Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 82–88 | Cite as

The discussion of end-of-life medical care by primary care patients and physicians

A multicenter study using structured qualitative interviews
  • Mark P. Pfeifer
  • Jaan E. Sidorov
  • Allen C. Smith
  • Joseph F. Boero
  • Arthur T. Evans
  • Miriam B. Settle
  • the EOL Study Group
Original Articles

Abstract

Objectives: To identify primary care patients’ and physicians’ beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and expectations regarding discussions of end-of-life medical care, and to identify factors limiting the quality and frequency of these discussions.

Design: Descriptive study using audiotaped, structured, qualitative interviews.

Setting: Ambulatory care clinics and offices at eight medical centers in six states.

Participants: Forty-three primary care physicians and 47 ambulatory outpatients.

Results: The patients expressed strong feelings about having end-of-life discussions early in their medical courses while they were competent. They desired straightforward and honest discussions and were less concerned than the physicians about damaging hope. The patients wanted their physicians to play central roles in discussions and both the patients and the physicians noted the impact of the patient-physician relationship on these discussions. The patients desired information focusing more on expected outcomes than on medical processes. The physicians expressed feelings of ambiguity when their desire to save lives clashed with their belief that aggressive life-sustaining treatments were futile. The physicians described their roles in end-of-life discussions in five major categories: lifesaver, neutral scientist, guide, counselor, and intimate confidant. The physicians considered living wills excellent “icebreakers” for starting discussions but of limited utility otherwise.

Conclusions: Patients prefer end-of-life discussions earlier and with greater honesty than physicians may perceive. These discussions are inseparably linked with the patient-physician relationship. Physicians can better address patients’ desires in end-of-life discussions by altering their timing, content, and delivery.

Key words

end-of-life do-not-resuscitate living wills patient-physician relationship communication physicians patient preferences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Shmerling RH, Bedell SE, Lilienfeld A, Delbanco TL. Discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a study of elderly outpatients. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:317–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stolman CJ, Gregory JJ, Dunn D, Levine JL. Evaluation of patient, physician, nurse, and family attitudes toward do not resuscitate orders. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:653–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finucane TE, Shumway JM, Powers RL, D’Alessandri RM. Planning with elderly outpatients for contingencies of severe illness: a survey and clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:322–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankl D, Oye RK, Bellamy PE. Attitudes of hospitalized patients toward life support: a survey of 200 medical inpatients. Am J Med. 1989;86:645–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ebell MH, Smith MA, Seifert KG, Polsinelli K. The do-not-resuscitate order: outpatient experience and decision-making preferences. J Fam Pract. 1990;31:630–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987; 18, 212, 235–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karnofsky DA, Abelman WH, Craver LF, Burchenal JH. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer. 1948;1:634–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schain WS. Physician-patient communication about breast cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 1990;70:917–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thome SE, Robinson CA. Guarded alliance: health care relationships in chronic illness. IMAGE: J Nurs Scholar. 1989;21:153–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soukhanov AH (ed). Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984;639.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suchman AL, Matthews DA. What makes the patient-doctor relationship therapeutic? Exploring the connexional dimension of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:125–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith AC, Kleinman S. Managing emotions in medical school: students’ contacts with the living and the dead. Social Psychol Q. 1989;52:56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haas J, Shaffir W. The professionalization of medical students: developing competence and a cloak of competence. Symbolic Interaction. 1977;1:71–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark P. Pfeifer
    • 1
  • Jaan E. Sidorov
  • Allen C. Smith
  • Joseph F. Boero
  • Arthur T. Evans
  • Miriam B. Settle
  • the EOL Study Group
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville

Personalised recommendations