Cited by 79Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsEthics in medical practice

Association between physicians’ beliefs and the option of comfort care for critically ill patients

Open access
Schenker, Yael, Tiver, Greer A., Hong, Seo Yeon, White, Douglas B.·2012·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

Purpose For critically ill patients at high risk of death, reasonable treatment options include attempts at life prolongation and treatment focused on comfort. Little is known about whether and how physicians present the option of comfort care to surrogates. This study assessed how comfort care is presented to surrogates and whether physicians' beliefs are associated with whether comfort care is presented as an option.Methods Mixed-methods study of 72 audio-recorded family conferences about treatment decisions in five ICUs at two hospitals in San Francisco, California. One hundred sixty-nine family members and 54 physicians participated. Patients were at high risk of death or severe functional impairment. Transcripts of audio-recorded conferences were coded to identify whether physicians offered comfort care as an alternative to life-sustaining treatment and to characterize the stated risks and benefits. Physicians completed a questionnaire indicating the strength of their belief that life support should be foregone.Results The inpatient mortality rate was 72 %. Using a broad definition of comfort-oriented treatment, this option was presented in 56 % (95 % CI, 44-67 %) of conferences. In clustered multivariate models, the only independent predictor of offering comfort care as an option was the strength of the physician's belief that life support should be foregone [OR 1.38 (1.14-1.66), p = 0.01].Conclusions Clinicians did not explicitly inform surrogates about the option of comfort-oriented treatment in roughly half of clinician-family meetings. Physicians who more strongly believe that the appropriate goal of care is life prolongation are less likely to inform surrogates about the option of comfort care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-012-2671-4

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Clinicians often fail to adequately elicit patient treatment preferences, provide guidance about the surrogate's role, disclose likely long-term outcomes, and discuss the option of comfort-focused care.

    “clinicians often fail to adequately elicit patient treatment preferences, provide guidance about the surrogate’s role, disclose likely long-term outcomes, and discuss the option of comfort-focused care (7–13).”

    From Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation (2019) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Discussion reports that clinicians did not explicitly present comfort-oriented treatment in roughly half of the clinician-family conferences studied. The paper does not establish the other attributed failures: inadequately eliciting patient preferences, guiding surrogates about their role, or disclosing likely long-term outcomes. Page numbers are not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schenker, Y., Tiver, G. A., Hong, S. Y., & White, D. B.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Schenker, Yael
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2012-08-11
Volume
38
Issue
10
Pages
1607-1615
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W1965038222
Cited by
79
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000005, KL2TR000146)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG032875, K23AG032875)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL094553)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024153, KL2RR024154)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (L60 MD003332)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
comfort care, physician beliefs, family meetings, surrogate decision-making, life-sustaining treatment, end-of-life care, intensive care unit, physician-family communication, treatment decision-making
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, California, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Life Support Care, Male, Middle Aged, Palliative Care, Physicians, Professional-Family Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, San Francisco, Critical Illness, Patient-Centered Care, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review