Questioning care at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the larger study was to explore physicians' emotional responses to the death of their patients; this study analyzed a subset of physician transcripts to elucidate the construct of questioning care, which emerged from the larger study. OBJECTIVE: To analyzes how physicians question care-expressing concern, unease, or uncertainty about treatment decisions and practices, errors, or adverse events-as they attend dying patients. DESIGN: Retrospective interview study of physicians caring for randomly selected deaths on the medical service of a major academic teaching hospital, using qualitative and quantitative measures. SETTING, SUBJECTS: 188 attendings, residents, and interns on the internal medical services of two academic medical centers were part of the larger study. A subsample of 75 physician narratives was selected for qualitative data analysis for this study. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative measures included open-ended questions eliciting physicians' stories of the most recent and a most emotionally powerful patient death they have experienced. Grounded theory was used to analyze physician narratives. Quantitative instruments measured physician attitudes toward end-of-life care and responses to the most recent and most emotional patient death. RESULTS: Physicians question care more frequently in most emotional deaths (42%) than in most recent deaths (34%). Physicians question communication with patients and families and within medical teams, medical judgment and technique, standards of practice, and high-risk treatments, often assigning responsibility for medical management they perceive as inappropriate, futile, overly aggressive, or mistakes in judgment and technique. Responsibility ranges from the distal (the culture of medicine) to the proximal (personal). Frustration, guilt, and anger are more frequently expressed in these narratives when care is questioned. CONCLUSIONS: A typology of questioning care emerged from these physicians' narratives that parallels and reflects recent and classic research on medical error and the culture of medicine. Physicians' questions about care can contribute to designing training experiences for residents and to improving the quality of systems that affect patients' experiences at life's end and physicians' experiences in caring for dying patients.

Narrative nuances on good and bad deaths: internists' tales from high-technology work places.

Public and professional discourses in American society about what constitutes a "good death" have flourished in recent decades, as illustrated by the pivotal SUPPORT study and the growing palliative care movement. This paper examines a distinctive medical discourse from high-technology academic medical centers through an analysis of how physicians who are specialists in internal medicine tell stories about the deaths of patients in their care. 163 physicians from two major academic medical centers in the United States completed both qualitative open interviews and quantitative attitudinal measures on a recent death and on the most emotionally powerful death they experienced in the course of their careers. A subsample of 75 physicians is the primary source for the qualitative analysis, utilizing Atlas-ti."Good death" and "bad death" are common in popular discourse on death and dying. However, these terms are rarely used by physicians in this study when discussing specific patients and individual deaths. Rather, physicians' narratives are nuanced with professional judgments about what constitutes quality end-of-life care. Three major themes emerge from these narratives and frame the positive and negative characteristics of patient death. Time and Process: whether death was expected or unexpected, peaceful, chaotic or prolonged; Medical Care and Treatment Decisions: whether end-of-life care was rational and appropriate, facilitating a "peaceful" or "gentle" death, or futile and overly aggressive, fraught with irrational decisions or adverse events; Communication and Negotiation: whether communication with patients, family and medical teams was effective, leading to satisfying management of end-of-life care, or characterized by misunderstandings and conflict. When these physicians' narratives about patient deaths are compared with the classic sociological observations made by Glaser and Strauss in their study A Time for Dying (1968), historical continuities are evident as are striking differences associated with rapid innovation in medical technologies and a new language of medical futility. This project is part of a broader effort in American medicine to understand and improve end-of-life care.