Discussion Of Patient Preferences Research Articles

Fidelity is fundamental: intervention predictors in advance care plans in terminal cancer

ObjectivesAssessing whether interventions are implemented as intended (fidelity) is critical to establishing efficacy in clinical research yet rarely applied in advance care planning (ACP) interventions. We aimed to develop and...

The Good and the Bad About the 2017 American College of Physicians Osteoporosis Guidelines

PurposeThe American College of Physicians (ACP) published a set of guidelines on how to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis. As the population ages, the overall risk of fractures increases, thus burdening the health care system. These guidelines review current evidence for osteoporosis management, providing an update to the previous 2008 ACP’s guidelines. MethodsThe ACP put forth 6 recommendations addressing the complexities in osteoporosis management based on evidence available through October 2016 with a focus on bisphosphonates, calcium, vitamin D, and estrogen. Evidence was graded according to recommended strength by using the ACP standard methods. FindingsThe ACP recommends anti-osteoporosis therapy with 1 of 3 bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, or zoledronic acid) or denosumab in patients with osteoporosis, while excluding anabolic therapies, and recommends against raloxifene. Although bisphosphonates are the mainstay of treatment, anabolic therapy and raloxifene may be used in specific situations. Pharmacologic therapy is recommended for 5 years, oversimplifying length of therapy and failing to promote an individualized patient-centered care approach. Moreover, abrupt discontinuation of denosumab is associated with a decline in bone mineral density (BMD), which must be addressed. Routine monitoring of BMD by dual x-ray absorptiometry is not endorsed during treatment, which leads to underrecognition of management issues. Pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonates for male osteoporosis is recommended, although therapies such as denosumab and teriparatide are excluded. Finally, the ACP recommends treatment for women aged ≥65 years at high risk for fracture with osteopenia after a discussion of patient preferences, fracture risk profile, and medications. ImplicationsOsteoporosis management is complex. The 2017 ACP guidelines address challenges faced by clinicians but oversimplify more complex issues. These are among a number of guidelines that are available for osteoporosis management, which may be used in combination with other sources to assist clinicians with diagnostic and management strategies.

Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline Update From the American College of Physicians.

This guideline updates the 2008 American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations on treatment of low bone density and osteoporosis to prevent fractures in men and women. This guideline is endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians. The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials; systematic reviews; large observational studies (for adverse events); and case reports (for rare events) that were published between 2 January 2005 and 3 June 2011. The review was updated to July 2016 by using a machine-learning method, and a limited update to October 2016 was done. Clinical outcomes evaluated were fractures and adverse events. This guideline focuses on the comparative benefits and risks of short- and long-term pharmacologic treatments for low bone density, including pharmaceutical prescriptions, calcium, vitamin D, and estrogen. Evidence was graded according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians. The target patient population includes men and women with low bone density and osteoporosis. ACP recommends that clinicians offer pharmacologic treatment with alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, or denosumab to reduce the risk for hip and vertebral fractures in women who have known osteoporosis. (Grade: strong recommendation; high-quality evidence). ACP recommends that clinicians treat osteoporotic women with pharmacologic therapy for 5 years. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). ACP recommends that clinicians offer pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonates to reduce the risk for vertebral fracture in men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). ACP recommends against bone density monitoring during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period for osteoporosis in women. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). ACP recommends against using menopausal estrogen therapy or menopausal estrogen plus progestogen therapy or raloxifene for the treatment of osteoporosis in women. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). ACP recommends that clinicians should make the decision whether to treat osteopenic women 65 years of age or older who are at a high risk for fracture based on a discussion of patient preferences, fracture risk profile, and benefits, harms, and costs of medications. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence).

Documentation of Advance Directives in an Electronic Medical Record: A Learning Opportunity

The discussion of patient preferences (advance directives) for their health care in an important component of their care across all health care settings. The extent of documentation of this discussion may vary in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Advance directives are particularly important when transferring from the hospital to subacute care. We conducted this study to evaluate the presence of an “Advance Directive” (AD) note in the EMR of patients discharging to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). We further evaluated subtypes of the AD note and the relationship with comorbidity and one year mortality.

Effect of Palliative Care-Led Meetings for Families of Patients With Chronic Critical Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Family caregivers of patients with chronic critical illness experience significant psychological distress. To determine whether family informational and emotional support meetings led by palliative care clinicians improve family anxiety and depression. A multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted from October 2010 through November 2014 in 4 medical intensive care units (ICUs). Adult patients (aged ≥21 years) requiring 7 days of mechanical ventilation were randomized and their family surrogate decision makers were enrolled in the study. Observers were blinded to group allocation for the measurement of the primary outcomes. At least 2 structured family meetings led by palliative care specialists and provision of an informational brochure (intervention) compared with provision of an informational brochure and routine family meetings conducted by ICU teams (control). There were 130 patients with 184 family surrogate decision makers in the intervention group and 126 patients with 181 family surrogate decision makers in the control group. The primary outcome was Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale symptom score (HADS; score range, 0 [best] to 42 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 1.5) obtained during 3-month follow-up interviews with the surrogate decision makers. Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress disorder experienced by the family and measured by the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R; total score range, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]), discussion of patient preferences, hospital length of stay, and 90-day survival. Among 365 family surrogate decision makers (mean age, 51 years; 71% female), 312 completed the study. At 3 months, there was no significant difference in anxiety and depression symptoms between surrogate decision makers in the intervention group and the control group (adjusted mean HADS score, 12.2 vs 11.4, respectively; between-group difference, 0.8 [95% CI, -0.9 to 2.6]; P = .34). Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms were higher in the intervention group (adjusted mean IES-R score, 25.9) compared with the control group (adjusted mean IES-R score, 21.3) (between-group difference, 4.60 [95% CI, 0.01 to 9.10]; P = .0495). There was no difference between groups regarding the discussion of patient preferences (intervention, 75%; control, 83%; odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.16; P = .14]). The median number of hospital days for patients in the intervention vs the control group (19 days vs 23 days, respectively; between-group difference, -4 days [95% CI, -6 to 3 days]; P = .51) and 90-day survival (hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.38], P = .96) were not significantly different. Among families of patients with chronic critical illness, the use of palliative care-led informational and emotional support meetings compared with usual care did not reduce anxiety or depression symptoms and may have increased posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. These findings do not support routine or mandatory palliative care-led discussion of goals of care for all families of patients with chronic critical illness. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01230099.

Abstract 9307: Does Preparedness Planning Improve Attitudes and Completion of Advance Directives in Patients with Symptomatic Heart Failure?

BACKGROUND: Limited research exists to support the impact of preparedness planning on attitudes toward and completion of advance directives (ADs) in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: We conducted this descriptive-correlational study to assess the impact of a palliative care (PC) intervention that facilitates preparedness planning on attitudes and completion of ADs in patients hospitalized for HF exacerbation. METHODS: Thirty-six patients (mean age 54 ± 8 years; predominantly male [72%]; White [61%]; married [69%]; New York Heart Association class II [69%]) from single tertiary care facility completed telephone interviews pre- and post-implementation of a PC consultation to facilitate preparedness planning and discussion of patient preferences. RESULTS: Mean attitude scores on the Advance Directive Attitude Scale (ADAS) improved from 57 ± 13 at baseline to 80 ± 7 at three months ( P < .001). Figure 1 illustrates changes in variables of interest over time. Completion of ADs was associated with race, marital status, higher ADAS scores, and better health perceptions at baseline; except for marital status, these associations were also observed post-intervention (Table 1). In addition, knowledge about ADs and discussions related to ADs with family and physicians were associated with completion of ADs post-intervention (all P s < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A PC consultation enhanced attitudes toward and increased the rate of completion of ADs in patients with symptomatic HF. However, larger scale randomized clinical trials to assess impact of preparedness planning on completion of ADs and outcomes are needed.

Physicians’ attitudes towards living wills and cardiopulmonary resuscitation

To determine whether a physician's familiarity with the living will directly relates to an expressed willingness to discuss resuscitation issues with patients. Survey of selected primary care and medical sub-specialist physicians most likely to care for seriously or terminally ill patients. Private-practice clinicians practicing in an urban county. Internists, family practitioners, cardiologists, oncologists, and neurologists in private practice. None. Almost all responding physicians (97.2%) knew of the living will, although few (13.5%) had executed one for themselves. Most were willing to keep a copy of their patients' living wills with their office records. However, only a few physicians (20%) indicated they routinely discussed extraordinary care issues with their patients. In fact, most (70%) reported they rarely or never discussed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with their patients. With terminally ill patients, physician initiative was greater: 69% reported discussing resuscitation preferences. Comparable discussions with elderly patients were undertaken only if the physician believed they would be warranted by the clinical circumstances. When questioned about their own sentiments towards resuscitation, most physicians indicated they would not want CPR if they were terminally ill (86%) or mentally incompetent (93%). A similar number (92%) would refuse artificial feeding if permanently comatose. Many physicians recognize the importance of living wills as an expression of patient treatment preferences. Nevertheless, discussion of patient preferences is unlikely because of physicians' reluctance, except in limited circumstances, to initiate a dialogue about life-sustaining measures. Because patients also are often unwilling to begin such discussions, better methods of facilitating discussion of CPR and other extraordinary health care measures must be sought.