Intuitive vs Deliberative Approaches to Making Decisions About Life Support: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with serious illnesses are often encouraged to actively deliberate about the desirability of life support. Yet it is unknown whether deliberation changes the substance or quality of such decisions. Objective: To identify differences in decisions about life support interventions and goals of care made intuitively vs deliberatively by patients with serious illnesses. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial in which patients were asked to express treatment preferences in a series of clinical scenarios. Participants were 199 hospitalized patients aged 60 years and older with serious oncologic, cardiac, and pulmonary illnesses treated in a large, urban academic hospital from July 1, 2015, through March 15, 2016. Interventions: Patients in the intuitive group were subjected to a cognitive load and instructed to answer each question immediately based on gut instinct. Patients in the deliberative group were not cognitively loaded, were instructed to think carefully about their answers, and were required to explain their answers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Choices regarding life support (4 scenarios) and goals of care (1 scenario), concordance of these choices with patients' valuations of health states that could follow from them, and decisional uncertainty. Results: Of 199 patients, 132 (66%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 67.2 (5.0) years. Similar proportions of patients in the intuitive group (n = 97) and the deliberative group (n = 102) said they would accept a feeding tube for chronic aspiration (42% vs 44%, respectively; difference, -2%; 95% CI, -16% to 12%; P = .79), antibiotics for life-threatening infection in the event of terminal illness (39% vs 43%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -18% to 10%; P = .57), a trial of mechanical ventilation (59% vs 60%, respectively; difference,-1%; 95% CI, -15% to 13%; P = .88), and a tracheostomy tube (37% vs 41%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -22% to 13%; P = .64). Patients in the deliberative group were slightly more likely than patients in the intuitive group to choose a palliative approach to treatment in the event of serious illness (45% vs 30%, respectively; difference, 15%; 95% CI, 1%-29%; P = .04). Across scenarios, decisional uncertainty was similar between the 2 groups (all P > .05), and intuitive decisions were either equally or more closely aligned with patients' health state valuations than deliberative decisions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, encouraging hospitalized patients with serious illnesses to deliberate on end-of-life decisions did not change the content or improve the quality of these decisions. It is important to evaluate whether decision aids and structured communication interventions improve seriously ill patients' choices. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02487810.

Approximately One In Three US Adults Completes Any Type Of Advance Directive For End-Of-Life Care.

Efforts to promote the completion of advance directives implicitly assume that completion rates of these documents, which help ensure care consistent with people's preferences in the event of incapacity, are undesirably low. However, data regarding completion of advance directives in the United States are inconsistent and of variable quality. We systematically reviewed studies published in the period 2011-16 to determine the proportion of US adults with a completed living will, health care power of attorney, or both. Among the 795,909 people in the 150 studies we analyzed, 36.7 percent had completed an advance directive, including 29.3 percent with living wills. These proportions were similar across the years reviewed. Similar proportions of patients with chronic illnesses (38.2 percent) and healthy adults (32.7 percent) had completed advance directives. The findings provide benchmarks for gauging future policies and practices designed to motivate completion of advance directives, particularly among those people most likely to benefit from having these documents on record.

Resource Utilization and Toxicities After Carboplatin/Etoposide/Melphalan and Busulfan/Melphalan for Autologous Stem Cell Rescue in High-Risk Neuroblastoma Using a National Administrative Database.

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (ASCR) is a key component of high-risk neuroblastoma therapy. Resources required to support patients treated with ASCR conditioning regimens [carboplatin/etoposide/melphalan (CEM) and busulfan/melphalan (BuMel)] have not been directly compared. PROCEDURE: An administrative database was used to analyze resource utilization and outcomes in a cohort of high-risk neuroblastoma patients. Patients were followed for 60 days from start of conditioning or until death. Length of hospitalization, length of intensive care unit (ICU) level of care, incidence of sepsis and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS), and duration of use of specific supportive care resources were analyzed. RESULTS: Six of 171 CEM patients and zero of 59 BuMel patients died during the study period (P = 0.34). Duration of hospitalization was longer following BuMel (median 35 vs. 31 days; P = 0.01); however, there was no difference in duration of ICU-level care. Antibiotic use was longer following CEM (median 19 vs. 15 days; P = 0.01), as was antihypertensive use (median 5 vs. 1.6 days; P = 0.0024). Duration of opiate and nonnarcotic analgesic use was longer following CEM early in the study period. Resources consistent with a diagnosis of SOS were used in a higher proportion of BuMel patients. A higher proportion of BuMel treated patients required mechanical ventilation (17% vs. 6%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We used administrative billing data to compare resources associated with ASCR conditioning regimens. CEM patients required more extended use of analgesics, antibiotics, and antihypertensives, while duration of hospitalization was longer, and SOS and the use of mechanical ventilation were more frequent following BuMel.