Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Care in Vulnerable Elders
N. Wenger,K. Rosenfeld
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-8_Part_2-200110161-00006
IF: 39.2
2001-10-16
Annals of Internal Medicine
Abstract:Care for vulnerable elders, many of whom may be near the end of life, has come under increasing scrutiny in the past decade. Studies demonstrate inadequate quality of care with regard to symptom control, matching of care with patient preferences, and optimal resource use at the end of life (1). Several expert panels have concluded that end-of-life care requires improvement (2-4). Their recommendations provide a framework for integrating patient preferences into treatment decisions and for delivering high-quality end-of-life care. The Ethics Committee of the American Geriatrics Society identified areas for improving care at the end of life, including physical and emotional symptoms, support of function and autonomy, advance care planning, aggressiveness of care near death, and patient and family satisfaction (2). The Institute of Medicine Committee on Improving Care at the End of Life designated the following areas as needing improvement (3): overuse of care inconsistent with preferences and prognosis, underuse of care to treat symptoms, untimely referral to hospice, poor technical palliative care, and poor communication about prognosis and treatment preferences. Furthermore, in 1997 a New York State commission identified barriers to providing quality care to dying patients: inadequate professional and public education, legal and regulatory barriers, financial barriers, and underuse of hospice (4). While these panels did not explicitly call for development of measures of quality of end-of-life care, achieving their goals would require such measures. The quality indicators reported in this paper aim to assess the provision of care to achieve a good death. The Institute of Medicine committee defined a good death as one that is free from avoidable distress and suffering for patients, families and caregivers; in general accord with patients' and families' wishes; and reasonably consistent with clinical, cultural and ethical standards (3). Emanuel and Emanuel (5) describe a good death in terms of modifiable dimensions of the patient's experience, including symptoms, relationships and support, hopes, expectations, economic demands, caregiving needs, and spiritual and existential beliefs. Empirical research further describes the components of a good death. A study of 56 deaths identified teamwork, coordination, early nursing involvement, and specification of a key worker as essential for good terminal care (6). Focus groups of chronically ill patients yielded five domains of quality end-of-life care: pain and symptom management, avoiding prolongation of dying, achieving a sense of control, relieving burden, and strengthening relationships with loved ones (7, 8). Another qualitative study added clear decision making, contributing to the well-being of others, and affirmation of the whole person as essential components of a good death (9). In their framework of a good death, Emanuel and Emanuel postulate that five care-system interventions affect the patient's dying experience: family and friend interventions, psychosocial interventions, sociofinancial interventions, health care institution interventions, and medical provider interventions (5). The indicators presented here focus on institutional and medical provider interventions. Some measures of care at the end of life have been developed (for example, see the Toolkit of Instruments to Measure End-of-life Care at www.chcr.brown.edu/pcoc/toolkit.htm); however, most have not focused on the processes of end-of-life care. A major obstacle to developing quality indicators for end-of-life care lies in identifying the population to whom the indicators should apply. Even in an at-risk population such as vulnerable elders, patients with a very low probability of survival are difficult to identify with accuracy (10). Thus, the quality indicators presented here do not rely on stratification by prognosis. Instead, they focus on patient preferences for care (through advance care planning and decisions about aggressiveness of care) and palliation. A second obstacle to developing end-of-life quality indicators is the dearth of clinical trial evidence relevant to end-of-life care (11-13). As a result, most quality-of-care indicators in this paper are based on observational data and consensus opinion. Methods The methods for developing these quality indicators, including literature review and expert panel consideration, are detailed in a preceding paper (14). The end-of-life quality indicators adhere to a model in which care is tailored to match a patient's clinical circumstances and preferences. In this model, a patient must be informed of the clinical situation, including prognosis and treatment alternatives, so that values can be translated into preferences for care. Because these decisions might be needed at times when patients may not be capable of participation, treatment preferences or proxy decision makers might be elicited in advance. Advance directives are one way to formally specify surrogate decision makers and preferences. Preferences would be translated by clinicians into care plans, including decisions about life-sustaining treatments. In turn, such plans would dictate care in the perideath period, including palliative care and bereavement support. This process may be highly iterative, may involve multiple decisions made over time, and may include many clinicians and surrogate decision makers. The process is not necessarily linear, although we present it as such for simplicity (Figure). Figure. Model of processes leading to end-of-life care. Indicators 1 and 2 capture delineation of prognosis and treatment options, along with communication about choices in light of the patient's values. The first three processes are required for quality indicators 3, 4, and 5. Indicator 6 aims at preserving the information garnered in these efforts. Translation of preferences into care is the focus of indicators 7, 8, and 9. The final five indicators concern provision of care near the time of death. For end-of-life care, the structured literature review identified 16 281 titles, from which relevant abstracts and articles were identified. On the basis of the literature and the authors' expertise, 21 potential quality indicators were proposed. Results Of the 21 quality indicators considered by the expert panel, 14 were judged valid (see the quality indicators) and 7 were not accepted. The literature summaries that support each indicator judged to be valid by the expert panel process are described below. Quality Indicators 1 and 2 Surrogate Decision Makers and Advance Directives ALL vulnerable elders should have in their outpatient chart one of the following: 1) an advance directive indicating the patient's surrogate decision maker, 2) documentation of a discussion about who would be a surrogate decision maker or a search for a surrogate, or 3) indication that there is no identified surrogate. IF a vulnerable elder with dementia, coma, or altered mental status is admitted to the hospital, THEN within 48 hours of admission the medical record should 1) contain an advance directive indicating the patient's surrogate decision maker, 2) document a discussion about who would be a surrogate decision maker or a discussion about a search for a surrogate, or 3) indicate that there is no identified surrogate BECAUSE specification of a surrogate decision maker facilitates decision making for a patient who has lost decision-making capacity. Supporting Evidence. No clinical trials or observational studies have examined designation of surrogate decision makers for patients at risk for losing decision making capacity. This is in part because most studies have not used clinical end points (15). However, many consensus statements promote designation of a surrogate decision maker to improve decision making after incapacity. The Hastings Center guidelines (16) recommend that when a patient is diagnosed with having a condition that may eventually raise questions about the termination of treatment, the responsible health care professional and patient should begin talking about future options as early as possible. They suggest completion of an advance directive to designate a proxy (16). The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association suggests specification of a surrogate as a means of ensuring that an individuals' interests are promoted in case of future incapacity (17). One prospective study of physicians discussing advance directives with patients revealed that physicians recognized the correct surrogate decision maker 89% of the time after such a discussion (18). Quality Indicators 3 and 4 Documentation of Care Preferences IF a vulnerable elder carries a diagnosis of severe dementia, is admitted to the hospital, and survives 48 hours, THEN within 48 hours of admission, the medical record should document that the patient's prior preferences for care have been considered or that these preferences could not be elicited or are unknown. IF a vulnerable elder is admitted directly to the intensive care unit (from the outpatient setting or emergency department) and survives 48 hours, THEN within 48 hours of admission, the medical record should document that the patient's preferences for care have been considered or that these preferences could not be elicited or are unknown BECAUSE patients' values and preferences should guide life-sustaining care. Supporting Evidence. No clinical trials or observational studies link elicitation and documentation of preferences to clinical outcomes. However, observational data suggest that physician understanding of patient resuscitation preference is associated with a better match between those preferences and resuscitation attempts (19) and is associated with less end-of-life resource use (20). In a prospective trial of advance directives for nursing home residents, Danis and colleagues (21) showed a high correlation between documented care prefere