ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding resuscitation after cardiac arrest are critical from ethical, patient satisfaction, outcome, and healthcare cost standpoints. Physician-reported discussion barriers include topic discomfort, fear of time commitment, and difficulty articulating end-of-life concepts. The influence of language used in these discussions has not been tested. This study explored whether utilizing the alternate term "allow (a) natural death" changed code status decisions in hospitalized patients versus "do not resuscitate" (DNR). METHODS: All patients age 65 and over admitted to a general medicine hospital teaching service were screened (English-speaking, not ICU-level care, no active psychiatric illness, no substance misuse, no active DNR). Participants were randomized to resuscitation discussions with either DNR or "allow natural death" as the "no code" phrasing. Outcomes included patient resuscitation decision, satisfaction with and duration of the conversation, and decision correlation with illness severity and predicted resuscitation success. RESULTS: 102 participants were randomized to the "allow natural death" (N = 49) or DNR (N = 53) arms. The overall "no code" rate for our sample of hospitalized general medicine inpatients age >65 was 16.7%, with 13% in the DNR and 20.4% in the "allow natural death" arms (p = 0.35). Discussion length was similar in the DNR and "allow natural death" arms (3.9 + 3.2 vs. 4.9 + 3.9 minutes), and not significantly different (p = 0.53). Over 90% of participants were highly satisfied with their code status decision, without difference between arms (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' code status discussions did not differ in "no code" rate between "allow natural death" and DNR arms but were short in length and had high patient satisfaction. Previously reported code status discussion barriers were not encountered. It is appropriate to screen code status in all hospitalized patients regardless of phrasing used.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Physicians play a critical role in tobacco treatment, being a frequent link to smokers and a trusted source of information. Unfortunately, barriers exist that limit physicians' implementation of evidence-based interventions. This study examines the implementation and predictors of the Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange model of tobacco treatment clinical guidelines among U.S. physicians. METHODS: A national sample of 1,058 U.S. physicians from 6 specialties (family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, cardiology, pulmonology, and oncology) were surveyed in 2018 (51.8% response rate). Survey domains included demographics, awareness of the guidelines, tobacco treatment practices (i.e., Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange model), perceived barriers to treatment, and perceived efficacy of various treatments. Multiple logistic regression analyzed the predictors of implementing guideline activities. RESULTS: Mean age was 51.3 years, with the majority male (64.4%) and non-Hispanic White (63.9%). Nearly all physicians reported asking patients whether they smoke (95.6%) and advising them to stop (94.8%), slightly fewer assessed the readiness to quit (86.5%), and only a minority assisted with a quit plan (27.4%) or arranged a follow-up (18.6%). Only 18% reported using the U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines in clinical practice. Time-related factors were the most common barriers (53.4%), with patient factors (36.9%) and financial/resource factors (35.1%) cited less frequently. The predictors of implementing aspects of the Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange model included physician awareness and utilization of the U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines, specialty, and to a smaller degree, graduating before 1990, not reporting time as a barrier, patient barriers, sex, and higher perceived effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey highlights the need for increased implementation of all aspects of the latest guidelines for evidence-based tobacco treatments, including community-based resources.
