End-of-Life Care: Guidelines for Patient-Centered Communication



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 2008 Jan 15;77(2):167-174.

  Related Content

When patients are diagnosed with cancer, primary care physicians often must deliver the bad news, discuss the prognosis, and make appropriate referrals. When delivering bad news, it is important to prioritize the key points that the patient should retain. Physicians should assess the patient's emotional state, readiness to engage in the discussion, and level of understanding about the condition. The discussion should be tailored according to these assessments. Often, multiple visits are needed. When discussing prognosis, physicians should be sensitive to variations in how much information patients want to know. The challenge for physicians is to communicate prognosis accurately without giving false hope. All physicians involved in the patient's care should coordinate their key prognosis points to avoid giving the patient mixed messages. As the disease progresses, physicians must reassess treatment effectiveness and discuss the values, goals, and preferences of the patient and family. It is important to initiate conversations about palliative care early in the disease course when the patient is still feeling well. There are innovative hospice programs that allow for simultaneous curative and palliative care. When physicians discuss the transition from curative to palliative care, they should avoid phrases that may convey to the patient a sense of failure or abandonment. Physicians also must be cognizant of how cultural factors may affect end-of-life discussions. Sensitivity to a patient's cultural and individual preferences will help the physician avoid stereotyping and making incorrect assumptions.

Primary care physicians have the opportunity to maintain long-term, trusting relationships with patients and are well positioned to discuss difficult issues such as newly diagnosed cancer or terminal illness.1 However, primary care physicians may not feel equipped to discuss end-of-life care. The lack of physician training in this area and patient or physician fear may lead to discomfort when communicating bad news.2 Providing care throughout a patient's illness can be highly gratifying for physicians and may lead to better patient outcomes. Using a systematic approach can help primary care physicians discuss prognosis appropriately, offer realistic hope, provide therapeutic options, coordinate disease transitions, and relieve patient suffering.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References

When preparing to give bad news, it is important for physicians to assess the patient's level of understanding about the disease and expectations for the future.

C

2, 11, 12, 14

When preparing to give bad news, it is important for the physician to assess how much information the patient wants to know and to tailor the discussion appropriately.

C

3, 15

The primary care physician should remain involved with patient care during the early, middle, and late stages of cancer.

C

22

Physicians should initiate discussions about the availability of coordinated, symptom-directed services such as palliative care early in the disease process; as the disease progresses, physicians should transition from curative to palliative therapy.

C

23, 24

Physicians should avoid phrases and words that can be misconstrued by the patient and lead to negative interpretations such as abandonment and failure.

C

12, 14, 27

During end-of-life communication, physicians should assess and be sensitive to the patient's cultural and individual preferences.

C

2834


A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, see page 131 or http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

View Table

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References

When preparing to give bad news, it is important for physicians to assess the patient's level of understanding about the disease and expectations for the future.

C

2, 11, 12, 14

When preparing to give bad news, it is important for the physician to assess how much information the patient wants to know and to tailor the discussion appropriately.

C

3, 15

The primary care physician should remain involved with patient care during the early, middle, and late stages of cancer.

C

22

Physicians should initiate discussions about the availability of coordinated, symptom-directed services such as palliative care early in the disease process; as the disease progresses, physicians should transition from curative to palliative therapy.

C

23, 24

Physicians should avoid phrases and words that can be misconstrued by the patient and lead to negative interpretations such as abandonment and failure.

C

12, 14, 27

During end-of-life communication, physicians should assess and be sensitive to the patient's cultural and individual preferences.

C

2834


A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, see page 131 or http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

Communicating Bad News

Illustrative case, part A: A 57-year-old female schoolteacher recently received a screening colonoscopy. During the procedure, a 2-cm × 2-cm sigmoid mass was biopsied. The mass was diagnosed as a poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. The patient is waiting at the clinic to see her primary care physician to discuss the results.

Breaking bad news, particularly discussing prognosis, requires a combination of disease-specific biomedical knowledge and excellent communication skills.3 When bad news is delivered incorrectly, it can lead to long-term consequences such as poor psychological adjustment for patients.4,5  Therefore, recommendations have been developed to help physicians appropriately deliver bad news (Table 1).2,514

Table 1

Recommendations for Patient-Centered Communication When Discussing Bad News

Recommendation Comments

Prioritize: Prioritize what you want to accomplish during the discussion

Ask yourself: What are two to four key points that the patient should retain? What decisions should be made during this encounter? What is reasonable to expect from the patient during this encounter?

Practice and prepare: Practice giving bad news; arrange for an environment conducive to delivering the news

Rehearse the discussion; arrange for a private location without interruptions; set cell phones and pagers to vibrate or turn them off; ask the patient if he or she wants to invite family members

Assess patient understanding: Start with opening questions, rather than medical statements, to determine the patient's level of understanding about the situation

Ask the patient: “What do you already know about your condition?” “What does it mean to you?” “What do you think will happen?”

Determine patient preferences: Ask what and how much information the patient wants to know

Assess how the patient wants the information presented; ask the patient, “Some of my patients prefer hearing only the big picture, whereas others want a lot of details. Which do you prefer?”

Present information: Deliver information to the patient using language that is easy to understand (do not use medical jargon); provide a small amount of information at a time; check periodically for patient comprehension

Provide a few pieces of information, and then ask the patient to repeat it back to you

Provide emotional support: Allow the patient to express his or her emotions; respond with empathy

Assess the patient's emotional state directly and often (ask the patient: “How are you doing?” “Is this hard for you?” “You look frustrated/disappointed/angry—is that true?” “Let me know when we should continue”); use nonverbal cues such as eye contact; listen to what the patient says and validate his or her reactions with empathic statements such as “I understand that this is very difficult news.”

Discuss options for the future: Devise a plan for subsequent visits and care

Help the patient understand the expected disease course and how the disease may or may not respond to treatment; schedule follow-up visits (ask the patient: “Can we meet next week to discuss treatment options and any questions you may have?”)

Offer additional support: Provide information about support services

Bring handouts and pamphlets to the visit; refer the patient to support groups, psychologists, social workers, or chaplains

Consider individual preferences: Assess patient preferences, and tailor the discussion appropriately

Consider the patient's sex, age, health literacy, health status, previous health care experiences, social status, culture, and race/ethnicity; avoid assumptions about what the patient is likely to want; ask the patient directly about values and preferences


Information from references 2 and 5 through 14.

Table 1   Recommendations for Patient-Centered Communication When Discussing Bad News

View Table

Table 1

Recommendations for Patient-Centered Communication When Discussing Bad News

Recommendation Comments

Prioritize: Prioritize what you want to accomplish during the discussion

Ask yourself: What are two to four key points that the patient should retain? What decisions should be made during this encounter? What is reasonable to expect from the patient during this encounter?

Practice and prepare: Practice giving bad news; arrange for an environment conducive to delivering the news

Rehearse the discussion; arrange for a private location without interruptions; set cell phones and pagers to vibrate or turn them off; ask the patient if he or she wants to invite family members

Assess patient understanding: Start with opening questions, rather than medical statements, to determine the patient's level of understanding about the situation

Ask the patient: “What do you already know about your condition?” “What does it mean to you?” “What do you think will happen?”

Determine patient preferences: Ask what and how much information the patient wants to know

Assess how the patient wants the information presented; ask the patient, “Some of my patients prefer hearing only the big picture, whereas others want a lot of details. Which do you prefer?”

Present information: Deliver information to the patient using language that is easy to understand (do not use medical jargon); provide a small amount of information at a time; check periodically for patient comprehension

Provide a few pieces of information, and then ask the patient to repeat it back to you

Provide emotional support: Allow the patient to express his or her emotions; respond with empathy

Assess the patient's emotional state directly and often (ask the patient: “How are you doing?” “Is this hard for you?” “You look frustrated/disappointed/angry—is that true?” “Let me know when we should continue”); use nonverbal cues such as eye contact; listen to what the patient says and validate his or her reactions with empathic statements such as “I understand that this is very difficult news.”

Discuss options for the future: Devise a plan for subsequent visits and care

Help the patient understand the expected disease course and how the disease may or may not respond to treatment; schedule follow-up visits (ask the patient: “Can we meet next week to discuss treatment options and any questions you may have?”)

Offer additional support: Provide information about support services

Bring handouts and pamphlets to the visit; refer the patient to support groups, psychologists, social workers, or chaplains

Consider individual preferences: Assess patient preferences, and tailor the discussion appropriately

Consider the patient's sex, age, health literacy, health status, previous health care experiences, social status, culture, and race/ethnicity; avoid assumptions about what the patient is likely to want; ask the patient directly about values and preferences


Information from references 2 and 5 through 14.

Physicians should customize discussions, especially in situations that are stressful for the patient. Specifically, physicians should assess the patient's understanding (“Tell me what you know about this disease.”); emotional state (“This is a lot to take. How are you doing?”); and readiness to engage in the discussion (“Let me know when you're ready to continue.”). At each visit, physicians should assess whether patients have physical or psychological symptoms that need to be addressed (“How are you doing/coping?” “Is anything interfering with your quality of life?”).2,613

Discussing Prognosis

Illustrative case, part B: After surgery, the patient was diagnosed with stage III, two–node-positive colon cancer. Her oncologist discussed the prognosis with her and recommended adjuvant chemotherapy. The patient is still confused about what to do. Distraught, she calls her primary care physician and asks, “What should I do? Will I die soon?”

It is best to discuss prognosis after accurate cancer staging. In preparation, all physicians involved in the patient's care should coordinate their key prognosis messages to avoid confusing the patient. Physicians should be prepared to discuss the natural history of the disease, treatment and its adverse effects and outcomes, and the patient's probable quality of life. Additionally, physicians should discuss expected five- to 10-year survival rates, with and without treatment, and should address patient fears (e.g., fear of undergoing treatment, suffering, abandonment, or death). Empathic listening can ease and comfort patients.

Physicians should assess the patient's desire and readiness to receive the prognosis.3,15,16 The desired amount of information varies among patients. Approximately 80 percent of patients want detailed information about their prognosis, whereas 20 percent prefer not to know complete prognostic information.17,18 Thus, physicians should assess how much information to provide using patient-centered communication (Figure 13,15,16).

Patient-Centered Communication When Discussing a Bad Prognosis.

Figure 1.

Algorithm for patient-centered communication when discussing a bad prognosis.

Information from references 3,15, and 16.

View Large

Patient-Centered Communication When Discussing a Bad Prognosis.


Figure 1.

Algorithm for patient-centered communication when discussing a bad prognosis.

Information from references 3,15, and 16.

Patient-Centered Communication When Discussing a Bad Prognosis.


Figure 1.

Algorithm for patient-centered communication when discussing a bad prognosis.

Information from references 3,15, and 16.

After assessing the patient's readiness to receive prognostic information, the physician should focus on communicating the prognosis without giving false hope.19 One approach focuses on expectations (hoping for the best, planning for the worst), which allows physicians to discuss the worst-case scenario with the patient without taking away the possibility of the best-case scenario. After acknowledging the patient's expression of hope, the physician can ask whether the patient thinks that hope is realistic or probable.

Another approach focuses on providing the patient with a full spectrum of treatment options. A recent study showed that some patients elected to participate in phase I clinical trials of chemotherapy, even though the likelihood of benefit was low. When asked why they chose to participate in these trials, patients reported feeling like they had to do something.20 Providing options can validate the patient's need to be actively involved in his or her care.

Similarly, another approach focuses on sequential treatment options. In this approach, the physician supports the patient in undergoing a treatment, but also discusses what the next step would be if the initial treatment is unsuccessful. This approach sets practical parameters and allows discussion of alternatives if the goals of care are not attained.

The goals of care change as the disease progresses. At each stage, the physician should help the patient create realistic, achievable goals and hopes. Initially, patients might hope that the cancer responds to chemotherapy or surgery. When disease control is no longer possible, patients might hope to live pain free, achieve closure on personal issues, or die surrounded by friends and family. Focusing on stage-specific goals and hopes can prevent over- and undertreatment while relieving the patient's psychological distress.21

The Physician's Role at Different Stages of Disease

Illustrative case, part C: The patient's functional status has deteriorated rapidly. During chemotherapy, she developed esophagitis and recurrent neutropenic fever. Now, abdominal studies demonstrate early obstruction. Her primary care physician asks himself, “At this stage, what is my role in her care?”

The primary care physician's role changes at each stage of a patient's illness (Table 22,6,12,16,22). Ideally, primary care physicians form the backbone of an integrated team by providing an unbiased medical perspective, providing continuity during a stressful disease course, supporting patients and their families through emotional ups and downs, negotiating or mediating decisions, monitoring for complications, and providing perspective on the illness.6 This role is tempered by practical considerations such as the physician's practice and relationships with colleagues, available resources, and individual patient needs.

Table 2

The Primary Care Physician's Role in Patient Care During Different Stages of Cancer

Role Early stage Middle stage Late stage

Breaking bad news

Discuss diagnosis, disease course, therapeutic options, patient/family values and goals, and treatment preferences

Discuss treatment effectiveness

Assess patient/family understanding of prognosis and disease course

Communicating prognosis

Discuss expected prognosis

Help the patient understand changes in prognosis and refocus expectations; revisit values and preferences

Objectively discuss the advantages and disadvantages of experimental treatment, if offered by a subspecialist; discuss palliative care options such as hospice

Discussing disease transitions

Focus primarily on medical treatment while assessing palliative needs; the goal is extending life while improving quality of life

Focus on medical treatment and palliative needs

Focus explicitly on palliative care to relieve symptoms (e.g., pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, nausea); the goal is improving quality of life, including treatment of metastatic disease that is causing symptoms (e.g., bowel obstruction, bony metastasis)

Coordinating care

After referring the patient to a subspecialist, request that the patient schedule follow-up visits with you; ask the subspecialist to update you on the patient's care

Monitor the patient for symptoms and adverse effects (physical and psychological); discuss hospice as a therapeutic option; encourage the patient to begin advance care planning (e.g., advance directives, durable power of attorney for health care, living will) in case of deteriorating health

Discuss likely benefits and harms of major therapeutic options; discuss palliative care options

Providing support

Allow the patient to express emotion; answer questions and address concerns; provide emotional support and empathy; refer patient and family to support groups or counseling

Answer questions and address concerns; provide emotional support and empathy

Answer questions and address concerns; provide emotional support and empathy; reassure the patient that he or she will not be abandoned


Information from references 2, 6, 12, 16, and 22.

Table 2   The Primary Care Physician's Role in Patient Care During Different Stages of Cancer

View Table

Table 2

The Primary Care Physician's Role in Patient Care During Different Stages of Cancer

Role Early stage Middle stage Late stage

Breaking bad news

Discuss diagnosis, disease course, therapeutic options, patient/family values and goals, and treatment preferences

Discuss treatment effectiveness

Assess patient/family understanding of prognosis and disease course

Communicating prognosis

Discuss expected prognosis

Help the patient understand changes in prognosis and refocus expectations; revisit values and preferences

Objectively discuss the advantages and disadvantages of experimental treatment, if offered by a subspecialist; discuss palliative care options such as hospice

Discussing disease transitions

Focus primarily on medical treatment while assessing palliative needs; the goal is extending life while improving quality of life

Focus on medical treatment and palliative needs

Focus explicitly on palliative care to relieve symptoms (e.g., pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, nausea); the goal is improving quality of life, including treatment of metastatic disease that is causing symptoms (e.g., bowel obstruction, bony metastasis)

Coordinating care

After referring the patient to a subspecialist, request that the patient schedule follow-up visits with you; ask the subspecialist to update you on the patient's care

Monitor the patient for symptoms and adverse effects (physical and psychological); discuss hospice as a therapeutic option; encourage the patient to begin advance care planning (e.g., advance directives, durable power of attorney for health care, living will) in case of deteriorating health

Discuss likely benefits and harms of major therapeutic options; discuss palliative care options

Providing support

Allow the patient to express emotion; answer questions and address concerns; provide emotional support and empathy; refer patient and family to support groups or counseling

Answer questions and address concerns; provide emotional support and empathy

Answer questions and address concerns; provide emotional support and empathy; reassure the patient that he or she will not be abandoned


Information from references 2, 6, 12, 16, and 22.

Negotiating this role to the satisfaction of everyone involved in the patient's care requires open communication. Simple questions can be asked to clarify each participants expectations: (1) to the patient: “Do you understand what is going to happen next? How are you and your family coping with this news?”; (2) to the subspecialist: “What are the expected benefits and harms from this new treatment? How much benefit accrues to the patient?”; and (3) To the health care team: “What additional resources can we mobilize for the patient?”

Primary care physicians may need to be proactive to stay involved in the patient's care.2 When referring a patient to an oncologist, primary care physicians can communicate their desire to continue caring for the patient. The physician also can ask subspecialists who are caring for the patient to provide periodic updates, and the physician can offer input or advice if the subspecialists have questions. The physician can schedule follow-up visits with the patient, even while the patient is undergoing chemotherapy or radiation.

However, primary care physicians may be uncomfortable with cancer care and may wish to transition the care of the patient to an oncologist or palliative care subspecialist. In this instance, it is important for the physician to communicate to the patient that the physician is still available, but that the subspecialists will be the main caregivers.

During the disease course, the patient's palliative and medical needs intensify. Innovative models can help physicians bridge the gap between traditional curative care and palliative care.2325 Physicians assess palliative needs (for relief of suffering) throughout treatment. As the disease progresses, the focus shifts from curative therapy to palliative therapy. During this transition, the primary care physician should offer realistic hope and provide guidance in choosing appropriate treatment and palliative strategies.

Using simultaneous-care models, physicians can provide palliative and curative care at the same time. Newer open-access hospices provide full hospice care while allowing patients to receive disease-directed therapy. In many open-access hospices, patients may receive chemotherapy, radiation, blood transfusions, dialysis, or total parenteral nutrition.

Patients also may receive intense skilled palliative care at home (home-based hospice), often with family members as paid caregivers. A home-based hospice program is a modified version of the traditional home care model and, based on the argument that palliative care is a skilled need, is paid for by most insurance companies. Research shows that, compared with traditional home care, home-based hospice programs can improve patient satisfaction, reduce emergency department and physician office visits, and shorten nursing home and hospital stays while reducing costs by 45 percent.26

When discussing the option of hospice or other palliative care, physicians must be careful not to convey to the patient a sense of abandonment. Early in medical training, physicians may learn to use phrases that reflect a singular focus on curative therapy. If physicians see their role as only to cure disease, they may subconsciously convey their sense of failure to the patient if curative treatments are unsuccessful, and that cessation of curative options means the end of the physician's care. The shift from curative to palliative care is merely a change in the type of care that the physician is providing. Table 3 offers alternatives to commonly misconstrued physician phrases used in end-of-life discussions.12,14,27

Table 3

Commonly Misconstrued Physician Phrases Used in End-of-Life Discussions with Patients

Physician phrase Possible patient interpretation Alternative phrase

“There's nothing we can do for you”

Abandonment: “My physician doesn't want to see me anymore”

“We can offer many options to control your symptoms and make you feel better”

“It's time to think about withdrawal of care”

Cessation of care: “My physician doesn't want to care for me anymore”

“Do you think that it is time to consider a different type of treatment that focuses on your symptoms? I'll be here with you no matter what you decide”

“Do you want us to do everything that we can to keep you alive (e.g., artificial life support)?”

Cessation of appropriate care: “If I don't have them do everything, I won't get the best medical care”

“If you become extremely ill, would you want to be put on artificial life support, or would you prefer a natural death?”

“You've failed the treatment (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation)”

Personal failure: “I've disappointed my physician”

“The cancer has not responded to the treatment as we had hoped. How are you doing?”

“I think you should consider hospice”

Despair and hopelessness: “I'm going to die soon”

“I want to provide intense, coordinated care with a team of professionals who will treat your symptoms and help you stay comfortable”


Information from references 12, 14, and 27.

Table 3   Commonly Misconstrued Physician Phrases Used in End-of-Life Discussions with Patients

View Table

Table 3

Commonly Misconstrued Physician Phrases Used in End-of-Life Discussions with Patients

Physician phrase Possible patient interpretation Alternative phrase

“There's nothing we can do for you”

Abandonment: “My physician doesn't want to see me anymore”

“We can offer many options to control your symptoms and make you feel better”

“It's time to think about withdrawal of care”

Cessation of care: “My physician doesn't want to care for me anymore”

“Do you think that it is time to consider a different type of treatment that focuses on your symptoms? I'll be here with you no matter what you decide”

“Do you want us to do everything that we can to keep you alive (e.g., artificial life support)?”

Cessation of appropriate care: “If I don't have them do everything, I won't get the best medical care”

“If you become extremely ill, would you want to be put on artificial life support, or would you prefer a natural death?”

“You've failed the treatment (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation)”

Personal failure: “I've disappointed my physician”

“The cancer has not responded to the treatment as we had hoped. How are you doing?”

“I think you should consider hospice”

Despair and hopelessness: “I'm going to die soon”

“I want to provide intense, coordinated care with a team of professionals who will treat your symptoms and help you stay comfortable”


Information from references 12, 14, and 27.

Cultural Diversity and Individual Preferences

When a patient and physician enter into end-of-life discussions, each brings individual cultural backgrounds and values, which influence the discussions. Although understanding cultural norms is important, physicians must be careful to avoid stereotyping patients based on their culture.28

Individual culture is influenced by the culture of the family, religion and spirituality, education, occupation, social class, friends, and personal preferences. Asking open-ended questions can elicit the patient's preferences for physician frankness, decision making, and direct versus indirect communication (Table 42834). Conflicts may arise when patients and families want care that physicians think is medically futile. Physicians may prevent misunderstanding and promote trust by respectfully listening to patients' beliefs and values and by negotiating mutually acceptable goals.

Table 4

Considerations for Cultural and Individual Patient Preferences in End-of-Life Discussions

Considerations Questions for patients Potential consequences

Physician frankness (indirect or direct communication)

“How much do you want to know about your medical condition at this time?”

Physician may be regarded as rude, cruel, and uncaring if the physician is frank about the patient's condition when the patient is not ready to hear it or prefers to learn the information indirectly from a family member

If the patient prefers not to know everything: “Do you want to talk about this again at another time?”

The patient may experience feelings of hopelessness, depression, or anxiety if not psychologically ready to hear a bad prognosis or if he or she prefers to remain hopeful about the condition

Involvement of family members or preference for autonomy

“Would you prefer that I discuss your medical condition with you directly, or would you prefer that I discuss it with a family member?”

Disagreements between the family or patient and the physician may occur when the physician does not assess whether the patient or family prefers family members to be involved

If the patient prefers that you discuss it with a family member: “Would you like to be present during the discussions about your medical condition?”

The patient may feel isolated if the family is not involved in discussions

Decision making

“How do you want to make decisions regarding your health care?” “Do you want to make a decision yourself after I have given you all of the options?” (nondirective counseling) “Do you want me to suggest what I think is the best option?” (directive counseling) “Do you want to discuss the pros and cons of treatment and then make a decision together?” (shared decision making)

Unwelcome decisions may be made for the patient, and there can be a lack of collaboration between physician and patient (and family) if the physician uses directive counseling when the patient prefers nondirective counseling

The patient can lose confidence in the physician if the physician uses nondirective counseling when the patient prefers directive counseling

Advance care planning

“What are your goals for your life, right now?” “How do you feel about prolonging your life with artificial life support, even if there was no chance that you'd be able to live independent of the machines?” “If you became unable to make your own health care decisions, who would you want to make them for you?”

Overuse of potentially futile, aggressive care at the end of life and underuse of hospice services may occur if the patient does not endorse or understand available advance care planning options

Social, educational, and family factors

“Tell me about your family” “Have you or your family had significant experience with someone with a serious illness?” “If so, how did that experience affect you?”

The physician may offend or stereotype the patient because of incorrect assumptions if the physician does not ask about the patient's background

Misunderstandings between physician and patient may occur if the physician does not assess social, educational, and family preferences

Religious and spiritual factors

“Is there anything I should know about your religious or spiritual views before we discuss your medical condition?”

The physician may be regarded as disrespectful if the patient's religious and spiritual preferences are not addressed

The patient may reject medical advice if the physician does not understand how the patient views the physician's role and advice in the context of religion or spirituality


Information from references 28 through 34.

Table 4   Considerations for Cultural and Individual Patient Preferences in End-of-Life Discussions

View Table

Table 4

Considerations for Cultural and Individual Patient Preferences in End-of-Life Discussions

Considerations Questions for patients Potential consequences

Physician frankness (indirect or direct communication)

“How much do you want to know about your medical condition at this time?”

Physician may be regarded as rude, cruel, and uncaring if the physician is frank about the patient's condition when the patient is not ready to hear it or prefers to learn the information indirectly from a family member

If the patient prefers not to know everything: “Do you want to talk about this again at another time?”

The patient may experience feelings of hopelessness, depression, or anxiety if not psychologically ready to hear a bad prognosis or if he or she prefers to remain hopeful about the condition

Involvement of family members or preference for autonomy

“Would you prefer that I discuss your medical condition with you directly, or would you prefer that I discuss it with a family member?”

Disagreements between the family or patient and the physician may occur when the physician does not assess whether the patient or family prefers family members to be involved

If the patient prefers that you discuss it with a family member: “Would you like to be present during the discussions about your medical condition?”

The patient may feel isolated if the family is not involved in discussions

Decision making

“How do you want to make decisions regarding your health care?” “Do you want to make a decision yourself after I have given you all of the options?” (nondirective counseling) “Do you want me to suggest what I think is the best option?” (directive counseling) “Do you want to discuss the pros and cons of treatment and then make a decision together?” (shared decision making)

Unwelcome decisions may be made for the patient, and there can be a lack of collaboration between physician and patient (and family) if the physician uses directive counseling when the patient prefers nondirective counseling

The patient can lose confidence in the physician if the physician uses nondirective counseling when the patient prefers directive counseling

Advance care planning

“What are your goals for your life, right now?” “How do you feel about prolonging your life with artificial life support, even if there was no chance that you'd be able to live independent of the machines?” “If you became unable to make your own health care decisions, who would you want to make them for you?”

Overuse of potentially futile, aggressive care at the end of life and underuse of hospice services may occur if the patient does not endorse or understand available advance care planning options

Social, educational, and family factors

“Tell me about your family” “Have you or your family had significant experience with someone with a serious illness?” “If so, how did that experience affect you?”

The physician may offend or stereotype the patient because of incorrect assumptions if the physician does not ask about the patient's background

Misunderstandings between physician and patient may occur if the physician does not assess social, educational, and family preferences

Religious and spiritual factors

“Is there anything I should know about your religious or spiritual views before we discuss your medical condition?”

The physician may be regarded as disrespectful if the patient's religious and spiritual preferences are not addressed

The patient may reject medical advice if the physician does not understand how the patient views the physician's role and advice in the context of religion or spirituality


Information from references 28 through 34.

The Authors

QUYEN NGO-METZGER, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at the University of California, Irvine, College of Medicine and is a research scientist at the University's Center for Health Policy Research. She also is an adjunct research scientist at RAND Health, Santa Monica, Calif. Dr. Ngo-Metzger received her medical degree and completed an internal medicine residency at the University of Chicago (Ill.) Pritzker School of Medicine. She completed a research fellowship in general internal medicine at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

KRISTIN J. AUGUST, BS, is a doctoral student in health psychology at the University of California, Irvine, School of Social Ecology and is a graduate student researcher at the University's Center for Health Policy Research.

MALATHI SRINIVASAN, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of General Medicine at the University of California, Davis. She received her medical degree from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill., and completed an internal medicine residency at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. She completed a general internal medicine fellowship at the Regenstrief Institute at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.

SOLOMON LIAO, MD, is an associate clinical professor of medicine in the Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics at the University of California, Irvine. He received his medical degree at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Liao completed a residency at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a geriatric medicine fellowship at the University of California, Los Angeles.

FRANK L. MEYSKENS Jr, MD, is the Daniel G. Aldrich, Jr., endowed chair of medicine and director of the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Irvine. He also is senior associate dean in the University's College of Health Sciences. Dr. Meyskens received his medical degree at the University of California, San Francisco, and completed postgraduate training at the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md.

Address correspondence to Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, MPH, University of California, Irvine, 111 Academy Way, Suite 220, Irvine, CA 92697-5800 (e-mail: Qhngo@uci.edu). Reprints are not available from the authors.

Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

The authors thank Frederick J. Meyers, MD, for his assistance in the review of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. Barnett MM. Effect of breaking bad news on patients' perceptions of doctors. J R Soc Med. 2002;95(7):343–347.

2. Ambuel B, Mazzone MF. Breaking bad news and discussing death. Prim Care. 2001;28(2):249–267.

3. Back AL, Arnold RM. Discussing prognosis: “How much do you want to know?” Talking to patients who are prepared for explicit information. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(25):4209–4213.

4. Mager WM, Andrykowski MA. Communication in the cancer ‘bad news’ consultation: patient perceptions and psychological adjustment. Psychooncology. 2002;11(1):35–46.

5. Schofield PE, Butow PN, Thompson JF, Tattersall MH, Beeney LJ, Dunn SM. Psychological responses of patients receiving a diagnosis of cancer. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(1):48–56.

6. Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor C, Lenzi R, Kudelka AP, Cohen L. Breaking bad news about cancer: patients' preferences for communication. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(7):2049–2056.

7. Eggly S, Penner L, Albrecht TL, et al. Discussing bad news in the outpatient oncology clinic: rethinking current communication guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):716–719.

8. Fallowfield L, Jenkins V. Communicating sad, bad, and difficult news in medicine. Lancet. 2004;363(9405):312–319.

9. Farber NJ, Urban SY, Collier VU, et al. The good news about giving bad news to patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(12):914–922.

10. Gillotti C, Thompson T, McNeilis K. Communicative competence in the delivery of bad news. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(7):1011–1023.

11. Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW. Breaking bad news. 1: Current best advice for clinicians. Behav Med. 1998;24(2):53–59.

12. Rabow MW, McPhee SJ. Beyond breaking bad news: how to help patients who suffer. West J Med. 1999;171(4):260–263.

13. Wenrich MD, Curtis JR, Shannon SE, Carline JD, Ambrozy DM, Ramsey PG. Communicating with dying patients within the spectrum of medical care from terminal diagnosis to death. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):868–874.

14. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES—a six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302–311.

15. Back AL, Arnold RM. Discussing prognosis: “How much do you want to know?” Talking to patients who do not want information or who are ambivalent. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(25):4214–4217.

16. Lobb EA, Kenny DT, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Women's preferences for discussion of prognosis in early breast cancer. Health Expect. 2001;4(1):48–57.

17. Fried TR, Bradley EH, O'Leary J. Prognosis communication in serious illness: perceptions of older patients, caregivers, and clinicians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(10):1398–1403.

18. Kaplowitz SA, Campo S, Chiu WT. Cancer patients' desires for communication of prognosis information. Health Commun. 2002;14(2):221–241.

19. Back AL, Arnold RM, Quill TE. Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(5):439–443.

20. Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough DL, Meropol NJ, Maynard K, Emanuel EJ. Patients' decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(27):4479–4484.

21. Block SD. Psychological issues in end-of-life care. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(3):751–772.

22. Morrison RS, Meier DE. Clinical practice. Palliative care. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(25):2582–2590.

23. Meyers FJ, Linder J. Simultaneous care: disease treatment and palliative care throughout illness J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(7):1412–1415.

24. Meyers FJ, Linder J, Beckett L, Christensen S, Blais J, Gandara DR. Simultaneous care: a model approach to the perceived conflict between investigational therapy and palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004;28(6):548–556.

25. Ciemins EL, Stuart B, Gerber R, Newman J, Bauman M. An evaluation of the advanced illness management (AIM) program: increasing hospice utilization in the San Francisco Bay Area. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(6):1401–1411.

26. Brumley RD, Enguidanos S, Cherin DA. Effectiveness of a home-based palliative care program for end-of-life. J Palliat Med. 2003;6(5):715–724.

27. Weiner JS, Roth J. Avoiding iatrogenic harm to patient and family while discussing goals of care near the end of life. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(2):451–463.

28. Kagawa-Singer M, Blackhall LJ. Negotiating cross-cultural issues at the end of life: “You got to go where he lives.”. JAMA. 2001;286(23):2993–3001.

29. Searight HR, Gafford J. Cultural diversity at the end of life: issues and guidelines for family physicians. Am Fam Physician. 2005;71(3):515–522.

30. Searight HR, Gafford J. “It's like playing with your destiny”: Bosnian immigrants' views of advance directives and end-of-life decision-making. J Immigr Health. 2005;7(3):195–203.

31. Blackhall LJ, Frank G, Murphy S, Michel V. Bioethics in a different tongue: the case of truth-telling. J Urban Health. 2001;78(1):59–71.

32. Shrank WH, Kutner JS, Richardson T, Mularski RA, Fischer S, Kagawa-Singer M. Focus group findings about the influence of culture on communication preferences in end-of-life care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(8):703–709.

33. Morrison RS, Zayas LH, Mulvihill M, Baskin SA, Meier DE. Barriers to completion of health care proxies: an examination of ethnic differences. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(22):2493–2497.

34. Perkins HS, Geppert CM, Gonzales A, Cortez JD, Hazuda HP. Cross-cultural similarities and differences in attitudes about advance care planning. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(1):48–57.

This article is one in a series created in collaboration with the American Cancer Society. Coordinator of the series is Ted Gansler, MD, MBA, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.


Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Download PDF
  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article