Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Oct;58(4):567-577.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.06.011. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
Prioritizing among potentially conflicting end-of-life values may help patients discriminate among treatments and allow clinicians to align treatments with values.
To investigate end-of-life values that patients prioritize when facing explicit trade-offs and identify predictors of patients whose values and treatment preferences seem inconsistent.
Analysis of surveys from a multi-center cluster-randomized trial of patients with serious illness. Respondents prioritized end-of-life values and identified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in two health states.
Of 535 patients, 60% prioritized relief of discomfort over extending life, 17% prioritized extending life over relief of discomfort, and 23% were unsure. Patients prioritizing extending life were most likely to prefer CPR, with 93% preferring CPR in current health and 67% preferring CPR if dependent on others, compared with 69% and 21%, respectively, for patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, and 78% and 33%, respectively, for patients unsure of their prioritized value (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, preference for CPR in current health was less likely among older patients (odds ratio 0.958 per year; 95% CI 0.935, 0.981) and more likely with better self-perceived health (odds ratio 1.402 per level of health; 95% CI 1.090, 1.804).
Clinicians face challenges as they clarify patient values and align treatments with values. Patients' values predicted CPR preferences, but a substantial proportion of patients expressed CPR preferences that appeared potentially inconsistent with their primary value. Clinicians should question assumptions about relationships between values and CPR preferences. Further research is needed to identify ways to use values to guide treatment decisions.
在潜在冲突的临终价值观之间进行优先级排序可能有助于患者区分治疗方法,并使临床医生能够使治疗方法与价值观保持一致。
调查患者在面临明确取舍时优先考虑的临终价值观,并确定其价值观和治疗偏好似乎不一致的患者的预测因素。
对一项多中心集群随机试验中患有严重疾病的患者的调查进行分析。受访者在两种健康状况下优先考虑临终价值观,并确定心肺复苏术(CPR)的偏好。
在 535 名患者中,60%的人优先缓解不适,而 17%的人优先延长生命,23%的人不确定。优先考虑延长生命的患者最有可能选择 CPR,当前健康状况下 93%的人选择 CPR,67%的人如果依赖他人,则选择 CPR,而优先考虑缓解不适的患者分别为 69%和 21%,不确定其优先价值的患者分别为 78%和 33%(所有比较均 P<0.001)。在优先缓解不适的患者中,当前健康状况下选择 CPR 的可能性在年龄较大的患者中较低(每增加 1 年的比值比为 0.958;95%CI 0.935,0.981),而自我感知健康状况较好的患者则更有可能选择 CPR(每增加一个健康水平的比值比为 1.402;95%CI 1.090,1.804)。
当临床医生阐明患者的价值观并使治疗方法与价值观保持一致时,他们将面临挑战。患者的价值观预测了 CPR 的偏好,但相当一部分患者表达的 CPR 偏好似乎与其主要价值观不一致。临床医生应质疑价值观与 CPR 偏好之间关系的假设。需要进一步研究确定如何利用价值观来指导治疗决策。