Skip to main content
Log in

Communication and Decision Making About Life-Sustaining Treatment: Examining the Experiences of Resident Physicians and Seriously-Ill Hospitalized Patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence-based recommendations for communication and decision making about life-sustaining treatment, resident physicians’ actual practice may vary. Few prior studies have examined these conversations qualitatively to uncover why ineffective communication styles may persist.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how discussions about life-sustaining treatment occur and examine the factors that influence physicians’ communicative practices in hopes of providing novel insight into how these processes can be improved.

PARTICIPANTS AND APPROACH

We conducted and recorded 56 qualitative semi-structured interviews with participants from 28 matched dyads of a resident physician and a hospitalized patient or their surrogate decision maker with whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation was discussed. Transcripts were analyzed and coded using the constant comparative method to develop themes.

MAIN RESULTS

Resident physicians introduced decisions about resuscitation in a scripted, depersonalized and procedure-focused manner. Decision makers exhibited a poor understanding of the decision they were being asked to make and resident physicians often disagreed with the decision. Residents did not advocate for a particular course of action; however, the discussions of resuscitation were framed in ways that may have implicitly influenced decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents’ communication practices may stem from their attempt to balance an informed choice model of decision making with their interest in providing appropriate care for the patient. Physicians’ beliefs about mandatory autonomy may be an impediment to improving communication about patients’ choices for life-sustaining treatment. Redefining the role of the physician will be necessary if a shared decision making model is to be adopted.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith AK, Ries AP, Zhang B, Tulsky JA, Prigerson HG, Block SD. Resident approaches to advance care planning on the day of hospital admission. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1597–1602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tulsky JA, Chesney MA, Lo B. How do medical residents discuss resuscitation with patients? J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:436–442.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fischer GS, Tulsky JA, Rose MR, Siminoff LA, Arnold RM. Patient knowledge and physician predictions of treatment preferences after discussion of advance directives. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:447–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Haidet P, Hamel MB, Davis RB, Wenger N, Reding D, Kussin PS, Connors AF Jr, Lynn J, Weeks JC, Phillips RS. Outcomes, preferences for resuscitation and physician-patient communication among patients with metastatic colon cancer. SUPPORT investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. Am J Med. 1998;105:222–229.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein EM, Alper BS, Quill TE. The patient-physician relationship. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004;291:2359–2366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Larson DG, Tobin DR. The patient-physician relationship. End-of-life conversations. JAMA. 2000;284:1573–1578.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tulsky JA. Interventions to enhance communication among patients, providers and families. J Palliat Med. 2005;8(Supplement):95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:651–661.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267:2221–2226.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:763–769.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Yedidia MJ, Gillespie CC, Kacher E, et al. Effect of communications training on medical student performance. JAMA. 2003;290:1210–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Whitney SN. A new model of medical decisions: exploring the limits of shared decision making. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:275–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. White DB, Braddock CH III, Bereknyei S, Curtis JR. Toward shared decision making at the end of life in intensive care units. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:461–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Towle A, Godolphin W, Grams G, Lamarre A. Putting informed and shared decision making into practice. Health Expect. 2006;9:321–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, et al. Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Fam Pract. 2004;21:347–354.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schneider C. The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Physicians and Medical Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenbaum JR, Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, Farrell MH, Krumholz HM. Sources of ethical conflict in medical housestaff training: A qualitative study. Am J Med. 2004;116:402–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wirtz V, Cribb A, Barber N. Patient-doctor decision making about treatment within the consultation—A critical analysis of the models. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:116–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Phillips DC, et al. “Chapter 5: Activity Status and Cognitive Function” in SUPPORT: Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments: Study Design. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43S:33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Weiner JS, Roth J. Avoiding iatrogenic harm to patient and family while discussing goals of care near the end of life. J Palliat Med. 2006;9:451–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heyland DK, Tranmer J, O’Callaghan CJ, Gafni A. The seriously ill hospitalized patient: Preferred role in end-of-life decision making? J Crit Care. 2003;18:3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Entwhistle VA, Watt IS. Patient involvement in treatment decision making: The case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Educ Counsel. 2006;63:268–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Breen CM, Abernethy AP, Abbott KH, Tulsky JA. Conflict associated with decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment in intensive care units. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:283–289.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Abbott KH, Sago JG, Breen CM, Abernethy AP, Tulsky JA. Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal/withholding of life sustaining support. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:197–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Abernethy AP, Tulsky JA. Disagreements that arise when making decisions about withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(suppl 1):101.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Deep KS, Griffith CH, Wilson JF. Discussing preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: What do resident physicians and their hospitalized patients think was decided? Patient Educ and Couns 2008; Mar 10 [Epub ahead of print]

  28. Percy ME, Llewellyn-Thomas H. Assessing preferences about the DNR order: does it depend on how you ask? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:209–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim S, Goldstein D, Hasher L, Zacks RT. Framing effects in younger and older adults. J Gerontol. 2005;60B:215–218.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Duffy SA, Jackson FC, Schim SM, Ronis DL, Fowler KE. Racial/ethnic preferences, sex preferences, and perceived discrimination related to end-of-life care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blackhall LJ Frank G, Murphy ST, Michel V, Palmer JM, Azen SP. Ethnicity and attitudes towards life sustaining technology. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(12):1779–89, Jun.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Alexander SC, Keitz SA, Sloane R, Tulsky JA. A controlled trial of a short course to improve residents’ communication with patients at the end of life. Acad Med. 2006;81:1008–1012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Kagawa-Singer M. End-of-life decision making: A qualitative study of elderly individuals. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:620–625.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Michelle Lineberry for her assistance in data collection and Beth Goldstein and Jane Jensen for their guidance. We are indebted to all of the patients, families and resident physicians who shared their experiences.

Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristy S. Deep MD, MA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deep, K.S., Griffith, C.H. & Wilson, J.F. Communication and Decision Making About Life-Sustaining Treatment: Examining the Experiences of Resident Physicians and Seriously-Ill Hospitalized Patients. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 1877–1882 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0779-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0779-6

KEY WORDS

Navigation