Abstract
Objective
To evaluate attitudes of Europeans regarding end-of-life decisions.
Design and setting
Responses to a questionnaire by physicians and nurses working in ICUs, patients who survived ICU, and families of ICU patients in six European countries were compared for attitudes regarding quality and value of life, ICU treatments, active euthanasia, and place of treatment.
Measurements and results
Questionnaires were distributed to 4,389 individuals and completed by 1,899 (43%). Physicians (88%) and nurses (87%) found quality of life more important and value of life less important in their decisions for themselves than patients (51%) and families (63%). If diagnosed with a terminal illness, health professionals wanted fewer ICU admissions, uses of CPR, and ventilators (21%, 8%, 10%, respectively) than patients and families (58%, 49%, 44%, respectively). More physicians (79%) and nurses (61%) than patients (58%) and families (48%) preferred being home or in a hospice if they had a terminal illness with only a short time to live.
Conclusions
Quality of life was more important for physicians and nurses than patients and families. More medical professionals want fewer ICU treatments and prefer being home or in a hospice for a terminal illness than patients and families.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Despite great advances in medical technology and therapeutics some patients admitted to hospitals do not survive. Several decades ago most patients died in ICUs after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) [1]. Over the years changes have occurred in society's and physicians' attitudes and practices [2], and today most patients dying in hospitals do so after the foregoing of life-prolonging therapies [1, 3, 4, 5]. Decisions to forego therapies in European countries are frequently made without any discussion with competent patients or families of incompetent patients [5, 6]. Most patients in intensive care units (ICUs) lack decision-making capacity [1, 6], and most determinations are made by physicians or by family members acting as surrogates [6, 7]. Studies demonstrate that North American health care workers consult families more often than do Europeans [6, 8]. The judgment of physicians concerning treatments and factors to be considered in the decision may differ from that of patients and families [9, 10, 11, 12]. Some seriously ill patients wish to participate in end-of-life decisions; others do not [13]. Some family members believe that involving them in decisions unfairly places them in the role of deciding if their loved one will live or die [14].
People throughout the world are afraid of dying a high-technology death with lingering, suffering, absence of control, and burdening their family [15]. A change towards greater patient and family influence in end-of-life decisions could result in increased use of life support [11] or a decrease in the use of these treatments [12, 16]. Many North Americans die in hospitals, and approx. 20% of these deaths occur in ICUs [17, 18]. End-of-life decisions are made daily throughout the world. The present study was developed to better understand these decisions, the attitudes and beliefs of the protagonists and to help improve end-of-life care. Although there are reports from individual countries, comparative studies within and among countries with attitudes of physicians, nurses, patients and families regarding end-of-life decisions are lacking. This study evaluated attitudes of these four most involved parties towards end-of-life decisions in ICUs in six European countries [19].
Methods
Sample
In the Czech Republic, Israel, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, questionnaires were completed by physicians and nurses who worked in ICUs, patients who survived the ICU, and families of surviving and nonsurviving ICU patients. Centers were chosen based on previous successful participation in the Ethicus study [4]. Criteria included all of the following: consecutive patients previously hospitalized in the ICU for more than 3 days within the last 12 months, patients who had improved so that they were oriented and could understand and communicate to complete the questionnaire, and close family members (e.g., spouse, child, parent), who were present in the ICU during most of the patient's hospitalization, and who could understand and communicate to complete the questionnaire. Many patients and families were excluded because they were too ill, the questionnaire was too upsetting, they refused, did not appear or had no or incorrect phone number or address. Physicians and nurses were chosen based on their working in ICUs from centers studying the patients and families and additional respondents were chosen from other hospitals in the country to reach approx. 100 in each group. Questionnaire development and translation are noted in the Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM) as S.1 Questionnaires for all four groups contained definitions for medical terms and included similar questions for age, gender, marital status, religion, the importance of quality of life and value of life, desires for therapies (ICU admission, CPR, and ventilator) or active euthanasia for conditions such as terminal illness, permanent unconsciousness or severe dementia, preferences for placement and treatment based on life prolongation. Questionnaires are found in the ESM as S2–S5 Questionnaires were usually completed by patients and families approx. 3 months from hospital discharge. Ethics Committee approval included informed consent from respondents or a waiver of informed consent.
Questionnaires were distributed to 4,389 individuals and completed by 1,899: 528 of 895 physicians (59%), 629 of 1,160 nurses (54%), 330 of 1,476 patients (22%), and 412 of 858 families (48%; 327 of surviving patients and 85 of dying patients), for an overall response rate of 43%. Questionnaires were completed by patients and families (in the presence of health care professionals to answer questions) in 547 cases (79%). Physicians and nurses from 142 hospitals responded. Demographics including age, gender, marital status, and educational level are noted in Table 1. The physicians included 300 senior physicians (64%) and 166 who were in training (36%); 222 had practiced for 10 years or more, and 259 for less than 10 years. Physicians and nurses were significantly younger than patients and families.
Statistical analyses
Subsequent to the examination of the distributions of the responses many categories were dichotomized or grouped: marital status (married/not married), number of years practicing in ICU ( < 10/10+), number of beds in ICU (≤ 10/> 10), frequency of use (“yes” for “always” or “often” and “no” otherwise), agreement (“disagree” for “strongly disagree” or “disagree” and “agree” otherwise). For the variable measuring importance of value vs. quality of life all cases that ranked the midpoint of the scale were excluded. The attitudes of physicians, nurses, patients, and families were compared by the χ2 and Fisher's exact tests. Both for importance of value of life vs. quality of life and the desire to be in the ICU if terminally ill, multivariate analyses were performed by multiple logistic regressions performed in two steps. In a backward stepwise procedure variables with a contribution to the model not statistically significant were removed. The final model was then constructed including only those remaining variables. This step minimized the exclusion of cases with missing data. The outcome variables were value vs. quality of life and the desire to go into ICU if diagnosed with a terminal illness. Initial explanatory variables in the logistic models included type of respondent, region, age, gender, marital status, and religion. An additional separate multiple regression for physicians included those variables and country of medical training, role in ICU, number of beds in ICU, hospital practice, special training in ICU, and years practicing ICU.
The study sponsors had no role in study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, manuscript preparation or submission. This contribution does not represent their opinion.
Results
In general, all respondents ranked their preferences for quality of life higher than their preferences for value of life (Table 2). However, physicians and nurses found quality of life more important in their end-of-life decisions for themselves than patients and families (p < 0.01; Table 2). Value of life was more important [343 (69%), 392 (65%), respectively] when physicians and nurses based their decisions on their duty to the patient (Table 3) rather than what they desired for themselves [49 (12%), 65 (13%), respectively, p < 0.001; Table 2]. Only 341 respondents (19%) wanted their life prolonged as much as possible by all available means in any condition: 32 physicians (6%), 52 nurses (9%), 129 patients (40%), and 128 families (32%, p < 0.001). When asked how to be treated if diagnosed with a terminal illness, physicians and nurses wanted fewer ICU admissions, uses of CPR, and ventilators and slightly fewer instances of active euthanasia for pain than patients and families (p < 0.001) for each (Table 4).
Findings were similar with all respondents wanting even fewer aggressive treatments when asked how they would like to be treated if permanently unconscious. More active euthanasia was found for all groups except families (Table 5). If suffering from severe dementia, even fewer respondents [271 (17%)] wanted life-saving treatments than for a terminal illness or permanent unconsciousness: 9 physicians (2%), 34 nurses (6%), 106 patients (33%), and 122 families (30%, p < 0.001). When asked where they would rather be if they had a terminal illness with only a short time to live and required life-saving treatments for a severe, acute problem, more health care professionals than patients and families preferred being home or in a hospice even if they would die in a short time (p < 0.001; Fig. 1A,B). Fewer patients and families wanted to be in an ICU to prolong life for only a few weeks [247 (37%)] than home 395 (58%); more patients and families [247 (37%)] than physicians and nurses [105 (10%)] preferred being in an ICU (p < 0.001; Fig. 1A,C). The majority of respondents want life-saving treatment in an ICU if it would prolong life with a good quality of life for 12 months [1,648 (93%)], 6 months [1,505 (87%)], or 3 months [1,267 (74%)] but not 1 month [845 (49%)] or 1 week [579 (34%)]. There were no differences between responses for senior physicians compared to those physicians in training or based on years of practice.
Multivariate analysis showed that patients and families considered value of life more important than quality of life compared to the importance reported by physicians and respondents who were Jewish and with no religion considered quality of life more important compared to the importance reported by Catholics (Table 6). Patents and families wanted to be in an ICU if terminally ill whereas younger, female, and nonreligious respondents did not (Table 7).
Discussion
The present study is the first comparative evaluation of patients', families', physicians', and nurses' attitudes towards end-of-life decisions in several European countries. The study demonstrates that physicians and nurses believed that for themselves quality of life is more important, whereas patients and families believed value of life was more important. Interestingly, physicians and nurses believed value of life was even more important than patients and families when viewing their duty to their patient. For aggressive treatments (ICU, CPR, and ventilation) physicians and nurses wanted fewer treatments than patients and families if they had a terminal illness. These discrepancies between medical personnel and patients support previous findings, which have shown that for the same condition physicians want less treatment than elderly persons with serious illnesses, and that physicians treat their patients more aggressively than they would want for themselves [12, 20] or patients would want [12].
Respondents wanted fewer applications of CPR and mechanical ventilation than they did ICU admissions. Patients wanted more treatments than families. All groups wanted fewer treatments if they had permanent unconsciousness or severe dementia compared to a terminal illness. Given a terminal illness, physicians and nurses wanted to receive life-saving therapy as much as patients or families if it would prolong their life with good quality of life. Despite the legality of active euthanasia in only one of the countries in the study, euthanasia for pain was an option for not only patients and families but also physicians and nurses. Finally, compared to patients and families, more physicians and nurses with a terminal illness requiring life-saving therapy would rather be home or in a hospice than an ICU. Even the latter groups, however, had close to a majority who wanted to be home or in a hospice.
Several studies have shown that patients want aggressive treatments such as CPR [13, 21], especially when the outcome is favorable [22, 23, 24]. Patients and families overestimate the effectiveness of life-sustaining treatments, but when patients learn the probability of treatment survival, those opting for therapies such as CPR decreases significantly [22]. Although several studies have demonstrated that patients are less willing to undergo aggressive therapy if their physical or cognitive function and quality of life is decreased [22, 23, 24, 25, 26], other studies have shown that patient perceptions of their quality of life do not affect their choices for ICU and treatments [11, 27]. Although patients' willingness to receive life-sustaining therapies declines with increasing severity of presented illness [12, 28], the more physically limited persons are, the more likely they are to want more rather than less aggressive therapies [15]. Those already diagnosed as severely ill, however, wanted aggressive treatments less than others [15].
Physicians consider the quality of life of patients worse than patients themselves [27] and underestimate patient willingness to undergo aggressive treatments [21]. Health professionals with exposure to critically ill patients did not want aggressive treatments if terminally ill, demented, or in a persistent vegetative state, similar to the findings of a previous study [10]. Patients and families were more willing to receive intensive care than physicians considered useful [9]. One would think that the reality of ICU might dampen preferences for treatments. This study and others [9] show that the ICU experience does affect the medical personnel's wishes, but does not undermine patients' and families' willingness to receive it, and most surviving patients choose to be readmitted. There was little correlation between patients' functional status or character of ICU stay and the patients' or family members' desire to undergo intensive care [11]. Only when there is no hope for recovery, a vegetative state, or severe neurological impairments are patients unwilling to undergo intensive care [11]. Patient and family expectations of ICU may be too high; improved communication about limitations of ICU therapies may lessen the high expectations and allow physician practices to come closer to their beliefs of what is best for themselves.
How can the above discrepancies be explained? Physicians and nurses were younger and without medical disorders. They view disease processes differently [9] and want aggressive therapies only with a good quality of life. They see patients with a lower quality of life and do not want treatments that patients who do not view their quality of life as poor want. The multivariate analysis showed that younger and female respondents did not want ICU care if terminally ill. Physicians appear to use themselves as an “ideal standard” when evaluating usefulness of ICU for their patients [9]. Although patients would not want aggressive care if they knew they were dying, prognostic uncertainty and a “deeply held desire not to be dead” make patients willing to undergo therapy even when seriously ill but not close to death [29]. Patients and families faced with death or the loss of a relative may value survival regardless of the life circumstances as fear of death may overwhelm other concerns [11]. Alternatively, the functional status and perceived quality of life of patients may not be below the threshold for which persons refuse ICU and aggressive therapies [9, 11]. Finally, similar to a previous report, these findings indicate that impaired cognitive functioning is more frightening than a terminal disease [12].
In The Netherlands and Belgium active life-ending procedures are permitted and performed by physicians with the specific intent of causing or hastening a patient's death [30]. The majority of the public [31] and many physicians [32] favor active life-ending procedures for terminally ill patients and patients with great suffering. Some 40% of European physician respondents say that they would deliberately administer large doses of drugs until death ensued [5]. The present study documents a high percentage of all respondents (one-third to one-half) wanting active euthanasia for themselves for pain if terminally ill even in countries where it is illegal.
The strengths of this study include a uniform questionnaire developed by consensus, attitudes of providers and receivers of medical care who experienced the illness and treatments simultaneously in six different countries, and family members of dying and living patients to avoid sampling bias. Limitations of the study include the fact that attitudes rather than actual behavior were evaluated, the relatively low response rate especially in patients which could bias reporting, the exclusion of patients and families younger than 18 years, those who did not consent or with language problems or cognitive impairments, the possibility of recall bias, quality of life, value of life and terminal illness were not defined and the potential selection of centers interested in ethical issues and involved in previous studies.
The present study demonstrates marked differences in attitudes for end-of-life care among respondents of the different groups. Society will have to find ways to address such discrepancies to improve end-of-life care.
References
Sprung CL, Eidelman LA (1996) Worldwide similarities and differences in the forgoing of life-sustaining treatments. Intensive Care Med 22:1003–1005
Sprung CL, Eidelman LA, Pizov R (1996) Changes in foregoing life sustaining treatments in the United States: concern for the future. Mayo Clin Proc 71:512–516
Prendergast TJ, Claessens MT, Luce JM (1998) A national survey of end-of-life care for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 158:1163–1167
Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, Ledoux D, Lippert A, Maia P, Phelan D, Schobersberger W, Wennberg E, Woodcock T, Ethicus Study Group (2003) End of life practices in European intensive care units—the Ethicus Study. JAMA 290:790–797
Vincent JL (1999) Forgoing life support in western European intensive care units: the results of an ethical questionnaire. Crit Care Med 27:1626–1633
Cohen S, Sprung CL, Sjokvist P, Lippert A, Ricou B, Baras M, Hovilehto S, Maia P, Phelan D, Reinhart K, Werdan K, Bulow HH (2005) Communication of end of life decisions in European intensive care units—the Ethicus Study. Intensive Care Med 31:1215–1221
Weir RF, Gostin L (1990) Decisions to abate life-sustaining treatment for non-autonomous patients. Ethical standards and legal liability after Cruzan. JAMA 264:1846–1853
Sjokvist P, Cook D, Berggren L, Guyatt GH (1998) A cross-cultural comparison of attitudes towards life support limitation in Sweden and Canada. Clin Intensive Care 9:81–85
Danis M, Gerrity MS, Southerland LI, Patrick DL (1998) A comparison of patient, family, and physician assessments of the value of medical intensive care. Crit Care Med 16:594–600
Gillick MR, Hesse K, Mazzapica N (1993) Medical technology at the end if life. What would physicians and nurses want for themselves. Arch Intern Med 153:2542–2547
Danis M, Patrick DL, Southerland LI, Green ML (1998) Patients' and families' preferences for medical intensive care. JAMA 260:797–802
Carmel S (1999) Life-sustaining treatments: what doctors do, what they want for themselves and what elderly persons want. Soc Sci Med 49:1401–1408
Hofmann JC, Wenger NS, Davis RV, Teno J, Connors AF, Desbiens N, Lynn J, Phillips RS (1997) Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end of life decisions. Ann Intern Med 127:1–12
Webster GC, Mazer CD, Potuin CA, Fisher A, Byrick RJ (1991) Evaluation of a “do not resuscitate” policy in intensive care. Can J Anaesth 38:553–563
Carmel S, Mutran E (1997) Wishes regarding the use of life-sustaining treatments among elderly persons in Israel: an explanatory model. Soc Sci Med 45:1715–1727
Wennberg JE (1990) Outcomes, research, cost containment and the fear of health care rationing. N Engl J Med 323:1202–1213
Heyland DK, Rocker GM, O'Callaghan CJ, Dodek PM, Cook DJ (2003) Dying in the ICU. Perspectives of Family Members. Chest 124:392–397
Angus DC, Barnato AE, Linde-Zwirble WT, Weissfeld LA, Watson RS, Rickert T, Rubenfeld GD, Robert Wood Jonhson Foundation ICU End-Of-Life Peer Group (2004) Use of intensive care at the end of life in the United States: an epidemiological study. Crit Care Med 32:638–643
Sprung CL, Carmel S, Maia P et al. (2005) Attitudes of European doctors, nurses, patients and families for end of life care (abstract). Presented at the 18th Annual Congress European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, September 27:2005, Amsterdam. Intensive Care Med 31:S156
Asai A, Fukuhara S, Lo, B (1995) Attitudes of Japanese and Japanese-American physicians toward life-sustaining treatment. Lancet 346:356–359
Seckler AB, Meier DE, Mulvihill M, Cammer Paris BE (1991) Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions? Ann Intern Med 115:92–98
Murphy DJ, Burrows D, Santilli S, Kemp AW, Tenner S, Kreling B, Teno J (1994) The influence of the probability of survival on patients; preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation. N Engl J Med 330:545–549
Heap MJ, Munglani R, Klinck JR, Males AG (1993) Elderly patients' preferences concerning life-support treatment. Anaesthesia 48:1027–1033
Elpern EH, Patterson PA, Gloskey D, Bone RC (1992) Patient's preferences for intensive care. Crit Care Med 20:43–47
Gerety MB, Chiodo LK, Kanten DN, Tuley MR, Cornell JE (1993) Medical treatment preferences of nursing home residents: relationship to function and concordance with surrogate decision-makers. J Am Geriatr Soc 41:953–960
Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR, Allore H (2002) Understanding the treatment preferences of seriously ill patients. N Engl J Med 346 14:1061–1066
Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA (1991) Perceived quality of life and preferences for life-sustaining treatment in older adults. Arch Intern Med 151:495–497
Carmel S, Mutran E (1997) Preferences for different life-sustaining treatments among elderly persons in Israel. J Gerontology Social Science 528:S97–S102
Finucane TE (1999) How gravely ill becomes dying: a key to end-of-life care. JAMA 282:1670–1672
Rigter H (1989) Active euthanasia in The Netherlands. JAMA 262:3316–3319
Blendon RJ, Szalay US, Knox RA (1992) Should physicians aid their patients in dying: the public perspective. JAMA 267:2658–2662
Bachman JG, Alcser KH, Doukas DJ, Lichtenstein RL, Corning AD, Brody H (1996) Attitudes of Michigan physicians and the public toward legalizing physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. N Engl J Med 334:303–309
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by European Commission contract QLG6-CT-1999-00933, grant no. 5206 from the Chief Scientist's Office of the Ministry of Health, Israel, and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. The EU Commission and other sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. The ETHICATT study group included the following participants: Administrative and Scientific Coordinating Center (Israel): C. Sprung (Coordinator), J. Kabiri (Administrator), J. Benbenishty (Coordinating nurse), M. Baras (Statistician), S. Carmel (Questionnaire development, reliability, validity, and translation). Investigators were: Czech Republic: I. Novak (Charles University Hospital, Pilsen), D. Nalos (Aro Masarykova Nemonice, Usti nad Labem); Israel: C.L. Sprung, J. Benbenishty, D Moriah (Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem), S. Carmel, D Sagie (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva); The Netherlands: B. Beishuizen, L.G. Thijs, VU Hospital, Amsterdam); Portugal: P. Maia, J.A. Pinho, P. Costa, P. Coimbra (Hospital Geral Santo Antonio, Porto); Sweden: P. Sjokvist, M. Svantesson (Orebro University Hospital, Orebro); United Kingdom: S. Cohen, B. Henderson (University College London, London)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sprung, C.L., Carmel, S., Sjokvist, P. et al. Attitudes of European physicians, nurses, patients, and families regarding end-of-life decisions: the ETHICATT study. Intensive Care Med 33, 104–110 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0405-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0405-1