Assessing Challenges in End-of-Life Conversations With Elderly Patients With Multiple Morbidities

Toby L. Schonfeld, Elizabeth A. Stevens, Michelle A. Lampman, William L Lyons

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: This study reports on physicians' experiences in conducting end-of-life conversations with elderly patients who suffered from multiple co-morbidities (MCM). Our hypothesis was that both the lack of prognostic certainty and the lack of good communication tools contributed to physicians' discomfort with conducting EOL conversations with patients and families of patients with these conditions especially when compared with patients and families of patients who had a single, clear terminal diagnosis (e.g. pancreatic cancer). Methods: Focus group questions were semi-structured and explored three general themes: (1) differences between having an end-of-life conversation with patients/families with MCM versus those with a single, terminal diagnosis; (2) timing of the end-of-life conversation; and (3) approaches to the end-of-life conversation. Results: Three themes emerged: (1) It is more difficult for them to have EOL conversations with patients with MCM and their families, as opposed to conversations with families and patients who have a clear, terminal diagnosis. (2) In deciding when to raise the subject of EOL care, participants reported that they rely on a number of physical and/or social signs to prompt these discussions. Yet a major reason for the difficulty that providers face in initiating these discussions with MCM patients and families is that there is a lack of a clear threshold or prompting event. (3) Participants mentioned three types of approaches to initiating EOL conversations: (a) direct approach, (b) indirect approach, (c) collaborative approach. Conclusion: Prognostic indicies and communication scripts may better prepare physicians to facilitate end-of-life conversations with MCM patients/families.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)260-267
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
Volume29
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 3 2012

Fingerprint

Morbidity
Physicians
Communication
Focus Groups
Pancreatic Neoplasms

Keywords

  • care planning
  • debility
  • elderly
  • end-of-life conversations
  • multiple morbidities
  • prognosis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Assessing Challenges in End-of-Life Conversations With Elderly Patients With Multiple Morbidities. / Schonfeld, Toby L.; Stevens, Elizabeth A.; Lampman, Michelle A.; Lyons, William L.

In: American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Vol. 29, No. 4, 03.09.2012, p. 260-267.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schonfeld, Toby L. ; Stevens, Elizabeth A. ; Lampman, Michelle A. ; Lyons, William L. / Assessing Challenges in End-of-Life Conversations With Elderly Patients With Multiple Morbidities. In: American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 29, No. 4. pp. 260-267.
@article{80b811d2e83c47429c4317ee114dfbd9,
title = "Assessing Challenges in End-of-Life Conversations With Elderly Patients With Multiple Morbidities",
abstract = "Introduction: This study reports on physicians' experiences in conducting end-of-life conversations with elderly patients who suffered from multiple co-morbidities (MCM). Our hypothesis was that both the lack of prognostic certainty and the lack of good communication tools contributed to physicians' discomfort with conducting EOL conversations with patients and families of patients with these conditions especially when compared with patients and families of patients who had a single, clear terminal diagnosis (e.g. pancreatic cancer). Methods: Focus group questions were semi-structured and explored three general themes: (1) differences between having an end-of-life conversation with patients/families with MCM versus those with a single, terminal diagnosis; (2) timing of the end-of-life conversation; and (3) approaches to the end-of-life conversation. Results: Three themes emerged: (1) It is more difficult for them to have EOL conversations with patients with MCM and their families, as opposed to conversations with families and patients who have a clear, terminal diagnosis. (2) In deciding when to raise the subject of EOL care, participants reported that they rely on a number of physical and/or social signs to prompt these discussions. Yet a major reason for the difficulty that providers face in initiating these discussions with MCM patients and families is that there is a lack of a clear threshold or prompting event. (3) Participants mentioned three types of approaches to initiating EOL conversations: (a) direct approach, (b) indirect approach, (c) collaborative approach. Conclusion: Prognostic indicies and communication scripts may better prepare physicians to facilitate end-of-life conversations with MCM patients/families.",
keywords = "care planning, debility, elderly, end-of-life conversations, multiple morbidities, prognosis",
author = "Schonfeld, {Toby L.} and Stevens, {Elizabeth A.} and Lampman, {Michelle A.} and Lyons, {William L}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1177/1049909111418778",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "260--267",
journal = "American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine",
issn = "1049-9091",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing Challenges in End-of-Life Conversations With Elderly Patients With Multiple Morbidities

AU - Schonfeld, Toby L.

AU - Stevens, Elizabeth A.

AU - Lampman, Michelle A.

AU - Lyons, William L

PY - 2012/9/3

Y1 - 2012/9/3

N2 - Introduction: This study reports on physicians' experiences in conducting end-of-life conversations with elderly patients who suffered from multiple co-morbidities (MCM). Our hypothesis was that both the lack of prognostic certainty and the lack of good communication tools contributed to physicians' discomfort with conducting EOL conversations with patients and families of patients with these conditions especially when compared with patients and families of patients who had a single, clear terminal diagnosis (e.g. pancreatic cancer). Methods: Focus group questions were semi-structured and explored three general themes: (1) differences between having an end-of-life conversation with patients/families with MCM versus those with a single, terminal diagnosis; (2) timing of the end-of-life conversation; and (3) approaches to the end-of-life conversation. Results: Three themes emerged: (1) It is more difficult for them to have EOL conversations with patients with MCM and their families, as opposed to conversations with families and patients who have a clear, terminal diagnosis. (2) In deciding when to raise the subject of EOL care, participants reported that they rely on a number of physical and/or social signs to prompt these discussions. Yet a major reason for the difficulty that providers face in initiating these discussions with MCM patients and families is that there is a lack of a clear threshold or prompting event. (3) Participants mentioned three types of approaches to initiating EOL conversations: (a) direct approach, (b) indirect approach, (c) collaborative approach. Conclusion: Prognostic indicies and communication scripts may better prepare physicians to facilitate end-of-life conversations with MCM patients/families.

AB - Introduction: This study reports on physicians' experiences in conducting end-of-life conversations with elderly patients who suffered from multiple co-morbidities (MCM). Our hypothesis was that both the lack of prognostic certainty and the lack of good communication tools contributed to physicians' discomfort with conducting EOL conversations with patients and families of patients with these conditions especially when compared with patients and families of patients who had a single, clear terminal diagnosis (e.g. pancreatic cancer). Methods: Focus group questions were semi-structured and explored three general themes: (1) differences between having an end-of-life conversation with patients/families with MCM versus those with a single, terminal diagnosis; (2) timing of the end-of-life conversation; and (3) approaches to the end-of-life conversation. Results: Three themes emerged: (1) It is more difficult for them to have EOL conversations with patients with MCM and their families, as opposed to conversations with families and patients who have a clear, terminal diagnosis. (2) In deciding when to raise the subject of EOL care, participants reported that they rely on a number of physical and/or social signs to prompt these discussions. Yet a major reason for the difficulty that providers face in initiating these discussions with MCM patients and families is that there is a lack of a clear threshold or prompting event. (3) Participants mentioned three types of approaches to initiating EOL conversations: (a) direct approach, (b) indirect approach, (c) collaborative approach. Conclusion: Prognostic indicies and communication scripts may better prepare physicians to facilitate end-of-life conversations with MCM patients/families.

KW - care planning

KW - debility

KW - elderly

KW - end-of-life conversations

KW - multiple morbidities

KW - prognosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865528007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865528007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1049909111418778

DO - 10.1177/1049909111418778

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 260

EP - 267

JO - American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

JF - American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

SN - 1049-9091

IS - 4

ER -