Division of General Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024 Jul;72(7):2070-2081. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18939. Epub 2024 May 9.
End-of-life (EOL) care patterns may differ by physician age given differences in how physicians are trained or changes associated with aging. We sought to compare patterns of EOL care delivered to older Americans according to physician age.
We conducted a cross-sectional study of a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥66 years who died in 2016-2019 (n = 487,293). We attributed beneficiaries to the physician who had >50% of primary care visits during the last 6 months of life. We compared beneficiary-level outcomes by physician age (<40, 40-49, 50-59, or ≥60) in two areas: (1) advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care; and (2) high-intensity care at the EOL.
Beneficiaries attributed to younger physicians had slightly higher proportions of billed ACP (adjusted proportions, 17.1%, 16.1%, 15.5%, and 14.0% for physicians aged <40, 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60, respectively; p-for-trend adjusted for multiple comparisons <0.001) and palliative care counseling or hospice use in the last 180 days of life (64.5%, 63.6%, 61.9%, and 60.8%; p-for-trend <0.001). Similarly, physicians' younger age was associated with slightly lower proportions of emergency department visits (57.4%, 57.0%, 57.4%, and 58.1%; p-for-trend <0.001), hospital admissions (51.2%, 51.1%, 51.4%, and 52.1%; p-for-trend <0.001), intensive care unit admissions (27.8%, 27.9%, 28.2%, and 28.3%; p-for-trend = 0.03), or mechanical ventilation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (14.2, 14.9%, 15.2%, and 15.3%; p-for-trend <0.001) in the last 30 days of life, and in-hospital death (20.2%, 20.6%, 21.3%, and 21.5%; p-for-trend <0.001).
We found that differences in patterns of EOL care between beneficiaries cared for by younger and older physicians were small, and thus, not clinically meaningful. Future research is warranted to understand the factors that can influence patterns of EOL care provided by physicians, including initial and continuing medical education.
由于医生的培训方式不同或与年龄相关的变化,终末期(EOL)护理模式可能因医生年龄而异。我们旨在比较根据医生年龄向老年美国人提供的 EOL 护理模式。
我们对 2016-2019 年期间去世的年龄≥66 岁的 Medicare 按服务项目付费受益人的 20%样本(n=487,293)进行了一项横断面研究。我们将受益人的护理归因于在生命的最后 6 个月中拥有>50%的初级保健就诊的医生。我们比较了两个领域中按医生年龄(<40、40-49、50-59 或≥60)的受益人的结果:(1)预先护理计划(ACP)和姑息治疗;以及(2)EOL 的高强度护理。
归因于年轻医生的受益人的 ACP(调整比例分别为<40、40-49、50-59 和≥60 岁的医生的 17.1%、16.1%、15.5%和 14.0%;p-趋势调整后的多项比较<0.001)和临终前 180 天内的姑息治疗咨询或临终关怀使用率略高(64.5%、63.6%、61.9%和 60.8%;p-趋势<0.001)。同样,医生的年轻年龄与急诊就诊(57.4%、57.0%、57.4%和 58.1%;p-趋势<0.001)、住院(51.2%、51.1%、51.4%和 52.1%;p-趋势<0.001)、重症监护病房入院(27.8%、27.9%、28.2%和 28.3%;p-趋势=0.03)或机械通气或心肺复苏(14.2、14.9%、15.2%和 15.3%;p-趋势<0.001)的比例略低,以及住院期间死亡(20.2%、20.6%、21.3%和 21.5%;p-趋势<0.001)。
我们发现,年轻医生和老年医生照顾的受益人的 EOL 护理模式之间的差异很小,因此没有临床意义。需要进一步研究以了解可以影响医生提供的 EOL 护理模式的因素,包括初始和持续的医学教育。