Objective To evaluate the effect of a video decision support tool on the preferences for future medical care in older people if they develop advanced dementia, and the stability of those preferences after six weeks. Design Randomised controlled trial conducted between 1

No abstract

No abstract

Health literacy and not race was an independent predictor of end-of-life preferences after hearing a verbal description of advanced dementia. In addition, after viewing a video of a patient with advanced dementia there were no longer any differences in the distribution of preferences according to race and health literacy. These findings suggest that clinical practice and research relating to end-of-life preferences may need to focus on a patient education model incorporating the use of decision aids such as video to ensure informed decision-making.

Purpose Decision making regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging. This study examined the effect of a video decision support tool on CPR preferences among patients with advanced cancer. Patients and Methods We performed a randomized controlled trial of 150 patients with advanced cancer from four oncology centers. Participants in the control arm (n = 80) listened to a verbal narrative describing CPR and the likelihood of successful resuscitation. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 70) listened to the identical narrative and viewed a 3-minute video depicting a patient on a ventilator and CPR being performed on a simulated patient. The primary outcome was participants' preference for or against CPR measured immediately after exposure to either modality. Secondary outcomes were participants' knowledge of CPR (score range of 0 to 4, with higher score indicating more knowledge) and comfort with video. Results The mean age of participants was 62 years (standard deviation, 11 years); 49% were women, 44% were African American or Latino, and 47% had lung or colon cancer. After the verbal narrative, in the control arm, 38 participants (48%) wanted CPR, 41 (51%) wanted no CPR, and one (1%) was uncertain. In contrast, in the intervention arm, 14 participants (20%) wanted CPR, 55 (79%) wanted no CPR, and 1 (1%) was uncertain (unadjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.7 to 7.2; P < .001). Mean knowledge scores were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (3.3 ± 1.0 v 2.6 ± 1.3, respectively; P < .001), and 65 participants (93%) in the intervention arm were comfortable watching the video. Conclusion Participants with advanced cancer who viewed a video of CPR were less likely to opt for CPR than those who listened to a verbal narrative.

In this academic LTCF, treatment for pneumonia without hospital transfer resulted in better 2-month outcomes compared with hospital treatment. Although the difference in outcome may be explained in part by differences between patients treated with and without hospital transfer, it persisted after correcting for these differences. The benefits of LTCF treatment appear to be greatest for those with less severe pneumonia and more independent functional status.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and intubation are a core part of advance care planning, particularly for seriously ill hospitalized patients. However, these discussions are often avoided. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the impact of a video decision tool for CPR and intubation on patients' choices, knowledge, medical orders, and discussions with providers. DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized trial conducted between 9 March 2011 and 1 June 2013 on the internal medicine services at two hospitals in Boston. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty seriously ill hospitalized patients over the age of 60 with an advanced illness and a prognosis of 1 year or less were included. Mean age was 76 and 51 % were women. INTERVENTION: Three-minute video describing CPR and intubation plus verbal communication of participants' preferences to their physicians (intervention) (N=75) or control arm (usual care) (N=75). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was participants' preferences for CPR and intubation (immediately after viewing the video in the intervention arm). Secondary outcomes included: orders to withhold CPR/intubation, documented discussions with providers during hospitalization, and participants' knowledge of CPR/ intubation (five-item test, range 0-5, higher scores indicate greater knowledge). RESULTS: Intervention participants (vs. controls) were more likely not to want CPR (64 % vs. 32 %, p <0.0001) and intubation (72 % vs. 43 %, p<0.0001). Intervention participants (vs. controls) were also more likely to have orders to withhold CPR (57 % vs. 19 %, p<0.0001) and intubation (64 % vs.19 %, p<0.0001) by hospital discharge, documented discussions about their preferences (81 % vs. 43 %, p<0.0001), and higher mean knowledge scores (4.11 vs. 2.45; p<0.0001).CONCLUSIONS: Seriously ill patients who viewed a video about CPR and intubation were more likely not to want these treatments, be better informed about their options, have orders to forgo CPR/ intubation, and discuss preferences with providers. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01325519 Registry Name: A prospective randomized trial using video images in advance care planning in seriously ill hospitalized patients.

No abstract