,368 patients in those studies.

Hospital length of stay decreased with palliative care in 8 of 14 studies (57%) and in 43% of 5,817 patients. Family satisfaction did not decrease in any studies or families and increased in only 1 of 14 studies (7%) and in 2% of families of 4,927 patients, Dr. Aslakson and her colleagues reported (J. Palliat. Med. 2014;17:219-35).

Mortality rates did not change with palliative care in 14 of 16 studies (88%) that assessed mortality and in 57% of 5,969 patients in those studies. Mortality increased in one small study (6%) and decreased in one larger study (6%).

"Talking about big-picture issues and goals of care doesn’t lead to people dying," Dr. Aslakson said.

"No harm came in any of these studies." Some separate studies of palliative care outside of ICUs reported that this increases hope, "because people feel that they have more control over their choices and what’s happening to their loved ones," she added.

Integrative vs. consultative model

Dr. Aslakson and her associates also reviewed studies based on whether the interventions used integrative or consultative models of palliative care.

Generally, consultative models bring outsiders into the ICU to help provide palliative care, and integrative models train the ICU team to be the palliative care providers. In reality, the two models may overlap. For this review, the investigators applied mutually exclusive definitions to 36 of the studies.

In 18 studies of integrative interventions, members of the ICU team were the only caregivers in face-to-face interactions with the patient and families. In 18 studies of consultative interventions, palliative care providers included others besides the ICU team.

In the studies of integrative palliative care, ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in four of nine studies (44%) that measured this outcome and in 52% of 6,963 patients in those studies, she reported. Hospital length of stay decreased in two of five studies (40%) and in 24% of 3,812 patients. Family satisfaction changed in none of 15 studies, and mortality decreased in 1 of 5 studies (20%) and in 34% of 3,807 patients.

In the studies of consultative care, ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in 9 of 12 studies (75%) that measured this outcome and in 79% of 2,405 patients in those studies. Hospital length of stay decreased in six of nine studies (67%) and in 79% of 2,005 patients. Family satisfaction increased in one of four studies (25%) and in 21% of 429 patients. Mortality increased in 1 of 11 studies (9%) and in 5% of 2,162 patients.

One model isn’t necessarily better than the other, Dr. Aslakson said. Integrative palliative care may work best in a closed ICU with perhaps four or five intensivists in a relatively small unit. An integrative approach can be much more difficult in open or semiopen ICUs that have "40 different doctors floating around," she said. "We tried that in my unit, and it didn’t work that well."

Different ICUs need palliative care models that fit them. "Look at your unit, the way it works, and who the providers are, then look at the literature and see what matches that and what might work for your unit," she said.

Outcomes of better communication

A previous, separate review of the medical literature identified 21 controlled trials of 16 interventions to improve communication in ICUs between families and care providers. Overall, the interventions improved emotional outcomes for families and reduced ICU length of stay and treatment intensity (Chest 2011;139:543-54), she noted.

Yet another prior review of the literature reported that interventions to promote family meetings, use empathetic communication skills, and employ palliative care consultations improved family satisfaction and reduced ICU length of stay and the adverse effects of family bereavement  (Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2009;15:569-77).

Dr. Aslakson reported having no financial disclosures.

Dr. Jennifer Cox, FCCP, comments: Dr. Aslakson and colleagues’ systematic review adds to the body of literature that demonstrates no mortality increase when palliative care measures are initiated in the ICU. Shorter lengths of stay both in the ICU and hospital were other positive outcomes noted without a significant change in patient or family satisfaction.

These findings were independent of whether an integrative or consultative approach to palliative care was undertaken. This should encourage physicians to examine their practice setting and determine which approach meets the needs of their ICU and begin to utilize palliative care earlier and more aggressively without fear of increasing mortality.

[email protected]

On Twitter @sherryboschert

SAN FRANCISCO – Palliative care in the intensive care unit reduces the length of stay in the ICU and the hospital without changing mortality rates or family satisfaction, according to a review of the literature.

Although measurements of family satisfaction overall didn’t change much from palliative care of a loved one in the ICU, some measures of components of satisfaction increased with palliative care, such as improved communication with the physician, better consensus around the goals of care, and decreased anxiety and depression in family members, reported Dr. Rebecca A. Aslakson of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her colleagues.

Dr. Aslakson presented the findings at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society for Critical Care Medicine.

Dr. Aslakson and her associates were unable to perform a formal meta-analysis of the 37 published trials of palliative care in the ICU because of the heterogeneity of the studies, which looked at more than 40 different outcomes.

Instead, their systematic review grouped results under four outcomes that commonly were measured, and assessed those either by the number of studies or by the number of patients studied.

ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in 13 of 21 studies (62%) that used this outcome and in 59% of 9,368 patients in those studies.

Hospital length of stay decreased with palliative care in 8 of 14 studies (57%) and in 43% of 5,817 patients. Family satisfaction did not decrease in any studies or families and increased in only 1 of 14 studies (7%) and in 2% of families of 4,927 patients, Dr. Aslakson and her colleagues reported (J. Palliat. Med. 2014;17:219-35).

Mortality rates did not change with palliative care in 14 of 16 studies (88%) that assessed mortality and in 57% of 5,969 patients in those studies. Mortality increased in one small study (6%) and decreased in one larger study (6%).

"Talking about big-picture issues and goals of care doesn’t lead to people dying," Dr. Aslakson said.

"No harm came in any of these studies." Some separate studies of palliative care outside of ICUs reported that this increases hope, "because people feel that they have more control over their choices and what’s happening to their loved ones," she added.

Integrative vs. consultative model

Dr. Aslakson and her associates also reviewed studies based on whether the interventions used integrative or consultative models of palliative care.

Generally, consultative models bring outsiders into the ICU to help provide palliative care, and integrative models train the ICU team to be the palliative care providers. In reality, the two models may overlap. For this review, the investigators applied mutually exclusive definitions to 36 of the studies.

In 18 studies of integrative interventions, members of the ICU team were the only caregivers in face-to-face interactions with the patient and families. In 18 studies of consultative interventions, palliative care providers included others besides the ICU team.

In the studies of integrative palliative care, ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in four of nine studies (44%) that measured this outcome and in 52% of 6,963 patients in those studies, she reported. Hospital length of stay decreased in two of five studies (40%) and in 24% of 3,812 patients. Family satisfaction changed in none of 15 studies, and mortality decreased in 1 of 5 studies (20%) and in 34% of 3,807 patients.

In the studies of consultative care, ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in 9 of 12 studies (75%) that measured this outcome and in 79% of 2,405 patients in those studies. Hospital length of stay decreased in six of nine studies (67%) and in 79% of 2,005 patients. Family satisfaction increased in one of four studies (25%) and in 21% of 429 patients. Mortality increased in 1 of 11 studies (9%) and in 5% of 2,162 patients.

One model isn’t necessarily better than the other, Dr. Aslakson said. Integrative palliative care may work best in a closed ICU with perhaps four or five intensivists in a relatively small unit. An integrative approach can be much more difficult in open or semiopen ICUs that have "40 different doctors floating around," she said. "We tried that in my unit, and it didn’t work that well."

Different ICUs need palliative care models that fit them. "Look at your unit, the way it works, and who the providers are, then look at the literature and see what matches that and what might work for your unit," she said.

Outcomes of better communication

A previous, separate review of the medical literature identified 21 controlled trials of 16 interventions to improve communication in ICUs between families and care providers. Overall, the interventions improved emotional outcomes for families and reduced ICU length of stay and treatment intensity (Chest 2011;139:543-54), she noted.

Yet another prior review of the literature reported that interventions to promote family meetings, use empathetic communication skills, and employ palliative care consultations improved family satisfaction and reduced ICU length of stay and the adverse effects of family bereavement  (Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2009;15:569-77).

Dr. Aslakson reported having no financial disclosures.

Dr. Jennifer Cox, FCCP, comments: Dr. Aslakson and colleagues’ systematic review adds to the body of literature that demonstrates no mortality increase when palliative care measures are initiated in the ICU. Shorter lengths of stay both in the ICU and hospital were other positive outcomes noted without a significant change in patient or family satisfaction.

These findings were independent of whether an integrative or consultative approach to palliative care was undertaken. This should encourage physicians to examine their practice setting and determine which approach meets the needs of their ICU and begin to utilize palliative care earlier and more aggressively without fear of increasing mortality.

[email protected]

On Twitter @sherryboschert

SAN FRANCISCO – Palliative care in the intensive care unit reduces the length of stay in the ICU and the hospital without changing mortality rates or family satisfaction, according to a review of the literature.

Although measurements of family satisfaction overall didn’t change much from palliative care of a loved one in the ICU, some measures of components of satisfaction increased with palliative care, such as improved communication with the physician, better consensus around the goals of care, and decreased anxiety and depression in family members, reported Dr. Rebecca A. Aslakson of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her colleagues.

Dr. Aslakson presented the findings at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society for Critical Care Medicine.

Dr. Aslakson and her associates were unable to perform a formal meta-analysis of the 37 published trials of palliative care in the ICU because of the heterogeneity of the studies, which looked at more than 40 different outcomes.

Instead, their systematic review grouped results under four outcomes that commonly were measured, and assessed those either by the number of studies or by the number of patients studied.

ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in 13 of 21 studies (62%) that used this outcome and in 59% of 9,368 patients in those studies.

Hospital length of stay decreased with palliative care in 8 of 14 studies (57%) and in 43% of 5,817 patients. Family satisfaction did not decrease in any studies or families and increased in only 1 of 14 studies (7%) and in 2% of families of 4,927 patients, Dr. Aslakson and her colleagues reported (J. Palliat. Med. 2014;17:219-35).

Mortality rates did not change with palliative care in 14 of 16 studies (88%) that assessed mortality and in 57% of 5,969 patients in those studies. Mortality increased in one small study (6%) and decreased in one larger study (6%).

"Talking about big-picture issues and goals of care doesn’t lead to people dying," Dr. Aslakson said.

"No harm came in any of these studies." Some separate studies of palliative care outside of ICUs reported that this increases hope, "because people feel that they have more control over their choices and what’s happening to their loved ones," she added.

Integrative vs. consultative model

Dr. Aslakson and her associates also reviewed studies based on whether the interventions used integrative or consultative models of palliative care.

Generally, consultative models bring outsiders into the ICU to help provide palliative care, and integrative models train the ICU team to be the palliative care providers. In reality, the two models may overlap. For this review, the investigators applied mutually exclusive definitions to 36 of the studies.

In 18 studies of integrative interventions, members of the ICU team were the only caregivers in face-to-face interactions with the patient and families. In 18 studies of consultative interventions, palliative care providers included others besides the ICU team.

In the studies of integrative palliative care, ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in four of nine studies (44%) that measured this outcome and in 52% of 6,963 patients in those studies, she reported. Hospital length of stay decreased in two of five studies (40%) and in 24% of 3,812 patients. Family satisfaction changed in none of 15 studies, and mortality decreased in 1 of 5 studies (20%) and in 34% of 3,807 patients.

In the studies of consultative care, ICU length of stay decreased with palliative care in 9 of 12 studies (75%) that measured this outcome and in 79% of 2,405 patients in those studies. Hospital length of stay decreased in six of nine studies (67%) and in 79% of 2,005 patients. Family satisfaction increased in one of four studies (25%) and in 21% of 429 patients. Mortality increased in 1 of 11 studies (9%) and in 5% of 2,162 patients.

One model isn’t necessarily better than the other, Dr. Aslakson said. Integrative palliative care may work best in a closed ICU with perhaps four or five intensivists in a relatively small unit. An integrative approach can be much more difficult in open or semiopen ICUs that have "40 different doctors floating around," she said. "We tried that in my unit, and it didn’t work that well."

Different ICUs need palliative care models that fit them. "Look at your unit, the way it works, and who the providers are, then look at the literature and see what matches that and what might work for your unit," she said.

Outcomes of better communication

A previous, separate review of the medical literature identified 21 controlled trials of 16 interventions to improve communication in ICUs between families and care providers. Overall, the interventions improved emotional outcomes for families and reduced ICU length of stay and treatment intensity (Chest 2011;139:543-54), she noted.

Yet another prior review of the literature reported that interventions to promote family meetings, use empathetic communication skills, and employ palliative care consultations improved family satisfaction and reduced ICU length of stay and the adverse effects of family bereavement  (Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2009;15:569-77).

Dr. Aslakson reported having no financial disclosures.

Dr. Jennifer Cox, FCCP, comments: Dr. Aslakson and colleagues’ systematic review adds to the body of literature that demonstrates no mortality increase when palliative care measures are initiated in the ICU. Shorter lengths of stay both in the ICU and hospital were other positive outcomes noted without a significant change in patient or family satisfaction.

These findings were independent of whether an integrative or consultative approach to palliative care was undertaken. This should encourage physicians to examine their practice setting and determine which approach meets the needs of their ICU and begin to utilize palliative care earlier and more aggressively without fear of increasing mortality.

[email protected]

On Twitter @sherryboschert

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite training recommendations, half of physicians and less than a third of nurses surveyed in adult intensive care units at 56 California hospitals reported receiving formal training in talking with patients and families about the end of life.

A 2008 consensus statement by the American College of Critical Care Medicine included a recommendation for end-of-life communication skills training for clinicians to improve the care of patients dying in ICUs ((Crit. Care Med. 2008;36:953-63).

Dr. Matthew H.R. Anstey and his associates approached 149 California hospitals to gauge the extent of implementation of this recommendation. At 56 hospitals, doctors and nurses who work in adult ICUs voluntarily completed an anonymous web-based survey. Eighty-four percent of the 1,363 respondents were nurses, he reported in a poster presentation at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society for Critical Care Medicine.

Overall, 32% of the respondents said they had received formal training in communication skills. A significantly higher percentage of doctors had undergone training (50%) compared with nurses (29%), said Dr. Anstey, who is currently a lecturer in anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Sixty-six percent of all respondents agreed that "nurses are present during the communication of end-of-life information to the family" at their institution. Nurses were significantly more likely to agree with this statement (69%) than were doctors (52%).

Both doctors and nurses were very supportive of the idea of formal communication training for ICU providers. When asked about possible strategies to reduce inappropriate care for ICU patients, 91% of respondents said communication training would have a positive effect, Dr. Anstey reported.

This could be accomplished by requiring ICU physicians to complete a communication training module for ongoing credentialing, he said in an e-mail interview. Either individual hospitals could require this as part of credentialing for privileges to work in the ICU, or state medical boards could require it, similar to the California Medical Board’s requirement that physicians obtain some continuing medical education in pain management, he suggested.

The characteristics of participating hospitals were similar to those of nonparticipating hospitals in the sizes of the hospitals and ICUs, their regional location in California, and the proportions of hospitals that are teaching facilities.

The 93 nonparticipating hospitals were significantly more likely to be for-profit hospitals (59%) compared with participating hospitals (7%), and significantly less likely to be part of a hospital system containing more than three hospitals (54%) compared with participating hospitals (75%).

Dr. Anstey reported having no financial disclosures. His research was in conjunction with a Commonwealth Fund Harkness Fellowship in Health Care Policy and Practice for which he was placed at Kaiser Permanente in California.

Dr. Paul A. Selecky, FCCP, comments: Physicians are notorious about not doing a good job of communicating with patients in general, and when you focus on a vital subject as end-of-life care, it is of even greater importance. The findings in this study are not surprising. The unanswered question is how to fix it.

[email protected]

On Twitter @sherryboschert

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite training recommendations, half of physicians and less than a third of nurses surveyed in adult intensive care units at 56 California hospitals reported receiving formal training in talking with patients and families about the end of life.

A 2008 consensus statement by the American College of Critical Care Medicine included a recommendation for end-of-life communication skills training for clinicians to improve the care of patients dying in ICUs ((Crit. Care Med. 2008;36:953-63).

Dr. Matthew H.R. Anstey and his associates approached 149 California hospitals to gauge the extent of implementation of this recommendation. At 56 hospitals, doctors and nurses who work in adult ICUs voluntarily completed an anonymous web-based survey. Eighty-four percent of the 1,363 respondents were nurses, he reported in a poster presentation at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society for Critical Care Medicine.

Overall, 32% of the respondents said they had received formal training in communication skills. A significantly higher percentage of doctors had undergone training (50%) compared with nurses (29%), said Dr. Anstey, who is currently a lecturer in anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Sixty-six percent of all respondents agreed that "nurses are present during the communication of end-of-life information to the family" at their institution. Nurses were significantly more likely to agree with this statement (69%) than were doctors (52%).

Both doctors and nurses were very supportive of the idea of formal communication training for ICU providers. When asked about possible strategies to reduce inappropriate care for ICU patients, 91% of respondents said communication training would have a positive effect, Dr. Anstey reported.

This could be accomplished by requiring ICU physicians to complete a communication training module for ongoing credentialing, he said in an e-mail interview. Either individual hospitals could require this as part of credentialing for privileges to work in the ICU, or state medical boards could require it, similar to the California Medical Board’s requirement that physicians obtain some continuing medical education in pain management, he suggested.

The characteristics of participating hospitals were similar to those of nonparticipating hospitals in the sizes of the hospitals and ICUs, their regional location in California, and the proportions of hospitals that are teaching facilities.

The 93 nonparticipating hospitals were significantly more likely to be for-profit hospitals (59%) compared with participating hospitals (7%), and significantly less likely to be part of a hospital system containing more than three hospitals (54%) compared with participating hospitals (75%).

Dr. Anstey reported having no financial disclosures. His research was in conjunction with a Commonwealth Fund Harkness Fellowship in Health Care Policy and Practice for which he was placed at Kaiser Permanente in California.

Dr. Paul A. Selecky, FCCP, comments: Physicians are notorious about not doing a good job of communicating with patients in general, and when you focus on a vital subject as end-of-life care, it is of even greater importance. The findings in this study are not surprising. The unanswered question is how to fix it.

[email protected]

On Twitter @sherryboschert

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite training recommendations, half of physicians and less than a third of nurses surveyed in adult intensive care units at 56 California hospitals reported receiving formal training in talking with patients and families about the end of life.

A 2008 consensus statement by the American College of Critical Care Medicine included a recommendation for end-of-life communication skills training for clinicians to improve the care of patients dying in ICUs ((Crit. Care Med. 2008;36:953-63).

Dr. Matthew H.R. Anstey and his associates approached 149 California hospitals to gauge the extent of implementation of this recommendation. At 56 hospitals, doctors and nurses who work in adult ICUs voluntarily completed an anonymous web-based survey. Eighty-four percent of the 1,363 respondents were nurses, he reported in a poster presentation at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society for Critical Care Medicine.

Overall, 32% of the respondents said they had received formal training in communication skills. A significantly higher percentage of doctors had undergone training (50%) compared with nurses (29%), said Dr. Anstey, who is currently a lecturer in anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Sixty-six percent of all respondents agreed that "nurses are present during the communication of end-of-life information to the family" at their institution. Nurses were significantly more likely to agree with this statement (69%) than were doctors (52%).

Both doctors and nurses were very supportive of the idea of formal communication training for ICU providers. When asked about possible strategies to reduce inappropriate care for ICU patients, 91% of respondents said communication training would have a positive effect, Dr. Anstey reported.

This could be accomplished by requiring ICU physicians to complete a communication training module for ongoing credentialing, he said in an e-mail interview. Either individual hospitals could require this as part of credentialing for privileges to work in the ICU, or state medical boards could require it, similar to the California Medical Board’s requirement that physicians obtain some continuing medical education in pain management, he suggested.

The characteristics of participating hospitals were similar to those of nonparticipating hospitals in the sizes of the hospitals and ICUs, their regional location in California, and the proportions of hospitals that are teaching facilities.

The 93 nonparticipating hospitals were significantly more likely to be for-profit hospitals (59%) compared with participating hospitals (7%), and significantly less likely to be part of a hospital system containing more than three hospitals (54%) compared with participating hospitals (75%).

Dr. Anstey reported having no financial disclosures. His research was in conjunction with a Commonwealth Fund Harkness Fellowship in Health Care Policy and Practice for which he was placed at Kaiser Permanente in California.

Dr. Paul A. Selecky, FCCP, comments: Physicians are notorious about not doing a good job of communicating with patients in general, and when you focus on a vital subject as end-of-life care, it is of even greater importance. The findings in this study are not surprising. The unanswered question is how to fix it.

[email protected]

On Twitter @sherryboschert

Recently, members of our palliative care team participated in the care of a man approaching the end of his life. The patient had suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest 4 weeks earlier, and though he had survived the immediate event, it resulted in anoxic encephalopathy, which rendered him incapable of making decisions.

When it became clear that the patient was declining despite full support, the hospital’s ethics committee was convened to determine goals of care and next steps, as the patient had no family or surrogate decision maker. After determination that the hospital staff had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate a surrogate, the physicians involved reviewed the patient’s case and recommended a change in goals to comfort care. More than one member of the committee expressed confusion as to what interventions are and are not included in comfort care, including medically administered nutrition and hydration (MANH).

Comfort care has traditionally included medications for distressing symptoms (pain, dyspnea, nausea), personal care for hygiene, and choice of place of death (home, hospital, nursing facility), usually with the assistance of a hospice agency.

As the number and complexity of interventions used near the end of life expand, clinicians and hospital staff report confusion about whether these interventions, generally considered to be life-sustaining treatments, can also be considered comfort care. We generally find that when interventions are considered in the context of the patient’s goals of care, the dilemma is clarified. Often the situation is made more complicated by considering the interventions before settling on goals. Broadly speaking, goals of care are derived from a careful consideration (by patient, physician, and family) of the natural history of the illness, expected course and prognosis, and patient preferences.

In the case of the above-referenced patient, we were unable to ascertain his goals because of neurological impairment. We did know, however, that the patient had steadfastly avoided hospitals and medical care of any kind. The attending hospitalist, pulmonologist, and palliative care physician agreed that the patient’s clinical status was declining despite all available interventions, and that his constellation of medical problems constituted a terminal condition. The physicians agreed that future ICU admission, resuscitation, and other new interventions would only prolong his dying process, but not permit him to live outside the hospital. At that time, the patient was receiving nutrition and hydration via a Dobhoff tube, and was tolerating enteral nutrition without excessive residuals or pulmonary secretions.

As with other interventions, whether or not to consider MANH a part of comfort care is individualized. In this patient’s case, in the absence of evidence that he would not want MANH, it was continued. Other patients have expressed the wish that they would under no circumstances accept MANH while receiving comfort care. Both are correct as long as they reflect that patient’s wishes.

With respect to other interventions – including but not limited to BiPAP, inotrope infusion, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and transfusions – whether or not they provide comfort is a decision to be made jointly by the patient and physician(s). As advances in medicine allow patients to live longer with serious illness, the definition of comfort care must also expand.

Dr. Steven Q. Simpson, FCCP commented: Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Beckanich adeptly discuss how to weigh possible life-sustaining measures in terms of whether they are providing comfort for patients and how to ensure that such treatments are discussed with patients in that context.

Additionally, they provide a very nice example of how to proceed when patients cannot communicate for themselves and have no family or other surrogates to speak for them.

Join us in the Critical Care NetWork’s eCommunity.

If you’re interested in more about these topics, you can join a discussion on this topic within the Critical Care e-Community. Simply log in to ecommunity.chestnet.org and find the Critical Care group If you’re not part of the Critical Care NetWork, log in to chestnet.org and add the Critical Care NetWork to your profile.

Questions? Contact [email protected].

Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Bekanich are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

"Palliatively Speaking," appears monthly at ehospitalistnews.com.

Recently, members of our palliative care team participated in the care of a man approaching the end of his life. The patient had suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest 4 weeks earlier, and though he had survived the immediate event, it resulted in anoxic encephalopathy, which rendered him incapable of making decisions.

When it became clear that the patient was declining despite full support, the hospital’s ethics committee was convened to determine goals of care and next steps, as the patient had no family or surrogate decision maker. After determination that the hospital staff had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate a surrogate, the physicians involved reviewed the patient’s case and recommended a change in goals to comfort care. More than one member of the committee expressed confusion as to what interventions are and are not included in comfort care, including medically administered nutrition and hydration (MANH).

Comfort care has traditionally included medications for distressing symptoms (pain, dyspnea, nausea), personal care for hygiene, and choice of place of death (home, hospital, nursing facility), usually with the assistance of a hospice agency.

As the number and complexity of interventions used near the end of life expand, clinicians and hospital staff report confusion about whether these interventions, generally considered to be life-sustaining treatments, can also be considered comfort care. We generally find that when interventions are considered in the context of the patient’s goals of care, the dilemma is clarified. Often the situation is made more complicated by considering the interventions before settling on goals. Broadly speaking, goals of care are derived from a careful consideration (by patient, physician, and family) of the natural history of the illness, expected course and prognosis, and patient preferences.

In the case of the above-referenced patient, we were unable to ascertain his goals because of neurological impairment. We did know, however, that the patient had steadfastly avoided hospitals and medical care of any kind. The attending hospitalist, pulmonologist, and palliative care physician agreed that the patient’s clinical status was declining despite all available interventions, and that his constellation of medical problems constituted a terminal condition. The physicians agreed that future ICU admission, resuscitation, and other new interventions would only prolong his dying process, but not permit him to live outside the hospital. At that time, the patient was receiving nutrition and hydration via a Dobhoff tube, and was tolerating enteral nutrition without excessive residuals or pulmonary secretions.

As with other interventions, whether or not to consider MANH a part of comfort care is individualized. In this patient’s case, in the absence of evidence that he would not want MANH, it was continued. Other patients have expressed the wish that they would under no circumstances accept MANH while receiving comfort care. Both are correct as long as they reflect that patient’s wishes.

With respect to other interventions – including but not limited to BiPAP, inotrope infusion, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and transfusions – whether or not they provide comfort is a decision to be made jointly by the patient and physician(s). As advances in medicine allow patients to live longer with serious illness, the definition of comfort care must also expand.

Dr. Steven Q. Simpson, FCCP commented: Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Beckanich adeptly discuss how to weigh possible life-sustaining measures in terms of whether they are providing comfort for patients and how to ensure that such treatments are discussed with patients in that context.

Additionally, they provide a very nice example of how to proceed when patients cannot communicate for themselves and have no family or other surrogates to speak for them.

Join us in the Critical Care NetWork’s eCommunity.

If you’re interested in more about these topics, you can join a discussion on this topic within the Critical Care e-Community. Simply log in to ecommunity.chestnet.org and find the Critical Care group If you’re not part of the Critical Care NetWork, log in to chestnet.org and add the Critical Care NetWork to your profile.

Questions? Contact [email protected].

Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Bekanich are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

"Palliatively Speaking," appears monthly at ehospitalistnews.com.

Recently, members of our palliative care team participated in the care of a man approaching the end of his life. The patient had suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest 4 weeks earlier, and though he had survived the immediate event, it resulted in anoxic encephalopathy, which rendered him incapable of making decisions.

When it became clear that the patient was declining despite full support, the hospital’s ethics committee was convened to determine goals of care and next steps, as the patient had no family or surrogate decision maker. After determination that the hospital staff had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate a surrogate, the physicians involved reviewed the patient’s case and recommended a change in goals to comfort care. More than one member of the committee expressed confusion as to what interventions are and are not included in comfort care, including medically administered nutrition and hydration (MANH).

Comfort care has traditionally included medications for distressing symptoms (pain, dyspnea, nausea), personal care for hygiene, and choice of place of death (home, hospital, nursing facility), usually with the assistance of a hospice agency.

As the number and complexity of interventions used near the end of life expand, clinicians and hospital staff report confusion about whether these interventions, generally considered to be life-sustaining treatments, can also be considered comfort care. We generally find that when interventions are considered in the context of the patient’s goals of care, the dilemma is clarified. Often the situation is made more complicated by considering the interventions before settling on goals. Broadly speaking, goals of care are derived from a careful consideration (by patient, physician, and family) of the natural history of the illness, expected course and prognosis, and patient preferences.

In the case of the above-referenced patient, we were unable to ascertain his goals because of neurological impairment. We did know, however, that the patient had steadfastly avoided hospitals and medical care of any kind. The attending hospitalist, pulmonologist, and palliative care physician agreed that the patient’s clinical status was declining despite all available interventions, and that his constellation of medical problems constituted a terminal condition. The physicians agreed that future ICU admission, resuscitation, and other new interventions would only prolong his dying process, but not permit him to live outside the hospital. At that time, the patient was receiving nutrition and hydration via a Dobhoff tube, and was tolerating enteral nutrition without excessive residuals or pulmonary secretions.

As with other interventions, whether or not to consider MANH a part of comfort care is individualized. In this patient’s case, in the absence of evidence that he would not want MANH, it was continued. Other patients have expressed the wish that they would under no circumstances accept MANH while receiving comfort care. Both are correct as long as they reflect that patient’s wishes.

With respect to other interventions – including but not limited to BiPAP, inotrope infusion, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and transfusions – whether or not they provide comfort is a decision to be made jointly by the patient and physician(s). As advances in medicine allow patients to live longer with serious illness, the definition of comfort care must also expand.

Dr. Steven Q. Simpson, FCCP commented: Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Beckanich adeptly discuss how to weigh possible life-sustaining measures in terms of whether they are providing comfort for patients and how to ensure that such treatments are discussed with patients in that context.

Additionally, they provide a very nice example of how to proceed when patients cannot communicate for themselves and have no family or other surrogates to speak for them.

Join us in the Critical Care NetWork’s eCommunity.

If you’re interested in more about these topics, you can join a discussion on this topic within the Critical Care e-Community. Simply log in to ecommunity.chestnet.org and find the Critical Care group If you’re not part of the Critical Care NetWork, log in to chestnet.org and add the Critical Care NetWork to your profile.

Questions? Contact [email protected].

Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Bekanich are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

"Palliatively Speaking," appears monthly at ehospitalistnews.com.