MENU ▼
Read by QxMD icon Read
search
OPEN IN READ APP
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY

Experts practice what they preach: A descriptive study of best and normative practices in end-of-life discussions

D L Roter, S Larson, G S Fischer, R M Arnold, J A Tulsky
Archives of Internal Medicine 2000 December 11, 160 (22): 3477-85
11112242

BACKGROUND: Advance directives (ADs) are widely regarded as the best available mechanism to ensure that patients' wishes about medical treatment at the end of life are respected. However, observational studies suggest that these discussions often fail to meet their stated goals.

OBJECTIVES: To explore best practices by describing what physicians who are considered expert in the area of end of-life bioethics or medical communication do when discussing ADs with their patients and to explore the ways in which best practices of the expert group might differ in content or style from normative practice derived from primary care physicians' discussions of ADs with their patients collected as part of an earlier study.

DESIGN: Nonexperimental, descriptive study of audiotaped discussions.

SETTING: Outpatient primary care practices in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen internists who have published articles in the areas of bioethics or communication and 48 of their patients. Fifty-six academic internists and 56 of their established patients in 5 practice sites in 2 locations-Durham, NC, and Pittsburgh, Pa. Eligible patients were at least 65 years old or suffered from serious medical illness and had not previously discussed ADs with their physician. Expert clinicians had discretion regarding patient selection, while the internists chose patients according to a predetermined protocol.

MEASUREMENTS: Coders applied the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) to audiotapes of the medical visits to describe communication dynamics. In addition, the audiotapes were scored on 21 items reflecting physician performance in specific skills related to AD discussions.

RESULTS: Experts spent close to twice as much time (14.7 vs 8.1 minutes, P<.001) and were less verbally dominant (P<.05) than other physicians during AD discussions. When length of visit was controlled statistically, the expert physicians gave less information about treatment procedures and biomedical issues (P<.05) and asked fewer related questions (P<. 05) but tended toward more psychosocial and lifestyle discussion and questions. Experts engaged in more partnership building (P<.05) with their patients. Patients of the expert physicians engaged in more psychosocial and lifestyle discussion (P<.001), and more positive talk (P<.05) than patients of community physicians. Expert physicians scored higher on the 21 items reflecting AD-specific skills (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Best practices as reflected in the performance of expert physicians reflect differences in measures of communication style and in specific AD-related proficiencies. Physician training in ADs must be broad enough to include both of these domains. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3477-3485.

Comments

You need to log in or sign up for an account to be able to comment.

No comments yet, be the first to post one!

Related Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store

Read Institutional Edition
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
11112242
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"