Evidence Hub

End-of-life issues: Withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining healthcare in the emergency department: A comparison between emergency physicians and emergency registrars: A sub-study

Richardson PG, Greenslade J, Isoardi J, Davey M, Gillett M, Tucker A, Klim S, Kelly AM et al.

Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2016

320 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We investigated and compared the importance of the considerations and discussions when withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining healthcare between emergency physicians (EP) and emergency registrars (ER).

METHODS: This was a sub-study of a prospective cross-sectional questionnaire-based case series conducted in six EDs. Primary outcomes were, which of the discussion and considerations, were rated most important by EP and ER in the decision-making process.

RESULTS: We studied responses relating to the care of 320 patients, of which 49.4% were women and the median age was 83 (interquartile range [IQR] 72-88). EP and ER were sole decision-makers in 185 (39.7%) and 135 (30.0%) of cases, respectively. Treatment was withdrawn or withheld in 72.0 and 90.6% of all deaths by EP and ER, respectively (P < 0.001). EP and ER provided full treatment in 88 (34%) and 19 (12.7%) of cases, respectively (P < 0.05). The consideration rated most important was prognosis: 165 (90.2%, confidence interval: 85.0-93.7) and 121 (90.3%, confidence interval: 84.1-94.2) for EP and ER, respectively. ER rated co-morbidities and age more important than did EP (P < 0.05). Both rated discussions with family as very important. EP and ER referred 6.0% versus 11.9% patients to palliative care services, respectively. The proportion of patients taking longer than 24 h to die was higher for ER compared with that for EP (14.1% vs 4.9%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: We found that ER were more likely to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 320 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free