What really matters in end-of-life discussions? Perspectives of patients in hospital with serious illness and their families
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The guideline-recommended elements to include in discussions about goals of care with patients with serious illness are mostly based on expert opinion. We sought to identify which elements are most important to patients and their families. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional study design involving patients from 9 Canadian hospitals. We asked older adult patients with serious illness and their family members about the occurrence and importance of 11 guideline-recommended elements of goals-of-care discussions. In addition, we assessed concordance between prescribed goals of care and patient preferences, and we measured patient satisfaction with goals-of-care discussions using the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) questionnaire. RESULTS: Our study participants included 233 patients (mean age 81.2 yr) and 205 family members (mean age 60.2 yr). Participants reported that clinical teams had addressed individual elements of goals-of-care discussions infrequently (range 1.4%-31.7%). Patients and family members identified the same 5 elements as being the most important to address: preferences for care in the event of life-threatening illness, values, prognosis, fears or concerns, and questions about goals of care. Addressing more elements was associated with both greater concordance between patients' preferences and prescribed goals of care, and greater patient satisfaction. INTERPRETATION: We identified elements of goals-of-care discussions that are most important to older adult patients in hospital with serious illness and their family members. We found that guideline-recommended elements of goals-of-care discussions are not often addressed by health care providers. Our results can inform interventions to improve the determination of goals of care in the hospital setting.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 [11]
Table 3 reports that care teams infrequently asked about treatment preferences, discussed prognosis, or provided information about comfort care and life-sustaining treatments to hospitalized patients with serious illness and their families. The paper does not establish that clinicians failed to explain the surrogate’s role or disclose likely long-term outcomes specifically; its outcome questions concern treatment benefits and risks more generally. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 153
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Heyland DK, Lavery JV, Tranmer J, et al. The final days: an anal- ysis of the dying experience in Ontario. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can 2000;33:356-61.
- Authors
- You, J. J., Dodek, P., Lamontagne, F., Downar, J., Sinuff, T., Jiang, X., Day, A. G., & Heyland, D. K.
- Affiliations
- Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
- Venue
- Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Publisher
- CMA Joule Inc.
- Published
- 2014-11-03
- Volume
- 186
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- E679-E687
- ISSN
- 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
- 1488-2329
- PMC
- PMC4259796
- OpenAlex
- W2061249267
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 12.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Hamilton Health Sciences
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- goals of care discussions, end-of-life care, serious illness, older adults, patient preferences, family caregivers, patient satisfaction, prognosis disclosure, hospital care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude, Cross-Sectional Studies, Family, Female, Hospitals, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Terminal Care, Patient Preference
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