Although pain and symptom management, communication with one's physician, preparation for death, and the opportunity to achieve a sense of completion are important to most, other factors important to quality at the end of life differ by role and by individual. Efforts to evaluate and improve patients' and families' experiences at the end of life must account for diverse perceptions of quality. JAMA. 2000;284:2476-2482.
Despite a recent increase in the attention given to improving end-of-life care, our understanding of what constitutes a good death is surprisingly lacking. The purpose of this study was to gather descriptions of the components of a good death from patients, families, and providers through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. Seventy-five participants-including physicians, nurses, social workers, chaplains, hospice volunteers, patients, and recently bereaved family members-were recruited from a university medical center, a Veterans Affairs medical center, and a community hospice. Participants identified six major components of a good death: pain and symptom management, clear decision making, preparation for death, completion, contributing to others, and affirmation of the whole person. The six themes are process-oriented attributes of a good death, and each has biomedical, psychological, social, and spiritual components. Physicians' discussions of a good death differed greatly from those of other groups. Physicians offered the most biomedical perspective, and patients, families, and other health care professionals defined a broad range of attributes integral to the quality of dying. Although there is no "right" way to die, these six themes may be used as a framework for understanding what participants tend to value at the end of life. Biomedical care is critical, but it is only a point of departure toward total end-of-life care. For patients and families, psychosocial and spiritual issues are as important as physiologic concerns.
Background: Few studies have assessed the efficacy of communication skills training for postgraduate physician trainees at the level of behaviors. We designed a residential communication skills workshop (Oncotalk) for medical oncology fellows. The intervention design built on existing successful models by teaching specific communication tasks linked to the patient's trajectory of illness. This study evaluated the efficacy of Oncotalk in changing observable communication behaviors. Methods:Oncotalk was a 4-day residential workshop emphasizing skills practice in small groups. This preintervention and postintervention cohort study involved 115 medical oncology fellows from 62 different institutions during a 3-year study. The primary outcomes were observable participant communication skills measured during standardized patient encounters before and after the workshop in giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. The standardized patient encounters were audiorecorded and assessed by blinded coders using a validated coding system. Before-after compari-sons were made using each participant as his or her own control.
Effective communication skills enable physicians to improve patients' understanding of their illnesses, improve patient adherence to treatment regimens, use time efficiently, avoid burnout, and increase professional fulfillment. Common communication pitfalls include blocking, lecturing, depending on a routine, collusion, and premature reassurance. Cancer J Clin 2005;55:164 -177.)
Background Growing numbers of critically ill patients receive prolonged mechanical ventilation. Little is known about their patterns of care as they transition from the acute hospital to post-acute care facilities or the associated resource utilization. Objectives To describe one-year trajectories of care and resource utilization for prolonged mechanical ventilation patients. Design One-year prospective cohort study. Setting 5 ICUs at Duke University Medical Center. Participants 126 prolonged mechanical ventilation patients as well as their 126 surrogates and 54 ICU physicians were enrolled consecutively during one year. Prolonged mechanical ventilation was defined as ventilation for ≥4 days with tracheostomy placement or ventilation for ≥21 days without tracheostomy. Measurements Patients and surrogates were interviewed in hospital, as well as 3 and 12 months later to determine patient survival, functional status, and facility type and duration of post-discharge care. Physicians were interviewed in-hospital to elicit prognoses. Institutional billing records were used to assign costs for acute care, outpatient care, and inter-facility transportation. We used Medicare claims data to assign costs for post-acute care. Results 103 (82%) hospital survivors experienced 457 separate transitions in post-discharge care location (median 4 [interquartile range 3, 5]), including 68 (67%) patients who were readmitted at least once. Patients spent an average of 74% (CI, 68% to 80%) of all days alive in a hospital, post-acute care facility, or receiving home health care. At one year, 11 (9%) patients had a good outcome (alive with no functional dependency), 33 (26%) had a fair outcome (alive with moderate dependency), and 82 (65%) had a poor outcome (either alive with complete functional dependency (n=4, 21%) or dead (n=56, 44%). Patients experiencing a poor outcome were older, had more comorbidities, and were more frequently discharged to a post-acute care facility than patients with either fair or good outcomes (all p <0.05). Costs per patient were $306,135 (SD $285,467) and total cohort costs totaled $38.1 million, for an estimated $3.5 million per one-year independently functioning survivor. Limitations The results of this single center study may not be applicable to other centers. Conclusions Prolonged mechanical ventilation patients experience multiple transitions of care, resulting in extraordinary health care costs and persistent, profound disability. The optimism of surrogate decision makers should be balanced by discussions of these outcomes when considering a course of prolonged life support.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.