Factors related to withholding life-sustaining treatment in hospitalized elders

Comprehensive geriatric assessment as an essential tool to register or update DNR codes in a tertiary care hospital

PURPOSE

To investigate the prevalence of Do not Resuscitate (DNR) code registration in patients with a geriatric profile admitted to Antwerp University Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Flanders, Belgium, and the impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) on DNR code registration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a population of 543 geriatric patients (mean age 82.4 ± 5.19 years, 46.4% males) admitted to Antwerp University Hospital from 2018 to 2020 who underwent a CGA during admission. An association between DNR code registration status before and at hospital admission and age, gender, ethnicity, type of residence, clinical frailty score (CFS), cognitive and oncological status, hospital ward and stay on intensive care was studied. Admissions before and during the first wave of the pandemic were compared.

RESULTS

At the time of hospital admission, a DNR code had been registered for 66.3% (360/543) of patients. Patients with a DNR code at hospital admission were older (82.7 ± 5.5 vs. 81.7 ± 4.6 years, p = 0.031), more frail (CFS 5.11 ± 1.63 vs. 4.70 ± 1.61, p = 0.006) and less likely to be admitted to intensive care. During the hospital stay, the proportion of patients with a DNR code increased to 77% before and to 85.3% after CGA (p < 0.0001). Patients were consulted about and agreed with the registered DNR code in 55.8% and 52.1% of cases, respectively. The proportion of patients with DNR codes at the time of admission or registered after CGA did not differ significantly before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

After CGA, a significant increase in DNR registration was observed in hospitalized patients with a geriatric profile.

Terms used by physicians when deciding to withhold treatment for older patients not having received palliative care in an acute geriatric care unit

PURPOSE

There are no guidelines or consensus statements on the terms to be used when discussing withholding of treatment for patients in acute geriatric care units and who have not received palliative care. The objective of the present study was to analyze the terms used in medical records to refer to the withholding of treatment for patients who died in an acute geriatric care unit and did not receive palliative care.

METHODS

We conducted an ambispective multicentre cohort study based on the DAMAGE study. Data on 53 patients who died in the acute geriatric care unit and who had not received palliative care were extracted from medical records. The verbatims referring to the withholding of treatment were analyzed in terms of keywords and then key concepts, as defined by several reviewers in a consensus-based approach.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 86.4 years, 34.1% were male. Terms referring to the withholding of treatment were found for 25 of the 53 patients (47.2%). Most of the decisions on the withholding of treatment were recorded in the week following admission to the acute geriatric care unit. Our analysis of the terms identified 11 key concepts: treatment limitation, no resuscitation, withholding diagnostic procedures, justification of care, ethical considerations, disease progression, uncertainty, the patient's wishes, the family's wishes, patient's comfort, and collegiality. The terms used to describe key concepts varied markedly from one physician to another.

CONCLUSION

Decisions about the withholding of treatment are frequently noted in the medical records of patients who die in the acute geriatric care unit without having received palliative care. The broad variety of key concepts and differences in the choice of words highlight the need for standardized terms.

Does special education in palliative medicine make a difference in end-of-life decision-making?

Background

Characteristics of the physician influence the essential decision-making in end-of-life care. However, the effect of special education in palliative medicine on different aspects of decision-making in end-of-life care remains unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the decision-making in end-of-life care among physicians with or without special competency in palliative medicine (cPM).

Methods

A questionnaire including an advanced lung cancer patient-scenario with multiple decision options in end-of-life care situation was sent to 1327 Finnish physicians. Decisions to withdraw or withhold ten life-prolonging interventions were asked on a scale from 1 (definitely would not) to 5 (definitely would) – first, without additional information and then after the family’s request for aggressive treatment and the availability of an advance directive. Values from chronological original scenario, family’s appeal and advance directive were clustered by trajectory analysis.

Results

We received 699 (53%) responses. The mean values of the ten answers in the original scenario were 4.1 in physicians with cPM, 3.4 in general practitioners, 3.4 in surgeons, 3.5 in internists and 3.8 in oncologists (p < 0.05 for physicians with cPM vs. oncologists and p < 0.001 for physicians with cPM vs. others). Younger age and not being an oncologist or not having cPM increased aggressive treatment decisions in multivariable logistic regression analysis. The less aggressive approach of physicians with cPM differed between therapies, being most striking concerning intravenous hydration, nasogastric tube and blood transfusions. The aggressive approach increased by the family’s request (p < 0.001) and decreased by an advance directive (p < 0.001) in all physicians, regardless of special education in palliative medicine.

Conclusion

Physicians with special education in palliative medicine make less aggressive decisions in end-of-life care. The impact of specialty on decision-making varies among treatment options. Education in end-of-life care decision-making should be mandatory for young physicians and those in specialty training.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-018-0349-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do not resuscitate orders and aging: impact of multimorbidity on the decision-making process

BACKGROUND

The "Do Not Resuscitate" orders (DNR) are defined as advance medical directives to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation during cardiac arrest. Age-related multimorbidity may influence the DNR decision-making process. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data examining the relationship between DNR orders and multimorbidity in older patients.

METHODS

A systematic Medline and Cochrane literature search limited to human studies published in English and French was conducted on August 2012, with no date limits, using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: "resuscitation orders" OR "do-not-resuscitate" combined with "aged, 80 and over" combined with "comorbidities" OR "chronic diseases".

RESULTS

Of the 65 selected studies, 22 met the selection criteria for inclusion in the qualitative analysis. DNR orders were positively associated with multimorbidity in 21 studies (95%). The meta-analysis included 7 studies with a total of 27,707 participants and 5065 DNR orders. It confirmed that multimorbidity were associated with DNR orders (summary OR = 1.25 [95% CI: 1.19-1.33]). The relationship between DNR orders and multimorbidity differed according to the nature of morbidities; the summary OR for DNR orders was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.23) for cognitive impairment, OR=2.58 (95% CI: 2.08-3.20) for cancer, OR=1.07 (95% CI: 0.92-1.24) for heart diseases (i.e., coronary heart disease or congestive heart failure), and OR=1.97 (95% CI: 1.61-2.40) for stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that DNR orders are positively associated with multimorbidity, and especially with three morbidities, which are cognitive impairment, cancer and stroke.

The preferred place of last days: results of a representative population-based public survey

BACKGROUND

The place of death is of considerable interest now, yet few studies have determined public preferences for place of end-of-life (EOL) care or final days of life.

OBJECTIVE

A survey was designed to answer three questions: (1) What are public preferences for the place of last days? (2) Is this place preference related to socio-demographic and other background characteristics? and (3) Is this place preference associated with specified previous death and dying experiences, the preparation of a living will or advance directive, or a viewpoint supportive of death hastening?

DESIGN

An experienced telephone survey company was commissioned to gain a representative population-based sample and survey participants. In mid-2010, 1203 adults were surveyed in Alberta. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression were conducted.

RESULTS

This survey revealed 70.8% preferred to be at home near death; while 14.7% preferred a hospice/palliative care facility, 7.0% a hospital, and 1.7% a nursing home; 5.7% had no stated preference. Marital status was the only predictor of place preference, with widowed persons more often indicating a preference for a hospital or hospice/palliative care facility.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest homes are the preferred EOL place now for the majority of Albertans, if not other citizens, while at the same time suggesting that marital and living arrangement realities temper EOL place choices and possibilities, with widows best realizing the need for assistance from others when dying. The widespread preference for home-based EOL care indicates public health interventions are needed to promote good home deaths.