
What was not disclosed to the patients, as far as I can tell from the paper, were likely outcomes of CPR. This strikes me as the most important bit of information in CPR decision-making, but who am I to say that? Anyway - the results between 1990s and today were dramatically different to the point of being shocking. The percent of patients wanting CPR in all clinically scenarios was dramatically increased in the contemporary cohort than the 1990s one. For instance - 74% said no to CPR in their current health state in 1990s vs. 6% today; for terminal illness - 96% vs 31%; for severe dementia 100% vs. 41%. There were some other findings and subanalyses (older patients in both cohorts were more likely to refuse CPR; many more 2000s patients thought doctors should discuss CPR with patients; most patients in both cohorts thought doctors should unilaterally be able to 'withhold' CPR in patients with poor prognoses).
Looking at the numbers, what's surprising to me is not so much the percentages of patients in the 2000s who didn't want CPR but it's the very low fraction of the 1990s cohort who didn't: 74% of those in their current state of health? Either a seismic shift has occurred in Ireland or something deeply flawed (research-wise) was occurring then. The authors opinion is that, in fact, a seismic shift has occurred in Ireland which explains the results. Interestingly they note that Ireland is generally wealthier than it was in the early 1990s (this study predates the current Global Economic Collapse of course) and wonder if that has anything to do with it (interesting because in the US increased wealth, or at least education which tends to track with wealth, is generally associated with relatively less interest in 'aggressive' end of life cares).
In addition they actually throw out that TV may be implicated as medical dramas have apparently become very popular in Ireland and they wonder if that has inflated patient expectations for CPR!
I would be personally very interested to see two things in follow up to this, although I know I won't. First is a similar study with a US/North American population to see if a similar trend has occurred although I doubt there was ever a US study which showed anything similar to the 1990s findings. Second would be to take the same group of patients and re-ask them the questions after being given survival-to-discharge data for in-hospital arrests - that would at least give us some semblance of what these patients would say when 'truly' (or at least 'more truly') informed...not that many real-life patients are given that information when having 'code status' discussions.
(Thanks to Dr. Robert Arnold for alerting me to this.)
Cotter, P., Simon, M., Quinn, C., & O'Keeffe, S. (2008). Changing attitudes to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in older people: a 15-year follow-up study Age and Ageing, 38 (2), 200-205 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afn291
3 comments:
Apropos this article, as well as the next on cultural issues, I find more and more that I am offering the explanation to patients and families that "in the US" or "in the predominant culture here" we value autonomy over other values, such as leaving such decisions as CPR up to the medical team, or understanding the family's values prior to asking such questions. It's like I am apologizing and trying to justify why we are even having this discussion, then trying to learn enough to incorporate their value system into the team's understanding of what is appropriate.
But I do think that this increase in desire for CPR would be found here in the US also, based on what I see, and I heartily agree that people should be given the best stats that we are aware of regarding outcomes. People are very perplexed when we ask them how to run a code, and make nonsensical requests; just this week a family asked for "2 shocks, 2 rounds of CPR" but "no intubation." Since when were non-medical people expected to call the code according to their personal values? Is it because it is so much harder (not really, but clearly more time consuming) to find out what all of this really means to them?
I could go on ad nauseum. It's a big mess, methinks.
R - see my post from today for more...
I think the problem is that too many people get their medical "knowledge" from TV shows. Dr House and his team of doting physicians (who draw blood, give enemas, and regularly break into patient's homes) work miracles. It still amazes me how often I talk with families whose loved one is dead or dieing because they were riding their motorcycle without a helmet at 80mph while drunk...and they want to know what we "did wrong" because we didn't save them...
I teach Advance Directives programs--mostly for seniors. They are astounded when they hear outcomes statistics.
3 of the most important things I tell them:
1)Choose your Surrogate wisely--may not be the person who loves you the most because they may not be able to let you go...
2)Make several copies of your A.D. and give to surrogate, other family (and discuss your wishes with them!), keep in freezer (in case house burns down), wallet & glove box.....
3) You can always change your mind! Nothing is written in blood. And, in fact, an A.D. is not a DNR--it is just a guideline of your wishes for your family & MD. If your doctor thinks he/she can "save you"--most will still "do everything"...at least where I work...
Post a Comment