"Do you want us to try to resuscitate?": Conversational practices generating patient decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Issue 4 (April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sterie, Anca-Cristina; Weber, Orest; Jox, Ralf J.; Rubli Truchard, Eve
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 105:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 887
• Page End: 894
• Publication Date: 2022-04
• Subjects: Decision making -- Conversation analysis -- Cardiopulmonary resuscitation -- Communication -- Geriatrics -- Anticipation; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.07.042
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: In line with the standards of patient-centered care, hospitalized patients should be involved in decisions about treatments that would be relevant in case of emergency situations, such as CPR, starting with their admission When physicians refer to CPR as a potentially relevant course of action ("Do you want us to try to resuscitate?"), they project CPR as the most valid option, which restricts autonomous expressions of patient preferences. Content questions ("What would you wish that the physicians do?") allow for more patient autonomy but imply that patients are already informed with regard to what CPR involves and what their options are. Patients who are convinced to refuse CPR eagerly and overtly discuss this issue, even before physicians ask about their preferences. Abstract: Objective: To explore how physicians elicit patients' preferences about cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during hospital admission interviews. Methods: Conversation analysis of 37 audio-recorded CPR patient-physician discussions at admission to a geriatric hospital. Results: The most encountered practice is when physicians submit an option to the patient's validation ("do you want us to resuscitate"). Through it, physicians display presuppositions about the patient's preference, which is not elicited as an autonomous contribution. Through open elicitors ("what would you wish"), physicians treat patients as knowledgeable about options and autonomous in determining their preference. A third practice is related to patients delivering their preference in anticipation of the request and is encountered only for choices against CPR . These decisions are revealed as informed and autonomous, and the patient as collaborative. Conclusion: The way that physicians elicit patients' preferences about CPR influences the delivery of autonomous and informed decisions. Our findings point to an asymmetry in ways of initiating talk about the possibility of not attempting CPR, potentially exacerbated by the context of admission interviews. Practice implications: Decisions about the relevancy life-sustaining interventions need an adequate setting in order to allow for patient participation. Our findings have implications for communication training in regard to involving patients in conversations about goals of care.