What to do when patients and physicians disagree? Qualitative research among physicians with different working experiences.

PURPOSE: Impasses between patients, relatives and physicians occur frequently. With the growing attention for shared decision making, it is valuable to know how impasses arise. To understand the challenges experienced by physicians when their opinion on medical decisions differ from those of patients or relatives. METHODS: Fifteen physicians with different working experiences, from five medical specialties were interviewed using a narrative approach. Interviews were based on two patient stories provided by the physician. First of a patient (or relative) who did not want to adhere to a treatment the physician deemed necessary, and the second of a patient (or relative) who requested a treatment the physician felt was unnecessary. Data were analyzed using a bottom-up approach, with identification of five themes (autonomy of the patient, communication, emotions, circumstances and metaphors). Twenty subthemes were formed. RESULTS: 693 references were made. Six major nodes were identified: frustration experienced by the physician, role of the relatives, agreement, cultural/religious aspects, comprehension by the patient of the situation and the existence of an established relationship between patient and physician. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians felt uncomfortable when there was disagreement between themselves and patients or relatives. Frustration was felt when relatives spoke on behalf of the patient, while there was no evidence the desired decision was ever expressed by the patient. A disagreement with a patient was described as being less frustrating, when the patient was able to explain the reasons for making a decision. Differences in background, especially religious, were often mentioned as complicating communication.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in older patients with and without dementia: Survival and ethical considerations.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Notwithstanding multiple recommendations in guidelines, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)-tube placement is still performed in patients with dementia. In this study, we aim to investigate survival in patients with and without dementia after PEG-tube placement. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in four different hospitals in the Netherlands. Furthermore, we explored the ethical considerations that may play a role in the decision whether or not to insert a PEG tube in a patient with dementia. RESULTS: Three-hundred-and-three patients were included, mean age of 77.4 years. Forty-two (13.9%) patients had dementia. Short-term complications did not differ between patients with and without cognitive disorders (P 0.224). However, patients with dementia survived significantly shorter after PEG placement than did patients without dementia. Adjusted for age and sex, patients with dementia had a 49% increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.19). In our exploratory literature search, we found that several ethical concerns and considerations play a role in the decision process of PEG placement. These considerations are both medical and nonmedical and include beliefs regarding the benefits of a PEG tube, a lack of knowledge about the natural course of dementia in both professionals and family of patients, and a fear of letting a patient die hungry. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with dementia had higher mortality rates after PEG placement than patients without dementia. Although multiple ethical concerns and considerations play a role, insertion of a PEG tube in patients with dementia is not appropriate.

Management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: current policies and future perspectives.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a gastroenterological emergency with a mortality of 6%-13%. The vast majority of these bleeds are due to peptic ulcers. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and Helicobacter pylori are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopy has become the mainstay for diagnosis and treatment of acute UGIB, and is recommended within 24 h of presentation. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration before endoscopy can downstage the bleeding lesion and reduce the need for endoscopic therapy, but has no effect on rebleeding, mortality and need for surgery. Endoscopic therapy should be undertaken for ulcers with high-risk stigmata, to reduce the risk of rebleeding. This can be done with a variety of modalities. High-dose PPI administration after endoscopy can prevent rebleeding and reduce the need for further intervention and mortality, particularly in patients with high-risk stigmata.

Update on the endoscopic management of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common gastrointestinal emergency, with peptic ulcer as the most common cause. Appropriate resuscitation followed by early endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment are of major importance in these patients. Endoscopy is recommended within 24 h of presentation. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for patients with high-risk stigmata, in particular those with active bleeding and visible vessels. The role of endoscopic therapy for ulcers with adherent clots remains to be elucidated. Ablative or mechanical therapies are superior to epinephrine injection alone in terms of prevention of rebleeding. The application of an ulcer-covering hemospray is a new promising tool. High dose proton pump inhibitors should be administered intravenously for 72 h after endoscopy in high-risk patients. Helicobacter pylori should be tested for in all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and eradicated if positive. These recommendations have been captured in a recent international guideline.