What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?

BACKGROUND: Priority setting, also known as rationing or resource allocation, occurs at all levels of every health care system. Daniels and Sabin have proposed a framework for priority setting in health care institutions called 'accountability for reasonableness', which links priority setting to theories of democratic deliberation. Fairness is a key goal of priority setting. According to 'accountability for reasonableness', health care institutions engaged in priority setting have a claim to fairness if they satisfy four conditions of relevance, publicity, appeals/revision, and enforcement. This is the first study which has surveyed the views of hospital decision makers throughout an entire health system about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions. The purpose of this study is to elicit hospital decision-makers' self-report of the fairness of priority setting in their hospitals using an explicit conceptual framework, 'accountability for reasonableness'. METHODS: 160 Ontario hospital Chief Executive Officers, or their designates, were asked to complete a survey questionnaire concerning priority setting in their publicly funded institutions. Eight-six Ontario hospitals completed this survey, for a response rate of 54%. Six close-ended rating scale questions (e.g. Overall, how fair is priority setting at your hospital?), and 3 open-ended questions (e.g. What do you see as the goal(s) of priority setting in your hospital?) were used. RESULTS: Overall, 60.7% of respondents indicated their hospitals' priority setting was fair. With respect to the 'accountability for reasonableness' conditions, respondents indicated their hospitals performed best for the relevance (75.0%) condition, followed by appeals/revision (56.6%), publicity (56.0%), and enforcement (39.5%). CONCLUSIONS: For the first time hospital Chief Executive Officers within an entire health system were surveyed about the fairness of priority setting practices in their institutions using the conceptual framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. Although many hospital CEOs felt that their priority setting was fair, ample room for improvement was noted, especially for the enforcement condition

Comparing Utilization of Life-Sustaining Treatments with Patient and Public Preferences

OBJECTIVE: The movement for advance planning of end-of-life care was motivated in part by the assumption that medical intervention for terminally ill patients varies from what these patients would prefer. We examined the validity of this assumption by comparing actual life-sustaining treatment practices for patients in critical illness scenarios and surveyed patients' advance care preferences. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We selected at random and reviewed 7,400 inpatient medical records from a single urban teaching hospital during the period just prior to the Patient Self-Determination Act. Records of 198 patients with conditions that matched advance directive scenarios were examined, and practices to withhold or withdraw seven life-sustaining treatments were documented. Practices were compared with surveyed preferences of 102 members of the general public and 495 outpatients who were followed by the same physicians as the 198 patients. Concordance of practices and preferences for the 19 surveyed outpatients who eventually fell into one of the scenarios was also evaluated. One hundred sixty-seven inpatient cases met review criteria for the scenario coma with a small chance of recovery. Hospital patients received medical interventions that were not consistently greater or less than the preferences of the surveyed outpatients or members of the general public. Resuscitation, the most frequently withheld treatment (94% of cases), was withheld more often than surveyed preferences to decline it (56% of outpatients, p < .001). Four treatments—mechanical breathing, artificial nutrition, major surgery, and hemodialysis—were utilized comparably to surveyed outpatients' preferences (range p=.704 –.055). Antibiotics and artificial hydration were withheld (9% and 6%, respectively) less often than surveyed outpatient's prior preferences to decline them (48% and 52%, respectively, p < .001 for each). Conversely, treatments given to the 19 surveyed patients who subsequently developed one of the illness scenarios were often incongruent with the patients' prior preferences. Again, in some cases more interventions were provided (26 of 63 declined treatments were given), and in some cases less (10 of 21 desired treatments were withheld). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the assumption that, collectively, patients' advance care preferences are less interventionist than actual practices for patients in corresponding scenarios. Nevertheless, these results do support the assumption that life-sustaining treatment decisions do not conform well to individual patients' specific preferences. Progress in end-of-life care should focus on shared decision making at the patient-proxy-physician level rather than on overall life-sustaining treatments utilization

Resuscitation Research: Future Directions and Ethical Issues

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation research is a vital area of research that has made significant contributions to medical care over the last several decades. Abundant information currently exists in the medical literature, as a result of research in the areas of cardiac arrest and outcomes, physiology of cardiac arrest, pharmacologic treatments, mechanical interventions, and societal and ethical issues. Despite numerous clinical trials demonstrating physiologic benefit of various interventions, few interventions have had as much impact on outcomes of cardiac arrest as have improvements in out-of-hospital response times and rapid availability of medical treatment. Although abundant information exists regarding physiologic aspects of resuscitation, relatively little information exists about ethical, psychological, and social aspects of resuscitation. In addition to attempts to improve outcomes of cardiac arrest, researchers should also strive to improve the experiences of patients and families involved. These realities provide future strategies and directions for the best use of resuscitation research resources; although physiologic and pharmacologic research will always have significant roles in the improvement of medical care, the rapid delivery of out-of-hospital care and ethical issues will be indispensable areas of research focus in the future

End-Of-Life Decision Making: A Qualitative Study of Elderly Individuals

OBJECTIVE: To identify the desired features of end-of-life medical decision making from the perspective of elderly individuals. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews and analysis from a phenomenologic perspective. SETTING: A senior center and a multilevel retirement community in Los Angeles. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one elderly informants (mean age 83 years) representing a spectrum of functional status and prior experiences with end-of-life decision making. MAIN RESULTS: Informants were concerned primarily with the outcomes of serious illness rather than the medical interventions that might be used, and defined treatments as desirable to the extent they could return the patient to his or her valued life activities. Advanced age was a relevant consideration in decision making, guided by concerns about personal losses and the meaning of having lived a “full life.” Decision-making authority was granted both to physicians (for their technical expertise) and family members (for their concern for the patient's interests), and shifted from physician to family as the patient's prognosis for functional recovery became grim. Expressions of care, both by patients and family members, were often important contributors to end-of-life treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that advance directives and physician-patient discussions that focus on acceptable health states and valued life activities may be better suited to patients' end-of-life care goals than those that focus on specific medical interventions, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We propose a model of collaborative surrogate decision making by families and physicians that encourages physicians to assume responsibility for recommending treatment plans, including the provision or withholding of specific life-sustaining treatments, when such recommendations are consistent with patients' and families' goals for care