Upload
june
View
45
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Improving end-of-life care in the long term care setting. David Casarett MD MA Division of Geriatrics Center for Bioethics University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Palmer:. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Improving end-of-life care in the long term care setting
David Casarett MD MA
Division of Geriatrics
Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania
Mr. Palmer:
Mr. Palmer is an 84 year old man with advanced dementia (MMSE score=10), congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prostate cancer.
He currently lives in a skilled care facility, where he is dependent on others for most activities of daily living.
He has had 2 hospitalizations in the past 6 months; one for a heart failure exacerbation and one for presumed aspiration pneumonia.
He has lost 10 lbs. in the past 6 months and is only eating 50% of meals, despite an intensive feeding program.
Mr. Palmer
Long term care resident with several serious chronic illnesses
Is highly likely to experience events in the near future that will:» Compromise his health » Result in death » Result in a significant decline in function
Decisions that need to be made
Advance directive preferencesDNRTransfer/hospitalizationArtificial Nutrition and Hydration
Usual approaches:
Medical decisions (without input)» “Your father is losing weight, we need to put a
feeding tube in”
Leave decision up to resident/family:» “Your father is losing weight, what do you want us
to do?”» Your father is very sick, do you want us to do
everything to keep him alive?”
Hazards of the “usual approach”
Decisions that are not consistent with resident/family goals and preferences» Too much treatment» Too little treatment
Dissatisfaction with careUnpleasant memories of the residents last
months of life
An approach to decision-making discussions near the end of life
1. Identify the decision-maker
2. Assess prognosis
3. Define goals
4. Clarify preferences
5. Determine a plan
6. Reevaluate and update
7. One example: Decisions about ANH
Mr. Palmer:
An 84 year old man with advanced dementia (MMSE score=10), congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prostate cancer.
Currently lives in a skilled care facility, where he is dependent on others for most activities of daily living.
2 hospitalizations in the past 6 months. He has lost 10 lbs. in the past 6 months and is only
eating 50% of meals. Need for a decision about ANH (and other treatment
options).
Decision-making: Who is the decision-maker?
Does the resident have adequate decision-making capacity?
Is there someone who can share decision-making?
How should a family member make decisions on the resident’s behalf?
Does this patient have decision-making capacity?
Mr. Palmer is an 84 year old man with advanced dementia (MMSE score=10), congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prostate cancer.
He currently lives in a skilled care facility, where he is dependent on others for most activities of daily living.
Can he make decisions about a feeding tube?
Decision-making capacity and competence
Competence» Decided by psychiatrist (usually)» Decision validated in court» Global implications
Decision-making capacity» Decided in clinical setting» Decided by clinical team» Decision-specific
Who can assess:Decision-making capacity?
Competence?
Competence:
Psychiatrists
Capacity:
Physicians
Nurses
Social workers
Chaplains
Speech therapists……
The theory of informed consent and decision-making capacity
Informed consent is justified by a patient’s right to autonomy, and our obligation to respect autonomy.
Informed consent requires:» Adequate disclosure of relevant information» Freedom from outside influences in making a
decision » Decision-making capacity: Ability to learn and use
information to make that decision• Respect autonomy by honoring the decision of a patient
with capacity• Respect autonomy by turning to a surrogate when a
patient lacks capacity
The skills of assessment:CHF vs. capacity
Congestive heart failure signs and symptoms:
» Elevated jugular venous
pressure» Dyspnea, orthopnea» Rales» S3» Peripheral edema
Decision-making capacity signs and symptoms:
?
Assessing capacity: pathophysiology
Heart function requires:» Clearing blood from
venous circulation» Delivery of blood to vital
organs
Assessed by physical examination
Decision-making capacity requires:» Understanding» Appreciation» Reasoning» Ability to express a choice
Assessed by interview
Decision-making capacity
Mr. Palmer is an 84 year old man with advanced dementia (MMSE score=10), congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prostate cancer.
He is able to understand that he has several serious illnesses and seems to appreciate that these illnesses may result in his death.
He understands the risks and potential benefits of a feeding tube.
But he cannot weigh those risks and potential benefits to reach a decision
Shared decision-making
More common in:» Older patients» Women» Married patients» African-American patients» Hispanic patients» Patients with cognitive impairment
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Patient madedecision
Patientmostly made
thedecisision
The decisionwas shared
equally
Familymostly madethe decision
Family madethe decision
Pro
po
rti
on
(%
)
Who is involved in end of life discussions?
RN observation
Mr. Palmer:
Mr. Palmer’s daughter visits frequently, often bringing his grandchildren. She often participates in decisions and steps in to make decisions on his behalf when he is unable to (e.g. decisions about hospitalization)
When the resident can’t make decisions:Surrogate decision-making standards
Pure autonomy» What a patient wants» Uses advance directives
Substituted judgment» What a patient would have wanted» Uses previous statements
Best interests» What would be best for a patient
Mr. Palmer
84 year old man with advanced dementia (MMSE score=10), congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prostate cancer.
Able to participate in decisions, but lacks full decision-making capacity.
Decisions about a feeding tube would be made jointly with daughter.
Prognosis: Challenges of recognizing the “end of life”
84 year old man with advanced dementia (MMSE score=10), congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prostate cancer.
He currently lives in a skilled care facility, where he is dependent on others for most activities of daily living.
He has had 2 hospitalizations in the past 6 months; one for a heart failure exacerbation and one for presumed aspiration pneumonia.
Why is prognosis information valuable?
Ability to make informed decisions about feeding tubes and other treatments
Guidance for practical decisions (financial)Reconciliation/chance to say goodbyeAlleviation of stress that not knowing incursReluctance of families to discuss plans when
prognosis is unknown
Do patients want to discuss prognosis?
1982 data 96 % of Americans wanted to know if they had cancer and 85% reported wanting to know if prognosis <1 year» Annas, G. NEJM 330:223-225
44% of bereaved family members of elderly deceased cited improved communication as very important.» Hanson, L. JAGS 1997;45:1339-44.
85% of cancer patients stated that they wanted all information, good and bad.» Cassileth, B Ann Intern Med 1980; 92:832-836
How accurate are clinicians in prognostication?
Study Median Estimate
Median
Actual
Estimate/
Actual
Parkes, 1972 4.5 2.0 1.8
Heyse-Moore,
1987
8 2 4
Forster, 1988 7 3.5 2
Christakis,2000 N/A N/A 5.3
Functional status: predictive value
COPD: New dependency in 2 ADLs in 2 years (Connors 1996)
Dementia: Inability to ambulate (Luchins, 1997)
ECOG/Karnofsky performance status (Mor 1984; Conill 1990; Sloan 2001)
Trajectories of functional decline
Cancer
CHF/COPD
Dementia
“Checkered flags”-General
“Would I be surprised if this patient were to die in 6 months?”» Good idea» Widely used» Prognostic value unclear
Cancer
Cancer with metastatic disease: brain, pleura, pericardium, carcinomatous meningitis (Vigano, 2000)
Malignant bowel obstruction (Vigano, 2000)Cancer with hypercalcemia (not multiple
myeloma)(Vigano, 2000)Symptoms: Anorexia, dyspnea, dysphagia
(Maltoni, 1997)
Non-cancer diagnoses
Dementia:» Few/no meaningful words (Luchins, 1997)» Acute hospitalization (Morrison, 2000)
CHF:» Dyspnea at rest (Pfeffer, 1992)» Hyponatrema and renal insufficiency attributable to
decreased cardiac output (Alla, 2000) COPD:
» Decline in FEV1>40cc/year OR FEV1<1.00 (Traver, 1979)» ICU admission for exacerbation (Seneff, 1995)» Loss of 2 ADLS/past year (Connors, 1996)» Chronic hypercapnea (Costello, 1997)
Cirrhosis with any renal insufficiency
Prognosis: Mr. Palmer
An 84 year old man with advanced dementia (MMSE score=10), congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prostate cancer.
He currently lives in a skilled care facility, where he is dependent on others for most activities of daily living.
He has had 2 hospitalizations in the past 6 months; one for a heart failure exacerbation and one for presumed aspiration pneumonia.
Not imminently dying, but limited prognosis (< 1 year)
Goals for care: what’s important?
IdentityPreferencesLocus of controlValues
Why discuss goals?
SUPPORT study, SUPPORT investigators 1995:» 47% of physicians knew when their patients wanted to
avoid CPR» 40% of patient/family-physician pairs discussed CPR
Medicare resource use study, Teno 2002:» 20% of seriously ill Medicare patients said their care
was too aggressive
The Interrelationshipof Goals
Historical sequencingMultiple goals often apply simultaneouslyGoals are often contradictoryCertain goals may take priority over others
Common goals (not mutually exclusive)
SafetyComfortProlong lifeSense of closureStrengthen interpersonal relationshipsImprove/maintain function
Relieve Suffering (Hospice)Relieve Suffering (Hospice)Relieve Suffering (Palliative Care)Relieve Suffering (Palliative Care)
Curative / Life-prolonging TherapyCurative / Life-prolonging Therapy
PresentationPresentation DeathDeath
Informed consent and goals for care
Informed consent requires:» Adequate information about:
• The proposed treatment option• Its risks and potential benefits• Medically appropriate alternatives
» Decision-making capacity» Absence of inappropriate influence:
• Inducement• Coercion
Hospice
Palliative care
6-Step Protocol to Negotiate Goals of Care…
1. Create the right setting
2. Determine what the patient and family know
3. Ask how much they want to know and discuss with you
4. Explore expectations and hopes
5. Suggest realistic goals
6. Respond empathetically
Mr. Palmer
An informal meeting was held with the Nurse Practitioner on the unit, Mr. Palmer, and his daughter.
The discussion focused on Mr. Palmer’s goals for care, negotiated between the NP, Mr. Palmer, and his daughter.
Central goals were:» To stay as comfortable as possible» To spend time with family» To maintain function and independence as much
as possible
Defining preferences: general principles
Begin with goalsFocus on goalsEncourage consistency
» With goals» With other preferences
Mr. Palmer: defining preferences for care
CPRICU admissionIV antibioticsHospiceHospital transferArtificial Nutrition and Hydration
Preferences about Artificial Nutrition and Hydration (ANH)
Difficult because of:» Strong beliefs
• Families• Staff
» Regulatory pressures» Reimbursement incentives» Fears about “starving” residents
ANH: Medical background
“Feeding” administered by:» Gastrostomy/Jejunostomy tube
• Placed through abdominal wall • Endoscopic/surgical (short hospital stay)
» Parenteral line• Central line• Long-term peripheral line• Both require medical/surgical procedure for
placement
Goals of ANH Mr. Palmer’s goals
To improve survival To promote better
nutrition To promote weight
gain/prevent weight loss To prevent aspiration
pneumonia To promote wound
healing
To stay as comfortable as possible
To spend time with family
To maintain function and independence as much as possible
Does ANH “work”?
Yes:» PVS (survival)» Selected rare GI conditions (survival)
Maybe:» Post-surgery (nutrition, wound healing)» Acute conditions (intensive care unit/burn unit)
Probably not» Dementia (any indication)
Will ANH help to achieve Mr. Palmer’s goals?
Goals» Increased comfort?» Time with family?» Maintain function and independence?
Probably not
Risks of ANH? (selected examples)
Procedural risks (surgery)Self-removal (bleeding, peritonitis)Nausea, bloating, abdominal pain, diarrheaAspiration pneumoniaIn patients with dementia: Need for physical
restraints:» Delirium» Pressure ulcers» Weakness/debility
History of ANH: Law and ethics
Surgical/technical procedure with uncertain benefits, significant risks
Decisions should be made by patients/families using the same approach that is applied to other medical decisions:» Risks/Burdens» Potential benefits» Patient preferences
Evidence in:» Past case law (Brophy, Quinlan, Cruzan)» Incorporation into the practice of clinical bioethics
ANH preferences
Decisions about ANH should be made in the same way, based on the same information, as decisions about other treatment are.
Goals and preferences: Cultural Differences
Who gets the information?How to talk about information?Who makes decisions?Ask the patientConsider a family meeting
Mr. Palmer
A family meeting was held, which included Mr. Palmer’s daughter, the interdisciplinary team and the attending physician. The meeting was held in a room that could accommodate Mr. Palmer as well, so he could be present.
Family meeting
The group discussed:» Mr. Palmer’s goals» Mr. Palmer’s preferences as far as they could be
determined» Mr. Palmer’s daughter’s wishes based on what
she knew of her father and his goals» The risks and potential benefits of a feeding tube
Mr. Palmer
They decide that:» A feeding tube offers a balance of risks and
potential benefits that Mr. Palmer does not want» A feeding tube would not be consistent with Mr.
Palmer’s goals» He would not want a feeding tube if he were able
to make the decision on his own
Mr. Palmer
Care plan:» Continued intensive hand feeding» Dietary supplements» Understanding that continued weight loss is
expected and inevitable» Focus on Mr. Palmer’s goals with plan of comfort
care.
Approach to decision-making near the end of life
1. Identify the decision-maker
2. Assess prognosis
3. Define goals
4. Clarify preferences
5. Determine a plan
6. Reevaluate and update
7. One example: Decisions about ANH