We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can we talk? Inpatient discussions about advance directives in a community hospital. Attending physicians' attitudes, their inpatients' wishes, and reported experience.
Archives of Internal Medicine 1994 October 25
BACKGROUND: The attitudes of hospitalized patients and their attending physicians about advance directives have not been well studied. We compared these attitudes and explored relationships between them and the frequency of actual directives and directive discussions during hospitalization.
METHODS: We conducted scripted interviews with 258 (94.5%) of 273 patients admitted consecutively to the acute medical service of a community teaching hospital in Rochester, NY, and contemporaneously surveyed their attending physicians (n = 68) regarding attitudes about advance directives. Primary outcome measures were patients' willingness to discuss directives, actual physician-patient directive discussions, and patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatments. Also measured were physicians' indications for directive discussions, their reasons not to discuss directives, and their knowledge and attitudes about life-sustaining treatments.
RESULTS: Eighty-one percent (172/212) of competent interviewed patients either did (100) or wanted to (72) discuss advance directives in hospital. Forty-one percent of patients chose to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation; 24% to 41% refused other life-sustaining interventions (intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, cardioversion, vasopressors). Overall, 90% (246/273) of all patients met at least one of three criteria reported by their physicians as indications for advance directive discussions: age at least 75 years, critical or potentially fatal illness, and patients' desire to discuss directives. Multiple logistic regression revealed that these same variables predicted patients' willingness to discuss cardiopulmonary resuscitation, their preferences to receive or forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the frequency of physician-patient discussions about these issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Most medical inpatients in a community hospital want to, are able to, and meet their own physicians' indications to discuss advance directives. Hospitalization presents an unrealized opportunity for physicians and patients to initiate these discussions.
METHODS: We conducted scripted interviews with 258 (94.5%) of 273 patients admitted consecutively to the acute medical service of a community teaching hospital in Rochester, NY, and contemporaneously surveyed their attending physicians (n = 68) regarding attitudes about advance directives. Primary outcome measures were patients' willingness to discuss directives, actual physician-patient directive discussions, and patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatments. Also measured were physicians' indications for directive discussions, their reasons not to discuss directives, and their knowledge and attitudes about life-sustaining treatments.
RESULTS: Eighty-one percent (172/212) of competent interviewed patients either did (100) or wanted to (72) discuss advance directives in hospital. Forty-one percent of patients chose to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation; 24% to 41% refused other life-sustaining interventions (intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, cardioversion, vasopressors). Overall, 90% (246/273) of all patients met at least one of three criteria reported by their physicians as indications for advance directive discussions: age at least 75 years, critical or potentially fatal illness, and patients' desire to discuss directives. Multiple logistic regression revealed that these same variables predicted patients' willingness to discuss cardiopulmonary resuscitation, their preferences to receive or forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the frequency of physician-patient discussions about these issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Most medical inpatients in a community hospital want to, are able to, and meet their own physicians' indications to discuss advance directives. Hospitalization presents an unrealized opportunity for physicians and patients to initiate these discussions.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app