Opening the black box: How do physicians communicate about advance directives?

被引:243
作者
Tulsky, JA
Fischer, GS
Rose, MR
Arnold, RM
机构
[1] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Durham, NC 27705 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Durham, NC USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Ctr Med Eth, Div Gen Internal Med,Sect Palliat Care & Med Eth, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
advance directives; physician-patient relations; physician's role; communication; decision making;
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-129-6-199809150-00003
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The quality of communication that leads to the completion of written advance directives may influence the usefulness of these documents, but the nature of that communication remains relatively unexplored. Objective: To describe how physicians discuss advance directives with patients. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Five outpatient primary care medicine practices in Durham, North Carolina, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants: 56 attending internists and 56 of their established patients. Eligible patients were at least 65 years of age or had a serious medical illness. Measurements: Two raters coded transcripts of audiotaped discussions about advance directives to document how physicians introduced the topic of advance directives, discussed scenarios and treatments, provided information, elicited patient values, and identified surrogate decision makers. Results: Conversations about advance directives averaged 5.6 minutes; physicians spoke for two thirds of this time. In 91 % of cases, physicians discussed dire scenarios in which most patients would not want to be treated, and 48% asked patients about their preferences in reversible scenarios. Fifty-five percent of physicians discussed scenarios involving uncertainty, typically using vague language. Patients' values were rarely explored in detail. In 88% of cases, physicians discussed surrogate decision making and documents to aid in advance care planning. Conclusions: Although they accomplished the goal of introducing patients to advance directives, discussions infrequently dealt with patients' values and attitudes toward uncertainty. Physicians may not have addressed the topic in a way that would be of substantial use in future decision making, and these discussions did not meet the standards proposed in the literature.
引用
收藏
页码:441 / 449
页数:9
相关论文
共 51 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], EROSION AUTONOMY LON
  • [2] [Anonymous], GUID TERM LIF SUST T
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1990, BASICS QUALITATIVE R
  • [4] APPELBAUM PS, 1987, INFORMED CONSENT LEG
  • [5] How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions - Informed decision making in the outpatient setting
    Braddock, CH
    Fihn, SD
    Levinson, W
    Jonsen, AR
    Pearlman, RA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 12 (06) : 339 - 345
  • [6] WESTERN BIOETHICS ON THE NAVAJO RESERVATION - BENEFIT OR HARM
    CARRESE, JA
    RHODES, LA
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (10): : 826 - 829
  • [7] TRUST, AUTONOMY, AND ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
    CHURCHILL, LR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RELIGION & HEALTH, 1989, 28 (03) : 175 - 183
  • [8] STABILITY OF CHOICES ABOUT LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS
    DANIS, M
    GARRETT, J
    HARRIS, R
    PATRICK, DL
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1994, 120 (07) : 567 - 573
  • [9] A PROSPECTIVE-STUDY OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVES FOR LIFE-SUSTAINING CARE
    DANIS, M
    SOUTHERLAND, LI
    GARRETT, JM
    SMITH, JL
    HIELEMA, F
    PICKARD, CG
    EGNER, DM
    PATRICK, DL
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1991, 324 (13) : 882 - 888
  • [10] DOUKAS DJ, 1991, J FAM PRACTICE, V32, P145