RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding resuscitation after cardiac arrest are critical from ethical, patient satisfaction, outcome, and healthcare cost standpoints. Physician-reported discussion barriers include topic discomfort, fear of time commitment, and difficulty articulating end-of-life concepts. The influence of language used in these discussions has not been tested. This study explored whether utilizing the alternate term "allow (a) natural death" changed code status decisions in hospitalized patients versus "do not resuscitate" (DNR). METHODS: All patients age 65 and over admitted to a general medicine hospital teaching service were screened (English-speaking, not ICU-level care, no active psychiatric illness, no substance misuse, no active DNR). Participants were randomized to resuscitation discussions with either DNR or "allow natural death" as the "no code" phrasing. Outcomes included patient resuscitation decision, satisfaction with and duration of the conversation, and decision correlation with illness severity and predicted resuscitation success. RESULTS: 102 participants were randomized to the "allow natural death" (N = 49) or DNR (N = 53) arms. The overall "no code" rate for our sample of hospitalized general medicine inpatients age >65 was 16.7%, with 13% in the DNR and 20.4% in the "allow natural death" arms (p = 0.35). Discussion length was similar in the DNR and "allow natural death" arms (3.9 + 3.2 vs. 4.9 + 3.9 minutes), and not significantly different (p = 0.53). Over 90% of participants were highly satisfied with their code status decision, without difference between arms (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' code status discussions did not differ in "no code" rate between "allow natural death" and DNR arms but were short in length and had high patient satisfaction. Previously reported code status discussion barriers were not encountered. It is appropriate to screen code status in all hospitalized patients regardless of phrasing used.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Literature on disparities in palliative care receipt among extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients is scarce. The purpose of this study was to examine disparities in palliative care receipt among ES-SCLC patients. METHODS: Patients aged 40 years or older diagnosed with ES-SCLC between 2004 and 2015 in the National Cancer DataBase (NCDB) were eligible. Two palliative care variables were created: (1) no receipt of any palliative care and (2) no receipt of pain management-palliative care. The latter variable indicated pain management receipt among those who received any palliative care. Log binomial regression models were constructed to calculate risk ratios by covariates. Unadjusted and mutually adjusted models were created for both variables. RESULTS: Among 83 175 patients, the risk of no palliative care receipt was higher among Blacks compared with Whites in unadjusted and adjusted models (both model HRs 1.02; 95% CIs 1.00 to 1.03, p<0.05). Patients older than 59 years were at a higher risk of not receiving palliative care than younger patients (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 for 59-66, HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.05 for 66-74, HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.08 for >74). Among 19 931 patients, the risk of no pain management-palliative care was higher among black patients on unadjusted analysis (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, p<0.05). Patients between 66 and 74 years were at a higher risk of not receiving pain management-palliative care than patients younger than 59 years (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Significant disparities exist in palliative care receipt among ES-SCLC patients.
