Hospital Culture and Intensity of End-of-Life Care at 3 Academic Medical Centers

Author:

Dzeng Elizabeth123,Batten Jason N.45,Dohan Daniel2,Blythe Jacob6,Ritchie Christine S.78,Curtis J. Randall910

Affiliation:

1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

2. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco

3. Cicely Saunders institute, King’s College London, London, England

4. Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California

5. Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, California

6. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Division of Palliative Care and Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

8. Mongan Institute Center for Aging and Serious Illness, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

9. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

10. Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle

Abstract

ImportanceThere is substantial institutional variability in the intensity of end-of-life care that is not explained by patient preferences. Hospital culture and institutional structures (eg, policies, practices, protocols, resources) might contribute to potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments near the end of life.ObjectiveTo understand the role of hospital culture in the everyday dynamics of high-intensity end-of-life care.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis comparative ethnographic study was conducted at 3 academic hospitals in California and Washington that differed in end-of-life care intensity based on measures in the Dartmouth Atlas and included hospital-based clinicians, administrators, and leaders. Data were deductively and inductively analyzed using thematic analysis through an iterative coding process.Main Outcome and MeasureInstitution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources and their role in the everyday dynamics of potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.ResultsA total of 113 semistructured, in-depth interviews (66 women [58.4%]; 23 [20.4%] Asian, 1 [0.9%] Black, 5 [4.4%] Hispanic, 7 [6.2%] multiracial, and 70 [61.9%] White individuals) were conducted with inpatient-based clinicians and administrators between December 2018 and June 2022. Respondents at all hospitals described default tendencies to provide high-intensity treatments that they believed were universal in US hospitals. They also reported that proactive, concerted efforts among multiple care teams were required to deescalate high-intensity treatments. Efforts to deescalate were vulnerable to being undermined at multiple points during a patient’s care trajectory by any individual or entity. Respondents described institution-specific policies, practices, protocols, and resources that engendered broadly held understandings of the importance of deescalating nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments. Respondents at different hospitals reported different policies and practices that encouraged or discouraged deescalation. They described how these institutional structures contributed to the culture and everyday dynamics of end-of-life care at their institution.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this qualitative study, clinicians, administrators, and leaders at the hospitals studied reported that they work in a hospital culture in which high-intensity end-of-life care constitutes a default trajectory. Institutional structures and hospital cultures shape the everyday dynamics by which clinicians may deescalate end-of-life patients from this trajectory. Individual behaviors or interactions may fail to mitigate potentially nonbeneficial high-intensity life-sustaining treatments if extant hospital culture or a lack of supportive policies and practices undermine individual efforts. Hospital cultures need to be considered when developing policies and interventions to decrease potentially nonbeneficial, high-intensity life-sustaining treatments.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

Internal Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3