"My Family Wants Something Different": Discordance in Perceived Personal and Family Treatment Preference and Its Association With Do-Not-Resuscitate Order Placement.

Q1 Nursing
Login S. George, W. Breitbart, H. Prigerson
{"title":"\"My Family Wants Something Different\": Discordance in Perceived Personal and Family Treatment Preference and Its Association With Do-Not-Resuscitate Order Placement.","authors":"Login S. George, W. Breitbart, H. Prigerson","doi":"10.1200/JOP.19.00250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nPatients make treatment decisions based not only on what they want, but what they think their families want. Discordance in such perceived preferences may therefore pose challenges for advance care planning. This study examines discordance in preference for life-extending care versus comfort-focused care and its association with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order placement.\n\n\nMETHODS\nOne hundred eighty-nine patients with advanced cancers refractory to at least one chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in a multisite observational study. In structured interviews, patients reported their preference for treatment maximizing either life extension or comfort; patients also indicated their perception of their families' preference. DNR placement was reported by patients and verified using medical records.\n\n\nRESULTS\nApproximately 23% of patients (n = 43) perceived discordance between their preference and their families' preference. Patients who perceived discordance were less likely to have completed a DNR compared with those who perceived concordance, even after controlling for relevant confounds (odds ratio = .35; P = .02). Subgroups of discordance and concordance showed varying DNR placement rates (χ2, 19.95; P < .001). DNR placement rate was lowest among discordant subgroups, where there was either a personal (26.7%; four of 15) or family preference for comfort care (28.6%; eight of 28), followed by patients who perceived concordance for wanting life-extending care (34.5%; 29 of 84) and by patients who perceived concordance in wanting comfort-focused care (66.1%; 41 of 62).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nMany patients may perceive discordance between personal and family treatment preferences, posing impediments to advance care planning. Such patients may benefit from additional decision support.","PeriodicalId":54273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oncology Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"JOP1900250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JOP.19.00250","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oncology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

PURPOSE Patients make treatment decisions based not only on what they want, but what they think their families want. Discordance in such perceived preferences may therefore pose challenges for advance care planning. This study examines discordance in preference for life-extending care versus comfort-focused care and its association with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order placement. METHODS One hundred eighty-nine patients with advanced cancers refractory to at least one chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in a multisite observational study. In structured interviews, patients reported their preference for treatment maximizing either life extension or comfort; patients also indicated their perception of their families' preference. DNR placement was reported by patients and verified using medical records. RESULTS Approximately 23% of patients (n = 43) perceived discordance between their preference and their families' preference. Patients who perceived discordance were less likely to have completed a DNR compared with those who perceived concordance, even after controlling for relevant confounds (odds ratio = .35; P = .02). Subgroups of discordance and concordance showed varying DNR placement rates (χ2, 19.95; P < .001). DNR placement rate was lowest among discordant subgroups, where there was either a personal (26.7%; four of 15) or family preference for comfort care (28.6%; eight of 28), followed by patients who perceived concordance for wanting life-extending care (34.5%; 29 of 84) and by patients who perceived concordance in wanting comfort-focused care (66.1%; 41 of 62). CONCLUSION Many patients may perceive discordance between personal and family treatment preferences, posing impediments to advance care planning. Such patients may benefit from additional decision support.
“我的家人想要一些不同的东西”:感知到的个人和家庭治疗偏好的不一致及其与不复苏命令放置的关系。
目的:患者不仅根据自己的需要,而且根据他们认为家人的需要做出治疗决定。因此,这种感知偏好的不一致可能对预先护理计划构成挑战。本研究探讨了延长生命护理与以舒适为中心的护理的偏好差异及其与不复苏(DNR)顺序放置的关系。方法189例对至少一种化疗方案难治的晚期癌症患者参加了一项多地点观察性研究。在结构化访谈中,患者报告了他们对延长生命或舒适最大化的治疗偏好;患者还表明了他们对家人偏好的看法。DNR的放置由患者报告并使用医疗记录进行验证。结果约23%的患者(n = 43)认为自己的偏好与家人的偏好不一致。即使在控制了相关混杂因素后,感知到不一致的患者比感知到一致的患者完成DNR的可能性更小(优势比= 0.35;P = .02)。不一致和一致的亚组显示不同的DNR放置率(χ2, 19.95;P < 0.001)。在不和谐的亚组中,DNR安置率最低,其中有个人(26.7%;15人中的4人)或家人对舒适护理的偏好(28.6%;28人中有8人),其次是认为想要延长生命护理的患者(34.5%;84名患者中有29名),以及认为需要以舒适为中心的护理的患者(66.1%;62个中的41个)。结论许多患者可能感觉到个人和家庭治疗偏好之间的不一致,这对推进护理计划构成了障碍。这些患者可能受益于额外的决策支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Oncology Practice
Journal of Oncology Practice Nursing-Oncology (nursing)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Oncology Practice (JOP) provides necessary information and insights to keep oncology practice current on changes and challenges inherent in delivering quality oncology care. All content dealing with understanding the provision of care—the mechanics of practice—is the purview of JOP. JOP also addresses an expressed need of practicing physicians to have compressed, expert opinion addressing common clinical problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信