Reconsidering comfort care

Recently, members of our palliative care team participated in the care of a man approaching the end of his life. The patient had suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest 4 weeks earlier, and though he had survived the immediate event, it resulted in anoxic encephalopathy, which rendered him incapable of making decisions.

When it became clear that the patient was declining despite full support, the hospital’s ethics committee was convened to determine goals of care and next steps, as the patient had no family or surrogate decision maker. After determination that the hospital staff had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate a surrogate, the physicians involved reviewed the patient’s case and recommended a change in goals to comfort care. More than one member of the committee expressed confusion as to what interventions are and are not included in comfort care, including medically administered nutrition and hydration (MANH).

Comfort care has traditionally included medications for distressing symptoms (pain, dyspnea, nausea), personal care for hygiene, and choice of place of death (home, hospital, nursing facility), usually with the assistance of a hospice agency.

As the number and complexity of interventions used near the end of life expand, clinicians and hospital staff report confusion about whether these interventions, generally considered to be life-sustaining treatments, can also be considered comfort care. We generally find that when interventions are considered in the context of the patient’s goals of care, the dilemma is clarified. Often the situation is made more complicated by considering the interventions before settling on goals. Broadly speaking, goals of care are derived from a careful consideration (by patient, physician, and family) of the natural history of the illness, expected course and prognosis, and patient preferences.

In the case of the above-referenced patient, we were unable to ascertain his goals because of neurological impairment. We did know, however, that the patient had steadfastly avoided hospitals and medical care of any kind. The attending hospitalist, pulmonologist, and palliative care physician agreed that the patient’s clinical status was declining despite all available interventions, and that his constellation of medical problems constituted a terminal condition. The physicians agreed that future ICU admission, resuscitation, and other new interventions would only prolong his dying process, but not permit him to live outside the hospital. At that time, the patient was receiving nutrition and hydration via a Dobhoff tube, and was tolerating enteral nutrition without excessive residuals or pulmonary secretions.

As with other interventions, whether or not to consider MANH a part of comfort care is individualized. In this patient’s case, in the absence of evidence that he would not want MANH, it was continued. Other patients have expressed the wish that they would under no circumstances accept MANH while receiving comfort care. Both are correct as long as they reflect that patient’s wishes.

With respect to other interventions – including but not limited to BiPAP, inotrope infusion, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and transfusions – whether or not they provide comfort is a decision to be made jointly by the patient and physician(s). As advances in medicine allow patients to live longer with serious illness, the definition of comfort care must also expand.

Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Bekanich are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

Recently, members of our palliative care team participated in the care of a man approaching the end of his life. The patient had suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest 4 weeks earlier, and though he had survived the immediate event, it resulted in anoxic encephalopathy, which rendered him incapable of making decisions.

When it became clear that the patient was declining despite full support, the hospital’s ethics committee was convened to determine goals of care and next steps, as the patient had no family or surrogate decision maker. After determination that the hospital staff had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate a surrogate, the physicians involved reviewed the patient’s case and recommended a change in goals to comfort care. More than one member of the committee expressed confusion as to what interventions are and are not included in comfort care, including medically administered nutrition and hydration (MANH).

Comfort care has traditionally included medications for distressing symptoms (pain, dyspnea, nausea), personal care for hygiene, and choice of place of death (home, hospital, nursing facility), usually with the assistance of a hospice agency.

As the number and complexity of interventions used near the end of life expand, clinicians and hospital staff report confusion about whether these interventions, generally considered to be life-sustaining treatments, can also be considered comfort care. We generally find that when interventions are considered in the context of the patient’s goals of care, the dilemma is clarified. Often the situation is made more complicated by considering the interventions before settling on goals. Broadly speaking, goals of care are derived from a careful consideration (by patient, physician, and family) of the natural history of the illness, expected course and prognosis, and patient preferences.

In the case of the above-referenced patient, we were unable to ascertain his goals because of neurological impairment. We did know, however, that the patient had steadfastly avoided hospitals and medical care of any kind. The attending hospitalist, pulmonologist, and palliative care physician agreed that the patient’s clinical status was declining despite all available interventions, and that his constellation of medical problems constituted a terminal condition. The physicians agreed that future ICU admission, resuscitation, and other new interventions would only prolong his dying process, but not permit him to live outside the hospital. At that time, the patient was receiving nutrition and hydration via a Dobhoff tube, and was tolerating enteral nutrition without excessive residuals or pulmonary secretions.

As with other interventions, whether or not to consider MANH a part of comfort care is individualized. In this patient’s case, in the absence of evidence that he would not want MANH, it was continued. Other patients have expressed the wish that they would under no circumstances accept MANH while receiving comfort care. Both are correct as long as they reflect that patient’s wishes.

With respect to other interventions – including but not limited to BiPAP, inotrope infusion, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and transfusions – whether or not they provide comfort is a decision to be made jointly by the patient and physician(s). As advances in medicine allow patients to live longer with serious illness, the definition of comfort care must also expand.

Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Bekanich are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.

Recently, members of our palliative care team participated in the care of a man approaching the end of his life. The patient had suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest 4 weeks earlier, and though he had survived the immediate event, it resulted in anoxic encephalopathy, which rendered him incapable of making decisions.

When it became clear that the patient was declining despite full support, the hospital’s ethics committee was convened to determine goals of care and next steps, as the patient had no family or surrogate decision maker. After determination that the hospital staff had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate a surrogate, the physicians involved reviewed the patient’s case and recommended a change in goals to comfort care. More than one member of the committee expressed confusion as to what interventions are and are not included in comfort care, including medically administered nutrition and hydration (MANH).

Comfort care has traditionally included medications for distressing symptoms (pain, dyspnea, nausea), personal care for hygiene, and choice of place of death (home, hospital, nursing facility), usually with the assistance of a hospice agency.

As the number and complexity of interventions used near the end of life expand, clinicians and hospital staff report confusion about whether these interventions, generally considered to be life-sustaining treatments, can also be considered comfort care. We generally find that when interventions are considered in the context of the patient’s goals of care, the dilemma is clarified. Often the situation is made more complicated by considering the interventions before settling on goals. Broadly speaking, goals of care are derived from a careful consideration (by patient, physician, and family) of the natural history of the illness, expected course and prognosis, and patient preferences.

In the case of the above-referenced patient, we were unable to ascertain his goals because of neurological impairment. We did know, however, that the patient had steadfastly avoided hospitals and medical care of any kind. The attending hospitalist, pulmonologist, and palliative care physician agreed that the patient’s clinical status was declining despite all available interventions, and that his constellation of medical problems constituted a terminal condition. The physicians agreed that future ICU admission, resuscitation, and other new interventions would only prolong his dying process, but not permit him to live outside the hospital. At that time, the patient was receiving nutrition and hydration via a Dobhoff tube, and was tolerating enteral nutrition without excessive residuals or pulmonary secretions.

As with other interventions, whether or not to consider MANH a part of comfort care is individualized. In this patient’s case, in the absence of evidence that he would not want MANH, it was continued. Other patients have expressed the wish that they would under no circumstances accept MANH while receiving comfort care. Both are correct as long as they reflect that patient’s wishes.

With respect to other interventions – including but not limited to BiPAP, inotrope infusion, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and transfusions – whether or not they provide comfort is a decision to be made jointly by the patient and physician(s). As advances in medicine allow patients to live longer with serious illness, the definition of comfort care must also expand.

Dr. Fredholm and Dr. Bekanich are codirectors of Seton Palliative Care, part of the University of Texas Southwestern Residency Programs in Austin.