7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Accounting for Patient Preferences Regarding Life-Sustaining Treatment in Evaluations of Medical Effectiveness and Quality

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d4248448e213">The importance of understanding patient preferences for life-sustaining treatment is well described for individual clinical decisions; however, its role in evaluations of healthcare outcomes and quality has received little attention. Decisions to limit life-sustaining therapies are strongly associated with high risks for death in ways that are unaccounted for by routine measures of illness severity. However, this essential information is generally unavailable to researchers, with the potential for spurious inferences. This may lead to “confounding by unmeasured patient preferences” (a type of confounding by indication) and has implications for assessments of treatment effectiveness and healthcare quality, especially in acute and critical care settings in which risk for death and adverse events are high. Through a collection of case studies, we explore the effect of unmeasured patient resuscitation preferences on issues critical for researchers and research consumers to understand. We then propose strategies to more consistently elicit, record, and harmonize documentation of patient preferences that can be used to attenuate confounding by unmeasured patient preferences and provide novel opportunities to improve the patient centeredness of medical care for serious illness. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The construction of preference.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of advance care planning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            To systematically review the efficacy of advance care planning (ACP) interventions in different adult patient populations. Systematic review and meta-analyses. Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 to September 2013), and reference lists. Randomized controlled trials that describe original data on the efficacy of ACP interventions in adult populations and were written in English. Fifty-five studies were identified. Study details were recorded using a predefined data abstraction form. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale by 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analytic techniques were conducted using a random effects model. Analyses were stratified for type of intervention: 'advance directives' and 'communication.' Primary outcome measures were completion of advance directives and occurrence of end-of-life discussions. Secondary outcomes were concordance between preferences for care and delivered care, knowledge of ACP, end-of-life care preferences, quality of communication, satisfaction with healthcare, decisional conflict, use of healthcare services, and symptoms. Interventions focusing on advance directives as well as interventions that also included communication about end-of-life care increased the completion of advance directives and the occurrence of end-of-life care discussions between patients and healthcare professionals. In addition, interventions that also included communication about ACP, improved concordance between preferences for care and delivered care and may improve other outcomes, such as quality of communication. ACP interventions increase the completion of advance directives, occurrence of discussions about ACP, concordance between preferences for care and delivered care, and are likely to improve other outcomes for patients and their loved ones in different adult populations. Future studies are necessary to reveal the effective elements of ACP and should focus on the best way to implement structured ACP in standard care. Copyright © 2014 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing the Sensitivity of Regression Results to Unmeasured Confounders in Observational Studies

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
                Am J Respir Crit Care Med
                American Thoracic Society
                1073-449X
                1535-4970
                October 15 2017
                October 15 2017
                : 196
                : 8
                : 958-963
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, the Pulmonary Center, and
                [2 ]Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Section of Decision Sciences, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [4 ]Department of Health Care Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [5 ]Center for Healthcare Organization &amp; Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts; and
                [6 ]Division of Cardiovascular Medicine and Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
                Article
                10.1164/rccm.201701-0165CP
                5649985
                28379717
                8e827f10-1577-49ec-85be-23eb0bf1ff7f
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article