Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions

Jan C. Hofmann, Neil S. Wenger, Roger B. Davis, Joan Teno, Alfred F. Connors, Norman Desbiens, Joanne Lynn, Russell S. Phillips

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

370 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Physicians are frequently unaware of patient preferences for end-of-life care. Identifying and exploring barriers to patient-physician communication about end-of-life issues may help guide physicians and their patients toward more effective discussions. Objective: To examine correlates and associated outcomes of patient communication and patient preferences for communication with physicians about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Five tertiary care hospitals. Patients: 1832 (85%) of 2162 eligible patients completed interviews. Measurements: Surveys of patient characteristics and preferences for end-of-life care; perceptions of prognosis, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. Results: Fewer than one fourth (23%) of seriously ill patients had discussed preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation with their physicians. Of patients who had not discussed their preferences for resuscitation, 58% were not interested in doing so. Of patients who had not discussed and did not want to discuss their preferences, 25% did not want resuscitation. In multivariable analyses, patient factors independently associated with not wanting to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation included being of an ethnicity other than black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimating an excellent prognosis (OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.32 to 2.59]), reporting fair to excellent quality of life (OR, 1.36 [CI, 1.05 to 1.76]), and not desiring active involvement in medical decisions (OR, 1.33 [CI, 1.07 to 1.65]). Factors independently associated with wanting to discuss preferences for resuscitation but not doing so included being black (OR, 1.53 [CI, 1.11 to 2.11]) and being younger (OR, 1,14 per 10-year interval younger [CI, 1.04 to 1.25]). Conclusions: Among seriously ill hospitalized adults, communication about preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is uncommon. A majority of patients who have not discussed preferences for end-of-life care do not want to do so. For patients who do not want to discuss their preferences, as well as patients with an unmet need for such discussions, failure to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation may result in unwanted interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of internal medicine
Volume127
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Preference
Communication
Physicians
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Odds Ratio
Terminal Care
Resuscitation
Artificial Respiration
Quality of Life
Advance Directives
Tertiary Healthcare
Tertiary Care Centers
Statistical Factor Analysis
Decision Making
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Interviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Hofmann, J. C., Wenger, N. S., Davis, R. B., Teno, J., Connors, A. F., Desbiens, N., ... Phillips, R. S. (1997). Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. Annals of internal medicine, 127(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-1-199707010-00001

Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. / Hofmann, Jan C.; Wenger, Neil S.; Davis, Roger B.; Teno, Joan; Connors, Alfred F.; Desbiens, Norman; Lynn, Joanne; Phillips, Russell S.

In: Annals of internal medicine, Vol. 127, No. 1, 01.07.1997, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hofmann, JC, Wenger, NS, Davis, RB, Teno, J, Connors, AF, Desbiens, N, Lynn, J & Phillips, RS 1997, 'Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions', Annals of internal medicine, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-1-199707010-00001
Hofmann, Jan C. ; Wenger, Neil S. ; Davis, Roger B. ; Teno, Joan ; Connors, Alfred F. ; Desbiens, Norman ; Lynn, Joanne ; Phillips, Russell S. / Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. In: Annals of internal medicine. 1997 ; Vol. 127, No. 1. pp. 1-12.
@article{4873f7a6515d41c382c37e02ad4b2eb0,
title = "Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions",
abstract = "Background: Physicians are frequently unaware of patient preferences for end-of-life care. Identifying and exploring barriers to patient-physician communication about end-of-life issues may help guide physicians and their patients toward more effective discussions. Objective: To examine correlates and associated outcomes of patient communication and patient preferences for communication with physicians about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Five tertiary care hospitals. Patients: 1832 (85{\%}) of 2162 eligible patients completed interviews. Measurements: Surveys of patient characteristics and preferences for end-of-life care; perceptions of prognosis, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. Results: Fewer than one fourth (23{\%}) of seriously ill patients had discussed preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation with their physicians. Of patients who had not discussed their preferences for resuscitation, 58{\%} were not interested in doing so. Of patients who had not discussed and did not want to discuss their preferences, 25{\%} did not want resuscitation. In multivariable analyses, patient factors independently associated with not wanting to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation included being of an ethnicity other than black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [95{\%} CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimating an excellent prognosis (OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.32 to 2.59]), reporting fair to excellent quality of life (OR, 1.36 [CI, 1.05 to 1.76]), and not desiring active involvement in medical decisions (OR, 1.33 [CI, 1.07 to 1.65]). Factors independently associated with wanting to discuss preferences for resuscitation but not doing so included being black (OR, 1.53 [CI, 1.11 to 2.11]) and being younger (OR, 1,14 per 10-year interval younger [CI, 1.04 to 1.25]). Conclusions: Among seriously ill hospitalized adults, communication about preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is uncommon. A majority of patients who have not discussed preferences for end-of-life care do not want to do so. For patients who do not want to discuss their preferences, as well as patients with an unmet need for such discussions, failure to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation may result in unwanted interventions.",
author = "Hofmann, {Jan C.} and Wenger, {Neil S.} and Davis, {Roger B.} and Joan Teno and Connors, {Alfred F.} and Norman Desbiens and Joanne Lynn and Phillips, {Russell S.}",
year = "1997",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7326/0003-4819-127-1-199707010-00001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions

AU - Hofmann, Jan C.

AU - Wenger, Neil S.

AU - Davis, Roger B.

AU - Teno, Joan

AU - Connors, Alfred F.

AU - Desbiens, Norman

AU - Lynn, Joanne

AU - Phillips, Russell S.

PY - 1997/7/1

Y1 - 1997/7/1

N2 - Background: Physicians are frequently unaware of patient preferences for end-of-life care. Identifying and exploring barriers to patient-physician communication about end-of-life issues may help guide physicians and their patients toward more effective discussions. Objective: To examine correlates and associated outcomes of patient communication and patient preferences for communication with physicians about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Five tertiary care hospitals. Patients: 1832 (85%) of 2162 eligible patients completed interviews. Measurements: Surveys of patient characteristics and preferences for end-of-life care; perceptions of prognosis, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. Results: Fewer than one fourth (23%) of seriously ill patients had discussed preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation with their physicians. Of patients who had not discussed their preferences for resuscitation, 58% were not interested in doing so. Of patients who had not discussed and did not want to discuss their preferences, 25% did not want resuscitation. In multivariable analyses, patient factors independently associated with not wanting to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation included being of an ethnicity other than black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimating an excellent prognosis (OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.32 to 2.59]), reporting fair to excellent quality of life (OR, 1.36 [CI, 1.05 to 1.76]), and not desiring active involvement in medical decisions (OR, 1.33 [CI, 1.07 to 1.65]). Factors independently associated with wanting to discuss preferences for resuscitation but not doing so included being black (OR, 1.53 [CI, 1.11 to 2.11]) and being younger (OR, 1,14 per 10-year interval younger [CI, 1.04 to 1.25]). Conclusions: Among seriously ill hospitalized adults, communication about preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is uncommon. A majority of patients who have not discussed preferences for end-of-life care do not want to do so. For patients who do not want to discuss their preferences, as well as patients with an unmet need for such discussions, failure to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation may result in unwanted interventions.

AB - Background: Physicians are frequently unaware of patient preferences for end-of-life care. Identifying and exploring barriers to patient-physician communication about end-of-life issues may help guide physicians and their patients toward more effective discussions. Objective: To examine correlates and associated outcomes of patient communication and patient preferences for communication with physicians about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Five tertiary care hospitals. Patients: 1832 (85%) of 2162 eligible patients completed interviews. Measurements: Surveys of patient characteristics and preferences for end-of-life care; perceptions of prognosis, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians about end-of-life decisions. Results: Fewer than one fourth (23%) of seriously ill patients had discussed preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation with their physicians. Of patients who had not discussed their preferences for resuscitation, 58% were not interested in doing so. Of patients who had not discussed and did not want to discuss their preferences, 25% did not want resuscitation. In multivariable analyses, patient factors independently associated with not wanting to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation included being of an ethnicity other than black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimating an excellent prognosis (OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.32 to 2.59]), reporting fair to excellent quality of life (OR, 1.36 [CI, 1.05 to 1.76]), and not desiring active involvement in medical decisions (OR, 1.33 [CI, 1.07 to 1.65]). Factors independently associated with wanting to discuss preferences for resuscitation but not doing so included being black (OR, 1.53 [CI, 1.11 to 2.11]) and being younger (OR, 1,14 per 10-year interval younger [CI, 1.04 to 1.25]). Conclusions: Among seriously ill hospitalized adults, communication about preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation is uncommon. A majority of patients who have not discussed preferences for end-of-life care do not want to do so. For patients who do not want to discuss their preferences, as well as patients with an unmet need for such discussions, failure to discuss preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation may result in unwanted interventions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030806452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030806452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-127-1-199707010-00001

DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-127-1-199707010-00001

M3 - Article

C2 - 9214246

AN - SCOPUS:0030806452

VL - 127

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 1

ER -