11 september 2017: Bron: PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e98246. Published online 2014 May 28.

Al jaren krijg ik regelmatig links toegestuurd van artikelen die beschrijven dat groot onderzoek zou hebben uitgewezen dat 88,3 procent van de artsen chemo zouden afwijzen als ze zelf ongeneeslijke kanker zouden hebben. Afgelopen week weer drie mailtjes van mensen die me daarop wezen n.a.v. artikel over Wim Huppes in de NRC

En altijd wijs ik die mensen op de originele studie die m.i. toch wat genuanceerder bekeken en beoordeeld moet worden. Ik geef deze informatie nu dan maar in een vraag en antwoord:

Hier een interview met dr. Periyakoil, de arts die deze studie uitvoerde. Zij zegt o.a. in dat interview:

"Waarom kiezen artsen ervoor om zo'n agressieve behandeling voor onze patiënten uit te voeren wanneer we het niet voor onszelf zouden kiezen?", aldus dr. Periyakoil, "De redenen zijn waarschijnlijk veelzijdig en complex."

De redenen waarom patienten wel of niet voor een behandeling kiezen waren deze:

1. Kueze om door te gaan (full-code status): “Ik wil dat mijn leven zo lang mogelijk wordt verlengd binnen de grenzen van algemeen aanvaarde medische behandelingsnormen "(of)
1. Keuze om niet door te gaan (no-code): “Ik wil niet dat mijn leven verlengd wordt als de waarschijnlijke risico's en lasten van de behandeling niet zouden opwegen tegen de verwachte voordelen, of als ik bewusteloos raak en gedacht vanuit een realistische mate van medische zekerheid niet meer tot bewustzijn zal komen of als ik een ongeneeslijke en onomkeerbare aandoening heb die tot mijn dood zal leiden."

Hier het volledige interview met dr. Periyakoil. daaronder het volledige originele studierapprot

Most physicians would forgo aggressive treatment for themselves at the end of life, study finds

Most physicians would choose a "no-code" status for themselves if they were terminally ill, but would tend to pursue aggressive treatment for patients facing a similar prognosis

May 28 2014

Most physicians would choose a do-not-resuscitate or “no code” status for themselves when they are terminally ill, yet they tend to pursue aggressive, life-prolonging treatment for patients facing the same prognosis, according to a study from the Stanford University School of Medicine.

It’s a disconnect that needs to be better understood, said VJ Periyakoil, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine and lead author of the study, which was published May 28 in PLOS ONE.

“Why do we physicians choose to pursue such aggressive treatment for our patients when we wouldn’t choose it for ourselves?” said Periyakoil, director of the Stanford Palliative Care Education and Training Program. “The reasons likely are multifaceted and complex.”

In the study, Periyakoil and her colleagues set out to determine how physicians’ attitudes have changed toward advance directives since passage of the Self-Determination Act in 1990, a law designed to give patients more control over determining end-of-life-care decisions. Advance directives are documents that patients can use to indicate end-of-life care preferences.>>>>>>lees verder het hele interview:

Hier de originele studie:

Do Unto Others: Doctors' Personal End-of-Life Resuscitation Preferences and Their Attitudes toward Advance Directives

De originele studie is in 2014 in PLIOS ONE online gepubliceerd: Do Unto Others: Doctors' Personal End-of-Life Resuscitation Preferences and Their Attitudes toward Advance Directives en gratis in te zien.

Hier het abstract van deze studie:

Our study raises questions about why doctors continue to provide high-intensity care for terminally ill patients but personally forego such care for themselves at the end of life.

. 2014; 9(5): e98246.

Published online 2014 May 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098246

PMCID: PMC4037207

Do Unto Others: Doctors' Personal End-of-Life Resuscitation Preferences and Their Attitudes toward Advance Directives

Vyjeyanthi S. Periyakoil,^1,^2,^* Eric Neri,¹ Ann Fong,³ and Helena Kraemer¹

Sam Eldabe, Editor

Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Objective

High-intensity interventions are provided to seriously-ill patients in the last months of life by medical sub-specialists. This study was undertaken to determine if doctors' age, ethnicity, medical sub-specialty and personal resuscitation and organ donation preferences influenced their attitudes toward Advance Directives (AD) and to compare a cohort of 2013 doctors to a 1989 (one year before the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990) cohort to determine any changes in attitudes towards AD in the past 23 years.

Design

Doctors in two academic medical centers participated in an AD simulation and attitudes survey in 2013 and their responses were compared to a cohort of doctors in 1989.

Outcomes

Resuscitation and organ donation preferences (2013 cohort) and attitudes toward AD (1989 and 2013 cohorts).

Results

In 2013, 1081 (94.2%) doctors of the 1147 approached participated. Compared to 1989, 2013 cohort did not feel that widespread acceptance of AD would result in less aggressive treatment even of patients who do not have an AD (p<0.001, AUC = 0.77); had greater confidence in their treatment decisions if guided by an AD (p<.001, AUC = 0.58) and were less worried about legal consequences of limiting treatment when following an AD (p<.001, AUC = 0.57). The gender (p = 0.00172), ethnicity (χ² 14.68, DF = 3,p = .0021) and sub-specialty (χ² 28.92, p = .004, DF = 12) influenced their attitudes towards AD. 88.3% doctors chose do-not-resuscitate status and wanted to become organ donors. Those less supportive of AD were more likely to opt for “full code” even if terminally ill and were less supportive of organ donation.

Conclusions

Doctors' attitudes towards AD has not changed significantly in the past 23 years. Doctors' gender, ethnicity and sub-specialty influence their attitudes towards AD. Our study raises questions about why doctors continue to provide high-intensity care for terminally ill patients but personally forego such care for themselves at the end of life.

References

1. Cutler DM, Ghosh K, Landrum MB (2013) Evidence for significant compression of morbidity in the elderly US population; Working Paper 19268 National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138.

2. Wu SY, Green A (2000) Projection of chronic illness prevalence and cost inflation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Health;.

3. Kung HC, Hoyert DL, Xu JQ, Murphy SL (2008) Deaths: final data for 2005. National Vital Statistics Reports 2008;56(10). Available: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf [PubMed]

4. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care website: Available: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/keyissues/issue.aspx?con=1338Accessed 2013 Oct 1.

5. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care website: Available: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/EOL_Trend_Report_0411.pdf Accessed 2013 Oct 1.

6. The California Health Care Foundation website: Available http://www.chcf.org/media/press-releases/2012/end-of-life-care#ixzz2eLhnscM1 Accessed 2013 Oct 1.

7. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care website: Available http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/data/topic/topic.aspx?cat=18Accessed 2013 Oct 1.

8. Periyakoil VS, Noda AM, Kraemer HC (2010) Assessment of factors influencing preservation of dignity at life's end: Creation and the cross-cultural validation of the preservation of Dignity Card-sort Tool. J Palliat Med 13: 495–500 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

9. Periyakoil VS, Kraemer HC, Noda A (2009) Creation and the empirical validation of the dignity card-sort tool to assess factors influencing erosion of dignity at life's end. J Palliat Med 12: 1125–1130 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

10. Barnato AE, Herndon MB, Anthony DL, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, et al. (2007) Are regional variations in end-of-life care intensity explained by patient preferences? A study of the US Medicare population. Med Care. May 45(5): 386–93 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

11. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care website. Available: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/preference_sensitive.pdfAccessed 2013 Oct 1.

12. Gallup GH Jr. Spiritual beliefs and the dying process: A report on a national survey (1997) Conducted for the Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Fetzer Institute.

13. Blondeau D, Valois P, Keyserlingk EW, Hébert M, Lavoie M (1998) Comparison of patients' and health care professionals' attitudes towards advance directives. J Med Ethics October 24(5): 328–335 PMCID: PMC1377609. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

14. Hughes DL, Singer PA (1992) Family physician's attitudes toward advance directives. CMAJ 146(11): 1937–1944.) [PMC free article] [PubMed]

15. Schüklenk U, Van Delden JJM, Downie J, Mclean S, Upshur R, et al. (2011) End-of-Life Decision-Making in Canada: The Report by the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision-Making Bioethics. 25(Suppl 1): 1–4. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3265521/pdf/bioe0025-0001.pdfAccessed 2013 Oct 1. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

16. Toller CA, Budge MM (2006) Compliance with and understanding of advance directives among trainee doctors in the United Kingdom. J Palliat Care 22: 141–6 [PubMed]

17. Bond CJ, Lowton K (2011) Geriatricians' view on advance decisions and their use in clinical care in England: qualitative study. Age Ageing 40(4): 450–456 [PubMed]

18. Davidson KW, MD; Hackler C, PhD; Caradine DR, MD; McCord RS (1989) MD (1989) Physicians' Attitudes on Advance Directives. JAMA 262(17): 2415–2419doi: 10.1001/jama.1989.03430170077032 [PubMed]

19. Library of Congress website. S.1766 - Patient Self Determination Act of 1989; Internet reference; accessed on 10–01-2013 Available: http://www.loc.gov/Accessed 2013 Oct 1.

20. Kraemer HC, Kupfer DJ (2006) Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice. Biol Psychiatry 59(11): 990–6 [PubMed]

21. Hsu LM (2004) Biases of success rate differences shown in binomial effect size displays. Psychol Bull 9: 183–197 [PubMed]

22. Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) “On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other”. Annals of Mathematical Statistics,18 (1): 50–60

23. Wilcoxon F (1945) “Individual comparisons by ranking methods”. Biometrics Bulletin, 1 (6): 80–83

24. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) “Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis”. Journal of the American Statistical Association; 47 (260): 583–621

25. Kraemer HC (2008) Sensitivity, Specificity and Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) Methods. Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials. 1–10.

26. Physician Specialty Data Book; Center of Workforce Studies, Association of the American Medical Colleges Website, (2012) Available https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/2012%20Physician%20Specialty%20Data%20Book.pdf Accessed 2013 Oct 1.

27. Redmann AJ, Brasel KJ, Alexander CG, Schwarze ML (2012) Use of Advance Directives for High-Risk Operations A National Survey of Surgeons. Annals of Surgery Volume 255, Number 3. [PubMed]

28. Schwarze ML, Bradley CT, Brasel KJ (2009) Surgical “buy-in”: The contractual relationship between surgeons and patients that influences decisions regarding life-supporting therapy. Crit Care Med 38: 843–848 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

29. Bradley CT, Brasel KJ, Schwarze ML (2010) Physician attitudes regarding advance directives for high-risk surgical patients: A qualitative analysis. Surgery 148: 209–216 [PubMed]

30. Cassell J, Buchman TG, Streat S, Stewart RM (2003) Surgeons, intensivists, and the covenant of care: Administrative models and values affecting care at the end of life-Updated. Crit Care Med 31: 1551–1559 [PubMed]

31. Gallo JJ, Straton JB, Klag MJ, Meoni LA, Sulmasy DP, et al. (2003) Life-Sustaining Treatments: What Do Physicians Want and Do They Express Their Wishes to Others?. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 51: 961–969doi: –10.1046/j.1365–2389.2003.51309.x [PubMed]

32. Straton JB, Wang NY, Meoni LA, Ford DE, Klag MJ, et al. (2004) Physical functioning, depression, and preferences for treatment at the end of life: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 52(4): 577–82 [PubMed]

33. Christakis NA, Lamont EB (2000) Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: Prospective cohort study. BMJ 320: 469–472 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

34. Maltoni M, Caraceni A, Brunelli C, Broeckaert B, Christakis N, et al. (2005) Prognostic factors in advanced cancer patients: evidence-based clinical recommendations–a study by the Steering Committee of the European Association for Palliative Care. J Clin Oncol 23(25): 6240–8 [PubMed]

35. Chow E, Harth T, Hruby G, Finkelstein J, Wu J, et al. (2001) How accurate are physicians' clinical predictions of survival and the available prognostic tools in estimating survival times in terminally ill cancer patients? A systematic review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 13(3): 209–18 [PubMed]

36. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, et al. (2010) Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 363(8): 733–42doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678 [PubMed]

37. Smits HL, Furletti M, Vladeck BC (2002). Palliative care: An opportunity for Medicare. New York: Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Institute for Medicare Practice;

38. Brotherton SE, Etzel SI (2013) Graduate Medical Education, 2012–2013 JAMA. 310(21): 2328–2346doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.278364 [PubMed]

39. Wittink MN, Morales KH, Meoni LA, Ford DE, Wang NY, et al. . (2008) Stability of preferences for end of life treatment after 3 years of follow-up: The Precursors Study. Archives of Internal Medicine;168(19): :2125–2130. PMCID: PMC2596594. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

40. Blechman JA, Rizk N, Stevens MM, Periyakoil VS (2013) Unmet quality indicators for metastatic cancer patients admitted to intensive care unit in the last two weeks of life. J Palliat Med ((10)) 1285–9doi: 10.1089/jpm.2013.0257. Epub 2013 Sep 10. PMID: 24020919 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science

chemo, artsen wijzen chemo af, palliatieve zorg, overleving, kwaliteit van leven