Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discussing life-sustaining treatments: An overview and communications guide for primary care physicians

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comprehensive Therapy

Abstract

Physicians must be skilled communicators with patients, families, and multidisciplinary health care teams to meet ethical decision-making challenges arising in end-stage disease care. We offer practical suggestions for collaborative communication in the “perfect storm” of contemporary critical care settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. VanNorman, G, Ethics in Medicine: Interdisciplinary Team Issues. Seattle, Washington, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1998: http://eduserv.hscer.washington.edu/bioethics/topics/team.html.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boyle, R. Communication, Truthtelling, and Disclosure. In Fletcher J, Plombardo J et al. Introduction to Clinical Ethics, 2nd ed. Frederick, MD: University Publishing Group, 1997: 55–70; 57.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cassell, EJ. The principles of the Belmont report revisited. Hastings Center Report. 2000;30(4):12–21; 16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. American Medical Association. Current Opinions of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. 1981; (I, II, III, IV, V): www.amaassn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse &doc=policyfiles/CEJA/E-8.08.HTM&&s_t=&st_p=&nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/CEJA/E-7.05.HTM&nxt_pol=policyfiles/CEJA/E-8.01.HTM&.

  5. American Medical Association. Current Opinions of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs E-10.01. 1992; (I, IV, V, VIII, IX). Based on the report, Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship, adopted June 1990, updated 1993: http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online? f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/CEJA/E-10.01. HTM&&s_t=&st_p=&nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/CEJA/E-9.132.HTM&nxt_pol=policyfiles/CEJA/E-10.01.HTM&.

  6. Miller, RL. American medicine: A profession or a business? Ethics News Views. 2001; 11 (1):http://www.emory.edu/ETHICS/news/2002/fall/miller.htm.|url

  7. Braddock CH, Edwards KA, et al. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: Time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282:2313–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lichtstein D, et al. Reducing the Risk of Malpractice Claims. Hospital Practice. 1999:www.hosppract.com/issues /1999/07/licht.html.

  9. Gazelle G. The slow code-Should anyone rush to its defense? NEJM. 1998;338:469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heffner, JE, Barbieri C. End-of-life care preferences of patients enrolled in cardiovascular rehabilitation programs. Chest. 2000;117:1474–1481; 1474.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnston SC. Advance directives: From the perspective of the patient and the physician. J Royal Soc Med. 1996;89:569.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Arenson C, Novielli K, Chambers C, Perkel, R. The importance of advance directives in primary care. Primary Care. 1996;23:68; Reily B, Magnussen, CR, Ross, J, Ash, J, Papa L, Wagner, M. Can We Talk? Inpatient discussions about advance directives in a community hospital. Arch Intern Med. 1994; 154:2205,2299; 2305–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tilden V, Tolle S, Garland M, Nelson C. Decisions about life-sustaining treatment: Impact of physicians’ behaviors on the family. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:633.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. SUPPORT Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients: The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA. 1995;274:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Perkins H. Time to move advance care planning beyond advance directives. Chest. 2000;117:1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gert HJ. Avoiding surprises: A model for informing patients. Hastings Center Report. 2003;32:23–24. See also Gluck EH, Dugan DO. Informed consent in the intensive care unit. Hospital Physician: Critical Care Medicine Board Review Manual. 2001;6/2:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fine RL. Personal choices: Communication between physicians and patients when confronting critical ilness. J Clin Ethics. 1991;2:59: Baylor University study reported that “many patients felt their physicians were not interested in dialogue about ‘life-or-death’ choices.”

    Google Scholar 

  18. Von Gunten C. CPR in hospitalized patients. When is it futile? American Family Physician. 1991;44:2130–34. Found “a 0–24% survival-to-discharge rate in all hospitalized patients (weighted average 13% survival-to-discharge), including intensive care unit, critical care unit, and emergency department patients. Perhaps more applicable to a primary care patient population, he found that in general medical ward patients the survival-to-discharge figures after CPR ranged from 2% to 9% with a weighted average of 4% (2130)”. Studies have revealed the type of patient who will probably not benefit from CPR: those who have more than one or two medical problems; those who do not live independently or, in other words, are dependent on others for their care or live in a long-term care facility; those who have a terminal disease; and those who have dementia. See also Crawford SW. CPR in the ICU: Who needs it? Critical Care Alert. 1994:62–66. For layperson’s unrealistic perceptions of CPR’s effectiveness and ignorance of its outcomes in survivors see Diem SJ et al. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation on television-Miracles and misinformation. NEJM. 1996;334:1578–82.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weissman D. Do Not Resuscitate Orders: A Call for Reform. American Medical Association. Virtual Mentor: www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/9411.html.

  20. Siwek J. Decision-making in terminal care: Four common pitfalls. Am Family Physician. 1994:1207–11.

  21. McCullough LB. A transcultural preventive ethics-approach to critical care medicine: Restoring the critical care physician’s power and authority. J Med Phil. 1998;23: 635.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schneiderman L, Teetzel H, Gilmer T, et al. Effect of ethics consultations on non-beneficial life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care setting: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:1166–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ethics Department, Swedish Covenant Hospital, 5145 N. California Avenue, 60625-3642, Chicago, IL

    Daniel O. Dugan PhD & Erich H. Gluck MD

Authors
  1. Daniel O. Dugan PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erich H. Gluck MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The authors have stated that they do not have a significant financial interest or other relationship with any product manufacturer or provider of services discussed in this article. The authors also do not discuss the use of off-label products, which includes unlabeled, unapproved, or investigative products or devices.

About this article

Cite this article

Dugan, D.O., Gluck, E.H. Discussing life-sustaining treatments: An overview and communications guide for primary care physicians. Compr Ther 30, 25–36 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12019-004-0021-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12019-004-0021-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation