Consideration of Transplantation and Clinical Care and Outcomes Among Patients Dying an “Expected Death”
Of 496 patients studied, 424 (85%) had medical record documentation of an expected death. Expected death documentation was similar in patients considered and not considered for transplantation (84.9% vs. 85.7%, respectively; P=0.88). The mean timing for this documentation was 9 days before death in both groups.
Considering only those who died an expected death, consideration of transplantation was associated with less use of comfort orders at the end of life (32% vs. 64%; P<0.0001), lower rates of palliative care consultation (2% vs. 7%; P=0.01), and lower rates of early goals of care discussion within 48 hr of admission (20% vs. 39%; P<0.0001). Patients considered for transplantation also had a longer hospital stay before death (31 vs. 21 days; P=0.01), were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (95% vs. 77%; P<0.0001), were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (89% vs. 69%; P<0.0001), and were more than twice as likely to have hemodialysis initiated for the first time during their terminal hospitalization (65% vs. 24%; P<0.0001; Table 4). With the exception of palliative care consultation, all of these associations remained significant in multivariate logistic models controlling for patient gender, age, race, ethnicity, presence of noncancer end-stage disease, and presence of advanced cancer.
Some patients considered for transplantation who clinically worsen are removed from transplant consideration, whereas others continue to be considered for transplantation despite a waning chance of survival. We evaluated whether explicit documentation that a patient was removed from consideration of transplantation reduced the likelihood of receiving poor-quality end-of-life care. Nearly half of patients (62 of 126 [49%]) who were considered for transplantation during the hospitalization had medical record documentation removing them from transplant consideration before death. Patients were removed from transplant consideration a median of 7 days before death (range, 0–158 days). Quality of care was not significantly different between patients removed and those never removed from transplant consideration (P=0.5). Receipt of clinical care was similar between patients who died without documentation withdrawing them from transplant consideration and patients removed from consideration of transplantation, although patients who were never removed from consideration received higher rates of ICU use (100% vs. 90%; P=0.01), mechanical ventilation (95% vs. 82%; P=0.02), and new hemodialysis (72% vs. 53%; P=0.03) during the terminal hospitalization.
Patients with end-stage disease who are being considered for organ transplantation would be expected to desire and receive the most aggressive treatments while they are maintained alive awaiting a life-saving organ. However, this study suggests that even when their physicians expect them to die they receive less comfort-oriented care than other dying patients. Goals of care discussions were less common among patients considered for transplantation, perhaps related to providers assuming that aggressive care was desired. However, without goals of care discussions, active transition to comfort-oriented care is less likely to occur in a timely manner, as demonstrated among patients considered for transplantation. Yet, death could have been anticipated as a possible outcome at hospital admission for nearly all these patients. These findings suggest that mechanisms are needed to foster better care at the end of life for patients considered for transplantation.
This is the first study to evaluate the quality of end-of-life care provided to patients who died while awaiting transplant, and the data suggest that such patients have greater unmet needs for palliative care compared with other decedents. Although all decedents in this sample received relatively aggressive care during their terminal hospitalization, patients considered for transplantation were less likely to receive palliative care consults and comfort care orders near death.
Increasing evidence suggests that ACP and symptom management can successfully be provided concurrently with potentially life-extending care. Temel et al. (17) showed in a randomized controlled trial that patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer treated concurrently with palliative care had no decrease in survival and experienced improved symptom control compared with usual care. The ENABLE II randomized controlled trial also showed that palliative care improved quality of life and mood without affecting survival (18). Concurrent palliative care for patients awaiting possible transplantation should be considered.
Other factors associated with less good end-of-life care were receiving care on a surgical service and lack of documentation of religion. The surgical service quality deficit is consistent with the relative lack of emphasis on supportive care in surgical practice. The religion documentation finding raises several considerations, including the fact that nurse chart abstractors reviewed all notes in the medical record including social work and chaplain notes. Therefore, the lack of documentation of religion may have been a marker for less interdisciplinary care.
Our study has several limitations, mainly that we evaluated only patients who died; patients with similar levels of sickness who survived were not evaluated, although attention to symptom control and preferences is important for this group of patients as well. Although abstracted reliably from medical records, the definition of expected death may not be the same for transplant candidates and those not considered for transplantation, which may affect comparisons of process of care between these groups. In addition, the high correlation between disease type and clinical service made it infeasible to include these factors in the same regression equations, making it difficult to disentangle whether patient or provider factors are more important in determining quality of end-of-life care. Furthermore, this is a study of a single institution, albeit a leading transplant center; an evaluation of other hospitals is needed.
These data suggest room for improvement in symptomatic control for and communication with patients who died in the setting of being considered for transplantation. Recent reconceptualization of supportive care to become concurrent with desired survival-oriented care could improve the dying experience for these very ill patients. Earlier consideration of all potential outcomes and concurrent focus on symptom palliation will help address the care needs of the dying patient who is or was recently considered for transplantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Design and Hypothesis
We used a retrospective observational study design to test our hypothesis that patients considered for transplantation will receive lower-quality ACP and end-of-life care.
We identified all patients ages 18 years or older who died during admission to one medical center between April 2005 and April 2006 following a hospitalization of at least 3 days. Of 500 patients who died during the study period, complete records were available for 496. A decedent sample was selected because we were interested in understanding how care is provided during a terminal hospitalization. Because all patients died before study initiation, the investigation was exempted from institutional review board approval (G06-09-025-01).
Measuring Quality of Care
A subset of measures from the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders-3 set was adapted for application to patients who died in the hospital. Sixteen quality indicators focused on three domains of end-of-life care: eliciting goals of care, pain assessment and management, and dyspnea assessment and management. These were applied to a diverse adult inpatient decedent sample (19).
The data elements needed to implement these quality indicators were collected by an abstraction of a full set of inpatient medical records by experienced nurse abstractors (19). Ten percent of the medical records were randomly selected to be abstracted a second time by a different nurse. Reabstraction revealed that 92% of quality indicators were triggered identically (pooled κ=0.67) and scoring for identically triggered quality indicators had 90% agreement (pooled κ=0.67).
Patient Data, Clinical Care, and Outcomes
We also collected from medical records patient characteristics, including demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, primary insurance, and religion), social support variables (marital status and preadmission living arrangement), clinical variables (presence of end-stage disease, mental status on admission, and consideration of transplantation), and ACP variables (discussions about preferences concerning end-of-life care, decision-making, and advance directives). If it was documented in the medical record that a patient was listed as a transplant candidate or under active consideration or evaluation for transplantation, the patient was identified as being considered for transplantation. This variable was abstracted with 96% agreement (κ=0.89). Because we were unable to identify individual physicians responsible for a specific patient due to the team-based approach to inpatient care, we collected the patient’s primary clinical service during the hospitalization. We also collected from medical records whether a patient died an “expected death.” Expected death was defined as any physician documentation during the terminal hospitalization that the patient was terminal, had a grave prognosis, was receiving hospice care, had imminently life-threatening disease in the context of a poor prognosis, or was dying. The specific criteria were reliably abstracted from the medical record (reabstraction κ=0.67; 91% agreement).
We evaluated the percentage of patients who received the care process prescribed in each of the 16 quality indicators and compared between patients who were transplant candidates and those who were not. For each patient, we then calculated an overall patient-level quality score. Because patients triggered different quality indicators and quality indicators had varying pass rates, the observed quality score for each decedent was compared against the expected score of a hypothetical patient who had triggered the identical quality indicator pattern to compute an observed-minus-expected (O-E) score (20). This O-E score was normally distributed allowing for standard OLS regression. Bivariate relationships between quality of care and patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, insurance status, marital status, pre-hospital venue, mental status on admission, and presence of end-stage disease on admission) and clinical service were studied. Multivariate regression models studying O-E quality as the outcome were chosen a priori based on what was hypothesized to potentially impact quality, with the transplant variable being the primary regressor of interest. Because specific end-stage disease was highly correlated with clinical service (cancer and oncology service, liver disease, or transplant with liver service; all r’s>0.6 and P’s<0.001), we evaluated the association of quality with clinical service in a separate regression equation.
In addition to examining quality scores, we also compared the clinical care and outcomes of decedents who were considered for transplantation with those who were not after limiting both groups to those patients who died an expected death. First, we compared rates of expected death between patients who were considered for transplantation and those who were not during the terminal hospitalization. We then explored bivariate relationships between transplant status and clinical care and outcomes of interest. Next, we studied these relationships in multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and disease status.
We also conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate if never being removed from consideration of transplantation affected the quality of end-of-life care. Analyses were performed with SAS statistical software version 9.2 (SAS, Cary, NC).
1. Annual report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant
data 1997–;2006. HRSA, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Rockville, MD.
2. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Government information on tissue and organ donation and transplantation. Available at: http://www.organdonor.gov/about/data.html
. Accessed March 14, 2012.
3. Van der Hilst CS, Ijtsma AJC, Slooff MJH, et al.. Cost of liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the United States with other OECD countries. Med Care Res Rev
2009; 66: 3.
4. Smith JO, Shiffman ML, Behnke M, et al.. Incidence of prolonged length of stay after orthotopic liver transplantation and its influence on outcomes. Liver Transpl
2009; 15: 273.
5. Joff S, Mello M, Cook F, et al.. Advance care planning in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl
2007; 13: 65.
6. Innes S, Payne S. Advanced cancer patients’ prognostic information preferences: a review. Palliat Med
2009; 23: 29.
7. Thompson GN, Menec VH, Chochinov HM, et al.. Family satisfaction with care of a dying loved one in nursing homes: what makes the difference? J Gerontol Nurs
2008; 34: 37.
8. Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, et al.. Factors considered important at end of life by patients, family, physicians and other care providers. JAMA
2000; 284: 2476.
9. Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, et al.. Preparing for the end of life: preferences of patients, families, physicians, and other care providers. J Pain Symptom Manage
2001; 22: 727.
10. Teno JM, Clarridge BR, Casey V, et al.. Family perspectives on end-of-life care
at the last place of care. JAMA
2004; 291: 99.
11. Singer PA, Martin DK, Keiner M. Quality end of life care: patients’ perspectives. JAMA
1999; 281: 163.
12. Patrick DL, Pearlman RA, Starks HE, et al.. Validation of preferences for life-sustaining treatment: implications for advance care planning. Ann Intern Med
1997; 127: 509.
13. Pearlman RA, Cain KC, Starks H, et al.. Preferences for life-sustaining treatments in advance care planning and surrogate decision making. J Palliat Med
2000; 3: 37.
14. Emanuel LL, Barry MJ, Stoeckle JD, et al.. Advance directives for medical care—a case for greater use. N Engl J Med
1991; 324: 889.
15. Garrett JM, Harris RP, Norburn JK, et al.. Life-sustaining treatments during terminal illness. Who wants what? J Gen Intern Med
1993; 8: 361.
16. Cohen-Mansfield J, Droge JA, Billig N. Factors influencing hospital patients’ preferences in the utilization of life-sustaining treatments. Gerontologist
1992; 32: 89.
17. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al.. Early palliative care
in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med
2010; 363: 733.
18. Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, et al.. Effects of a palliative care
intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA
2009; 202: 741.
19. Walling AM, Asch S, Lorenz K, et al.. The quality of care
provided to hospitalized patients at the end of life. Arch Intern Med
2010; 170: 1057.
20. Min LC, Reuben DB, MacLean CH, et al.. Predictors of overall quality of care
provided to vulnerable older people. J Am Geriatr Soc
2005; 53: 1705.
Keywords:© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Transplant; End-of-life care; Palliative care; Quality of care