Showing posts with label choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label choice. Show all posts

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Coordination of Care for People at the End of Life


Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com. 


By Linda A. King, MD and Nicole Fowler, MHSA
Vol 1, No. 8 - March 2002
(Original PDF)
Case:

A 67-year-old man with end-stage congestive heart failure presented to the hospital with worsening respiratory distress and was intubated in the emergency room. Despite a week of intensive efforts, he could not be weaned from the ventilator and remained dependent on intravenous dobutamine for blood pressure support. The ICU staff met with the patient and family to discuss the medical situation and options for care including withdrawal of life support. The patient did not want to continue on long-term ventilatory support nor did he want to die in the hospital. The patient expressed to the care team a strong desire to leave the hospital and to die at home.

A palliative care consultation was initiated to support the patient and family and to assist with a discharge to home. The patient, family, ICU team and palliative care team discussed potential options for discharge and decided on a plan to transport the patient home with ongoing mechanical ventilation and inotropic support. This option allowed the patient to be comfortable at home with his family before removing the ventilator and providing medications for comfort that would likely be sedating. Efforts to carry out this plan were hindered by the reluctance of home care and hospice agencies to participate in this “unusual” and expensive plan that provided little or no reimbursement (i.e. withdrawal of life-support in the home setting while the patient continued on Dobutamine).

Following hours of coordination and planning, the physician from the Palliative Care service and a nurse from the ICU rode home in the ambulance with the patient where they were met by many of the patient’s family and friends and a private duty nurse to support the patient and family. After a few hours of visiting with his loved ones, the patient indicated that he was ready for the ventilator to be withdrawn. Intravenous morphine and ativan were administered until the patient was comfortable, then the endotracheal tube was removed. Additional medication was administered intermittently to maintain adequate comfort and the patient died comfortably at home a few days later. The family expressed their gratitude that the patient’s wish to die at home was achieved.

Discussion

For many patients facing a life-threatening illness, death at home is viewed as a desirable and even essential element of a “good death.” Patients in the hospital expected to die imminently after the withdrawal of life-support do not typically have this option because of the obstacles and lack of payment incentives for coordinating this type of care. Withdrawal of life support in the home can provide patients and families with the opportunity to achieve their goal of dying in the familiar setting of their own home at a lower cost than the average cost of care in an ICU.

However, in our current care system it requires extenuating circumstances and significant coordination and planning to assure that patients and families are well supported and the patient’s comfort is maintained. When the goals of care shift for seriously ill patients from a disease-specific and curative approach to an approach that focuses on comfort, symptom management and other personal preferences for care (such as wanting to die at home), the health care system is often inadequate and discontinuous. One reason, as in our highlighted case, is that “ownership” for this type of coordination does not exist and few providers (home care and others) are willing to assume this role because most insurance programs (such as Medicare) will not pay. Since most care is reimbursed according to location, it is difficult to provide comprehensive services that meet the changing goals of patients as their disease progresses.

Public policies and financial incentives that encourage and reward hospitals, home care agencies, nursing homes and hospices for seamless care need to be established. Surely to compliment our modern care system and life prolonging technologies we should be able to develop a reliable and sustainable system that also relieves symptoms, honors preferences and supports patients and their families at the end of life.

References:
1. Lynn, J. Serving patients who may die soon and their families. JAMA 2002;285: pp. 925-932.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, January 15, 2009 by Christian Sinclair ·

Thursday, October 2, 2008

One Man’s Journey Toward Deactivating His Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

By Ellen Redinbaugh, Ph.D.
Vol 1, No. 4 - September 2001
(Original PDF*)
Case:

Mr. C, a 68 year old widower with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placed five years previously, was admitted to the hospital after his ICD discharged several times in one day. Each discharge was associated with severe pain, loss of consciousness, and heightened anxiety about experiencing future discharges. Evaluation of the ICD firing confirmed refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias consistent with Mr. C.’s end-stage heart failure. Trials of anti-arrhythmic medications proved unsuccessful. The frequency of ICD discharges could not be reduced without deactivating the device (which would cause imminent death), yet leaving the ICD active would prolong Mr. C’s suffering.

When his primary medical team informed him about his medical condition and prognosis, Mr. C showed ambivalence about deactivating his ICD. He clearly stated to his health care team that he “did not want to live under these circumstances” and that “shutting off this pacemaker may be the best thing for me.” However, he did not like being left alone for fear his heart would stop and no one would be available to resuscitate him. His primary medical team consulted the Palliative Care Team (PCT) to discuss end-of-life options and goals with the patient and family. The PCT treated Mr. C’s anxiety with clonazepam and relaxation training, “supported” his ambivalence, and assisted with his discharge planning.

As the PCT continued working with Mr. C, it became apparent that Mr. C experienced tremendous remorse for “what I put my family through 20 years ago after my wife died.” Although his family openly stated that all was forgiven, Mr. C could not accept their reassurances – “I wish I could make it up to them.” The PCT initiated an intervention where Mr. C talked about his family members one at a time, and he described his happiest memory, what he appreciated, and what he loved about each one. His thoughts were written down, and the family was trained to continue the exercise until all family members were done. Mr. C was discharged with home hospice, and his family completed the PCT intervention at home. The day after Mr. C finished his individualized sentiments, he requested to have his ICD turned off. A representative from the ICD manufacturer came to Mr. C’s home and deactivated the ICD. Mr. C died two hours later in the comfort of his home and surrounded by his family.

Discussion:

ICDs are used to treat people at risk for sudden death due to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They deliver an electrical charge to the myocardium during an arrhythmic event, and the “shock” allows the ventricle to resume a normal rhythm1. ICDs allow many people to enjoy a prolonged life without significant compromise to quality of life, but in cases of end-stage heart disease ICDs can cause significant physical suffering simply by doing their “job” - repeatedly normalizing arrhythmic events. Patient quality of life is further compromised by the severe anxiety associated with the fear of receiving a future shock2.

For patients with end-stage heart disease, deactivating the ICD can be a sound medical, ethical, and legal decision for them - albeit a difficult one. For Mr. C, his ambivalence about turning off his ICD was driven by his need for reconciliation with his family. Once this was achieved he calmly and peacefully made his decision to die. His case suggests that end-of-life decision making can be difficult for patients, and they may need time and guidance in completing their relationships with their loved ones before they can make the medical decision that is best for them.

ICDs can be deactivated in different ways depending on the urgency of the situation. In cases requiring immediate action (e.g., a patient is actively dying of end-stage cancer and his ICD fires causing the patient to go into convulsions), pacemaker magnets placed over the device deactivate it within seconds. In less urgent cases, the manufacturer and/or the electrophysiology service can assist with ICD deactivation. For patients at the end-of-life, turning off an ICD is similar to withdrawing a ventilator: the patient (or surrogate) has elected for comfort measures in lieu of aggressive medical care.

References:

1. Braun, TC, Hagen, NA, Hatfield, RE, Wyse, DG (1999). Cardiac pacemakers and implantable defibrillators in terminal care. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 18, 126-131. (No open access PDF)

2. Dunbar, SB, Warner, CD, Purcell, JA (1993). Internal cardioverter debrillator device discharge: Experiences of patients and family members. Heart Lung, 22, 494-501. (Open access PDF)

3. Quill, TE (1996). A midwife through the dying process: stories of healing and hard choices at the end of life. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Thursday, October 2, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·

Monday, May 26, 2008

Denying the Obvious: How to Approach Patients
Who Delay Medical Care for Advanced Breast Cancer


Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com. 


By Winifred G. Teuteberg, MD
Vol 8, No. 2 - March 2008
(Original PDF)

Case:
MM is a 77-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department with flu-like symptoms. On exam she had a large palpable mass in her left breast. A CT scan revealed a 10cm left breast mass and liver and lung metastases. After admission to the hospital, the breast mass was biopsied. The consulting oncologist met with MM and told her that she most certainly had metastatic breast cancer, although the biopsy results were not yet available. The primary service asked palliative care to see MM because of her advanced disease. There was also concern that she did not understand her diagnosis.

I came into the patient’s room and introduced myself, saying, “I see many of the breast cancer patients on this floor.” The patient stopped me, saying, “I don’t have cancer.” I apologized and asked if I might sit down and talk with her. I asked her to explain what she understood of her illness. She said she had fallen several months before and bruised her left breast. It had been sore ever since but she was otherwise fine until she developed “flu” and came to the emergency department. She understood that a scan showed “something in my liver,” but believed that without the biopsy she did not have cancer.
I explained that her doctors were concerned she had cancer. I then asked her what she was most worried about. She told me that her husband died from lung cancer the year before after a two-year battle with the disease. She said, “I’m afraid I’ll suffer the way he did with chemotherapy and radiation and die anyway.” I counseled her that some patients with metastatic breast cancer choose to focus on comfort, rather than pursue aggressive therapies that may not help them achieve more quality time. She was relieved to hear that this was possible. She was discharged with a plan to discuss treatment options with her oncologist but was also considering referral to hospice.
Discussion:
A large part of my clinical practice involves providing inpatient palliative care consults to breast cancer patients. During my three years of practice in this setting, I frequently encounter women presenting with palpable, often fungating, breast masses. In nearly all of these cases patients sought medical attention for a symptom not obviously related to the mass or at the request of a concerned friend or family member. Even after being told their diagnosis, patients often did not accept it and continued to believe their symptoms were related to something else. They can continue in this belief for months and sometimes years. When other health care providers encounter these patients, they are struck by the magnitude of their denial.
Upon review of the literature, denial of obvious breast cancer and delay in presentation for medical care is quite common. Approximately one third of patients present for evaluation more than 12 weeks after developing symptoms and about 5% present more than a year after noticeable symptoms. Most of these patients present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Studies identify several reasons for this delay, most of them related to the patients’ initial psychological response to their symptoms. Patients who delayed presentation were more likely to have significant fear of cancer itself and/or therapies for cancer including disfiguring surgery. Many patients noticed a lump but believed that the lump would go away or attributed it to another cause. Others did not know that breast cancer is a potentially curable illness and fatalistically did not seek treatment because they believed they were going to die no matter what they did. In several studies patients reported that they knew the symptom was serious, but were too busy caring for others such as young children or sick family members to take time to seek medical advice.
Interestingly, although some studies found a small increased incidence of psychiatric illness in patients who delayed presentation, studies found no significant differences in psychological well-being between patients with early versus late presentation.
When caring for such patients, it is important to realize that their reasons for delaying presentation or even acknowledging their illness are significant for them. Rather than initially attempting to change their beliefs and force them to accept their diagnosis, it is best to first explore their fears and identify ways to help allay these fears. In the case of MM, her fear was that she would suffer the way her husband did and die anyway. Although I was not able to cure her cancer, I was able to provide comfort by offering her a way to avoid the suffering that her husband endured.
References:
1. Phelan M, Dobbs J, David AS. ‘I thought it would go away’: patient denial in breast cancer. J R Soc Med 1992;85;206-207. Full PDF
2. Mohamed IE, Williams KS, Tamburrino MB, et al. Understanding locally advanced breast cancer: What influences a woman’s decision to delay treatment? Preventive Medicine 2005;41:399-405. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.12.012 [doi]
3. Burgess CC, Potts HWW, Hamed H, et al. Why do older women delay presentation with breast cancer symptoms? Psycho-Oncology 2006;15:962-968. 10.1002/pon.1030 [doi]

Monday, May 26, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·