Code Status Discussions Between Attending Hospitalist Physicians and Medical Patients at Hospital Admission

BackgroundBioethicists and professional associations give specific recommendations for discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).ObjectiveTo determine whether attending hospitalist physicians' discussions meet these recommendations.DesignCross-sectional observational study on the medical services at two hospitals within a university system between August 2008 and March 2009.ParticipantsAttending hospitalist physicians and patients who were able to communicate verbally about their medical care.Main measuresWe identified code status discussions in audio-recorded admission encounters via physician survey and review of encounter transcripts. A quantitative content analysis was performed to determine whether discussions included elements recommended by bioethicists and professional associations. Two coders independently coded all discussions; Cohen's kappa was 0.64-1 for all reported elements.Key resultsAudio-recordings of 80 patients' admission encounters with 27 physicians were obtained. Eleven physicians discussed code status in 19 encounters. Discussions were more frequent in seriously ill patients (OR 4, 95% CI 1.2-14.6), yet 66% of seriously ill patients had no discussion. The median length of the code status discussions was 1 min (range 0.2-8.2). Prognosis was discussed with code status in only one of the encounters. Discussions of patients' preferences focused on the use of life-sustaining interventions as opposed to larger life goals. Descriptions of CPR as an intervention used medical jargon, and the indication for CPR was framed in general, as opposed to patient-specific scenarios. No physician quantitatively estimated the outcome of or provided a recommendation about the use of CPR.ConclusionsCode status was not discussed with many seriously ill patients. Discussions were brief, and did not include elements that bioethicists and professional associations recommend to promote patient autonomy. Local and national guidelines, research, and clinical practice changes are needed to clarify and systematize with whom and how CPR is discussed at hospital admission

Clinical ethics revisited

A decade ago, we reviewed the field of clinical ethics; assessed its progress in research, education, and ethics committees and consultation; and made predictions about the future of the field. In this article, we revisit clinical ethics to examine our earlier observations, highlight key developments, and discuss remaining challenges for clinical ethics, including the need to develop a global perspective on clinical ethics problems

Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review

Background: Research on interventions to positively impact health and housing status of people who are homeless has received substantially increased attention over the past 5 years. This rapid review examines recent evidence regarding interventions that have been shown to improve the health of homeless people, with particular focus on the effect of these interventions on housing status. Methods: A total of 1,546 articles were identified by a structured search of five electronic databases, a hand search of grey literature and relevant journals, and contact with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the first 10% of titles and abstracts for relevance. Inter-rater reliability was high and as a result only one reviewer screened the remaining titles and abstracts. Articles were included if they were published between January 2004 and December 2009 and examined the effectiveness of an intervention to improve the health or healthcare utilization of people who were homeless, marginally housed, or at risk of homelessness. Two reviewers independently scored all relevant articles for quality. Results: Eighty-four relevant studies were identified; none were of strong quality while ten were rated of moderate quality. For homeless people with mental illness, provision of housing upon hospital discharge was effective in improving sustained housing. For homeless people with substance abuse issues or concurrent disorders, provision of housing was associated with decreased substance use, relapses from periods of substance abstinence, and health services utilization, and increased housing tenure. Abstinent dependent housing was more effective in supporting housing status, substance abstinence, and improved psychiatric outcomes than non-abstinence dependent housing or no housing. Provision of housing also improved health outcomes among homeless populations with HIV. Health promotion programs can decrease risk behaviours among homeless populations. Conclusions: These studies provide important new evidence regarding interventions to improve health, housing status, and access to healthcare for homeless populations. The additional studies included in this current review provide further support for earlier evidence which found that coordinated treatment programs for homeless persons with concurrent mental illness and substance misuse issues usually result in better health and access to healthcare than usual care. This review also provides a synthesis of existing evidence regarding interventions that specifically support homeless populations with HIV.Partial funding for this paper was provided to the Effective Public Health Practice Project by the Region of Peel, Canada