The effect of discussions about advance directives on patients' satisfaction with primary care.

BACKGROUND: Discussions of end-of-life care should be held prior to acute, disabling events. Many barriers to having such discussions during primary care exist. These barriers include time constraints, communication difficulties, and perhaps physicians' anxiety that patients might react negatively to such discussions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of discussions of advance directives on patients' satisfaction with their primary care physicians and outpatient visits. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of patients enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial of the use of computers to remind primary care physicians to discuss advance directives with their elderly, chronically ill patients. SETTING: Academic primary care general internal medicine practice affiliated with an urban teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-six patients who were at least 75 years old, or at least 50 years old with serious underlying disease, and their 87 primary care physicians (57 residents, 30 faculty general internists) participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed patients' satisfaction with their primary care physicians and visits via interviews held in the waiting room after completed visits. Controlling for satisfaction at enrollment and physician, patient, and visit factors, discussing advance directives was associated with greater satisfaction with the physician (P =.052). At follow-up, the strongest predictor of satisfaction with the primary care visit was having previously discussed advance directives with that physician (P =.004), with a trend towards greater visit satisfaction when discussions were held during that visit (P =.069). The percentage of patients scoring a visit as "excellent" increased from 34% for visits without prior advance directive discussions to 51% for visits with such discussions (P =.003). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with chronic illnesses were more satisfied with their primary care physicians and outpatient visits when advanced directives were discussed. The improvement in visit satisfaction was substantial and persistent. This should encourage physicians to initiate such discussions to overcome communication barriers might result in reduced patient satisfaction levels.

Effectiveness of computer-generated reminders for increasing discussions about advance directives and completion of advance directive forms. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physicians can increase the rate of completion of advance directive forms by discussing directives with their patients, but the means by which physicians can be induced to initiate these discussions are unclear. Computer-generated reminders have been shown to increase physician compliance with practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of computer-generated reminders to physicians on the frequency of advance directive discussions between patients and their primary caregivers and the frequency of consequent establishment of advance directives. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design. SETTING: An outpatient general medicine practice associated with an urban public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 1) 1009 patients who were at least 75 years of age or were at least 50 years of age with serious underlying disease and 2) 147 primary care physicians (108 housestaff and 39 faculty). INTERVENTION: Computer-generated reminders that recommended discussion of one or both of two types of advance directives compared with no reminders. MEASUREMENTS: Discussions about advance directives, determined by patient interviews after all scheduled patient-physician outpatient encounters, and completed advance directive forms. The study period was approximately 1 year. RESULTS: Physicians who did not receive reminders (controls) discussed advance directives with 4% of the study patients compared with 24% for physicians who received both types of reminders (adjusted odds ratio, 7.7 [95% CI, 3.4 to 18]; P < 0.001). Physicians who did not receive reminders completed advance directive forms with only 4% of their study patients compared with 15% for physicians who received both types of reminders (adjusted odds ratio, 7.0 [CI, 2.9 to 17]; P < 0.001). Overall, 45% of patients with whom advance directives were discussed completed at least one type of advance directive. CONCLUSIONS: Simple computer-generated reminders aimed at primary caregivers can increase the rates of discussion of advance directives and completion of advance directive forms among elderly outpatients with serious illnesses.

Preferences of physicians and their patients for end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVE: Both physicians and patients view advance directives as important, yet discussions occur infrequently. We assessed differences and correlations between physicians' and their patients' desires for end-of-life care for themselves. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Study physicians (n = 78) were residents and faculty practicing in an inner-city, academic primary care general internal medicine practice. Patients (n = 831) received primary care from these physicians and were either at least 75 or between 50 and 74 years of age, with selected morbid conditions. Physicians and patients completed identical questionnaires that included an assessment of their preferences for six specific treatments if they were terminally ill. There were significant differences between physicians' and patients' preferences for all six treatments (p < .0001), with physicians wanting less treatment than their patients for five of them. Patients desiring more care (p < .01) were more often male (odds ratio [OR] 1.7). African-American (OR 1.6), and older (OR 1.02 per year). There were no such correlates with physicians' preferences. A treatment preference score was calculated from respondents' desires to receive or refuse the six treatments. Physicians' scores were highly correlated with those of their enrolled primary care patients (r = .51, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients and physicians as groups differ substantially in their preferences for end-of-life care, there was significant correlation between individual academic physicians' preferences and those of their primary care patients. Reasons for this correlation are unknown.

Influence of diuretic therapy on the clonidine suppression test.

Moduretic has been reported to inhibit the suppression of plasma norepinephrine (NE) levels by the alpha 2 adrenoceptor agonist, clonidine. To determine whether plasma volume reduction by hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or antagonism of Na+/H+ exchange by amiloride (the constituents of Moduretic) is responsible, the authors performed a modified clonidine suppression test (CST) in nine normal volunteers (aged 25 +/- 2 years), pretreated for 1 week with HCTZ 50 mg daily, amiloride 10 mg daily, or placebo, in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Baseline characteristics were identical on all study days, except serum [K+] and weight, which were lowest on HCTZ (3.6 +/- 0.2 mEq/L and 78.7 +/- 2.5 kg), compared with amiloride (4.2 +/- 0.1 mEq/L and 79.9 +/- 2.4 kg) and placebo (4.0 +/- 0.1 mEq/L and 80.2 +/- 2.7 kg, P less than .05). Oral clonidine (0.3 mg) produced a reduction in mean blood pressure by about 20%. Plasma norepinephrine levels were similar in patients receiving placebo, HCTZ, and amiloride (205 +/- 18, 272 +/- 40 and 277 +/- 44 pg/mL, P greater than .20), and decreased significantly during CST. The maximal reduction for each subject averaged 72.7 +/- 12.4%, 87.9 +/- 3.8%, and 82.9 +/- 5.7% for placebo, HCTZ, and amiloride. Clonidine also produced a four to seven-fold increase in plasma growth hormone levels, reduced salivary flow by about 75%, and increased the level of sedation. There were no differences among the three pretreatment regimens in the effects of clonidine, indicating that diuretic therapy does not need to be systematically discontinued in patients undergoing CST.

Informed consent in emergency research. Prehospital thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction.

Can the conscious patient in the midst of a medical emergency provide adequate informed consent for a clinical research protocol? Adequate consent is crucial to the ethical conduct of clinical trials, including those performed in emergency settings. We examine the problem of emergency informed consent. As an illustrative case, we discuss a pilot trial of prehospital thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction. Federal regulations for clinical research do not provide clear guidelines on emergency research in the conscious patient. Clinical investigators currently approach emergency consent in four ways: (1) avoid such research, (2) omit the consent process, (3) obtain deferred consent, or (4) obtain customary consent. We suggest a fifth alternative, two-step consent, which permits the conduct of emergency research while protecting the rights of the emergency research subjects. Such a process may serve as an alternative solution for future studies faced with the problem of informed consent in emergencies.

KIE: The problem of informed consent to research in emergency care is examined, using as an example a pilot trial of prehospital administration of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Current federal regulations governing emergency care research are reviewed, along with four ways in which investigators currently approach emergency consent. The authors' use of a two-step process to resolve the problem of emergency consent is described. This approach allows the conduct of emergency research while protecting the rights of research subjects, and may offer a solution to the the ethical conduct of other studies faced with the problem of consent to emergency care.

The illusion of futility in clinical practice.

The claim that a treatment is futile is often used to justify a shift in the physician's ethical obligations to patients. In clinical situations in which non-futile treatments are available, the physician has an obligation to discuss therapeutic alternatives with the patient. By contrast, a physician is under no obligation to offer, or even to discuss, futile therapies. This shift is supported by moral reasoning in ancient and modern medical ethics, by public policy, and by case law. Given this shift in ethical obligations, one might expect that physicians would have unambiguous criteria for determining when a therapy is futile. This is not the case. Rather than being a discrete and definable entity, futile therapy is merely the end of the spectrum of therapies with very low efficacy. Ambiguity in determining futility, arising from linguistic errors, from statistical misinterpretations, and from disagreements about the goals of therapy, undermines the force of futility claims. Decisions to withhold therapy that is deemed futile, like all treatment choices, must follow both clinical judgments about the chance of success of a therapy and an explicit consideration of the patient's goals for therapy. Futility claims rarely should be used to justify a radical shift in ethical obligations.

Perceptions of ethical problems by nurses and doctors.

To identify how nurses and physicians perceive ethical problems in clinical medicine, we conducted structured interviews with 26 nurses and 24 physicians who work in acute-care units. Both groups thought that they frequently encounter ethical problems, although there was significant variation within each group about how often members of each group perceived such problems. Members of the health-care team often disagreed about ethical decisions. Nurses often described conflicts with physicians, but physicians rarely recognized disagreements with nurses. Clinical ethicists need to be aware of this heterogeneous perception in order to communicate effectively about ethical problems.