Published online 2016 Jul 13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159056
Caring for someone with advanced dementia Download Leaflet (PDF) This leaflet has been compiled by nurses from the Care Home Project Team at St Christopher’s in collaboration with nurses from dementia care units to help support relatives of people with advanced dementia living and dying in care homes.
PMID: 27410259
Eugenio Paci, Editor
This article has been corrected. See PLoS One. 2016 August 9; 11(8): e0161142.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Associated Data
All relevant data are within the paper.
Abstract
Background and Aims
When a person with dementia (PWD) has lost the ability to make treatment decisions, clinicians often rely on family carers to know and articulate these preferences with assumed accuracy. This study used the Life Support Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ) to explore whether family carers’ choices show agreement with the end of life care preferences of the person with dementia for whom they care and what factors influence this.
Methods
A cross-sectional study interviewing 60 dyads (a person with early dementia and preserved capacity and their family carer) each completing a modified LSPQ. We assessed how closely carers’ choices resembled the PWD’s preferences for treatment in three proposed health states: the here and now; severe stroke with coma; terminal cancer. Agreement between the PWD and their family carer responses was assessed using Kappa and Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) statistics. We examined whether carer burden and distress, and relationship quality, influenced agreement.
Results
In interviews PWD were able to indicate their treatment preferences across all three scenarios. In the here-and-now most wanted antibiotics (98%), fewer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (50%) and tube feeding (47%). In severe stroke and coma antibiotics remained the more preferred treatment (88%), followed by CPR (57%) and tube feeding (30%). In advanced cancer PWD expressed lower preferences for all treatments (antibiotics 68%; CPR 50%; tube feeding 37%). Carers’ choices were similar to the PWDs’ preferences in the here-and-now (71% (k = 0.03; PABAK = 0.4) with less agreement for future hypothetical health states. In severe stroke and coma carers tended wrongly to suggest that the PWD preferred more intervention (antibiotic, 67%; k = -0.022; PABAK = -0.60; CPR, 73%; k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.20, tube feeding, 66%; k = 0.25; PABAK = -0.12). In advanced cancer the agreement between PWD and carers was low (antibiotics; k = -0.03; PABAK = -0.52; CPR, k = -0.07; PABAK = -0.45; tube feeding; k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.22). However, both PWD and carers showed marked uncertainty about their preferences for end of life treatment choices. Relationship quality, carer distress and burden had no influence on agreement.
Conclusions
This study is the first to have used the LSPQ with PWD in the UK to consider treatment options in hypothetical illness scenarios. Key finding are that family carers had a low to moderate agreement with PWD on preferences for end of life treatment. This underscores how planning for care at the end of life is beset with uncertainty, even when the carer and PWD perceive the care-giving/receiving relationship is good. Families affected by dementia may benefit from early and ongoing practical and emotional support to prepare for potential changes and aid decision making in the context of the realities of care towards the end of life.
Introduction
An ageing population and dementia
There are an estimated 835,000 people currently living with dementia in the UK which will rise to over two million by 2050 [1]. Dementia is a degenerative disease and thus a life-limiting condition. Failure to recognise dementia as a terminal illness and that it is often accompanied by multi morbidity has, until recently, led to neglect in addressing end of life challenges for people with dementia (PWD) and their carers [].
Planning end of life care in dementia
Interest in palliative and end of life care for people with dementia is increasing [3,4]. The UK, the End of Life Care Strategy [5], English National Dementia Strategy [6] and Prime Ministers Challenge [7] have all called for improvement in care towards the end of life in dementia by promoting ‘advance care planning’. It has been suggested that all people should be encouraged to identify their needs, priorities and preferences for end of life care [5]. This may be challenging for people with cognitive impairment and in those with reduced capacity to express their preferences.
Dementia and decision making
Autonomy in decision making depends upon consciousness of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions [8]. However, as dementia progresses, in particular the ability to consider future thoughts and actions become compromised and this affects the capacity to make decisions [9]. Capacity, in the context of decision making, refers to the ability to consider and weigh up information relevant to a situation, retain it and communicate that decision [10]. In dementia decisions vary in complexity and importance, ranging for example from decisions to be made about a health crisis to those about day to day needs. Older people often trust loved ones to make healthcare decisions on their behalf [] and want those decisions to be in keeping with their own wishes and preferences [12]. Family carers are assumed to know what these wishes and preferences would have been had the person with dementia not lost capacity [] and professionals often rely on family members to predict and articulate these preferences with assumed accuracy [].
Accuracy in predicting the wishes and preferences of the person with dementia
Making decisions about end of life care and treatment on behalf of a family member may be difficult, for example considering whether to withhold treatment, choosing between treatment options and taking note of the context of the decision, for example, in a crisis as compared to states of chronic ill-health [,]. Family carers’ patterns of decision-making differ according to their previous experiences of end of life care [], education, perceived carer burden [], psychological distress and cultural background []. Not surprisingly, carers often find making health-related decisions for the person they care for stressful []. Decisions concerning end of life care are amongst the most difficult []. Families who are in conflict or with poor inter-relational dynamics may be more likely to opt for active treatment [,] rather than palliative care []. However, even in the absence of such conflict, when a family is in doubt or uncertain as to what to decide, they may err on the side of caution and elect for life-sustaining treatment for the person with dementia.
Aims and objectives
In this study we aimed to increase understanding of the treatment and care preferences of PWD and particularly whether family carers’ choices are in agreement.
Our specific objectives were: a) to use a modified version of the Life Support Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ) [] to explore the choices PWD make for end of life care, b) to examine how accurately family carers of a PWD agree with their wishes and preferences for end of life care, c) to examine factors that might influence this agreement and levels of uncertainty in choices for treatment in both the PWD and the family carer.
Methods
Design and Study population
A cross sectional interview study of dyads of PWD and their family carer or close friend.
Recruitment
Dyads were identified by psychiatrists and registered nurses in memory clinics, community mental health teams or coordinators of dementia research registers in four different sites in England: 1) Barnet Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, 2) Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation Trust, 3) West London Mental Health Trust and 4) Leicestershire Partnership Trust.
Inclusion criteria for PWD were a clinical diagnosis of any type of dementia as categorised in ICD-10 [], a Mini Mental State Examination score [] ≥ 20 and the mental capacity to consent to and participate in the interview. Carers were included if identified as next of kin or key decision maker for the PWD. Dyads were excluded if either the PWD or carer did not consent to take part and if either was unable to communicate sufficiently in English, as no funding was available for use of interpreters.
Procedure
Potential participants were identified by clinicians in each of the four sites. They assessed the capacity of both the PWD and carer who expressed interest in involvement. The researcher then made contact with the nominated contact person of each dyad, usually the carer, to arrange the interview. Capacity of the PWD was reassessed by the researcher (KHD) prior to commencement of the interview. Interviews were held in the participants’ choice of location.
The aims of the study were explained to the both the PWD and their carer. Written consent from both the PWD and carer was then obtained. Each participant was interviewed separately; the PWD first and carer second. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and were carried out by KHD between April 2012 and February 2014. If either the PWD or their carer became distressed at any time during the research process, they were offered the support of Admiral Nursing DIRECT and if necessary the interview was terminated.
Socio-demographic data
We recorded the socio-demographic characteristics of the PWD and carer (age, gender, ethnicity, education, employment, and living situation), as well as the relationship between the carer/friend and PWD.
Measures: people with dementia
We used two instruments:
- Quality of Carer Patient Relationship (QCPR) []. This is a 14-item scale that examines agreement on quality of the relationship between a caregiver and a care recipient. Responses are given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’, giving a range of scores from 14 to 70, with higher values representing better relationships.
- A modified version of the Life Support Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ) []. The LSPQ questionnaire is an American tool using nine health state scenarios to support the development of advance directives. As our aim was to explore how well carers’ agreed with the treatment preferences of the PWD, we modified the LSPQ to three scenarios for participants to consider. One scenario featured the prospect of developing dementia, and as our target population already had a diagnosis of dementia, we described our first scenario as, ‘as you are today, with mild memory problems’. The two other scenarios we selected were stroke with coma and advanced cancer as most people understand or have had experience of these conditions amongst family and friends (see Box 1).
Box 1. Life Support Preference Questionnaire Health states
SCENARIO 1
Imagine you are in your current health, in other words, the way you are feeling now.SCENARIO 2
Imagine you have suffered a severe stroke and have been in a coma for six weeks.In the opinion of your doctor, you have no chance of regaining awareness or the ability to think, reason, and remember.Your current physical condition is stable, but will slowly decline over time. You rely on others for help with feeding, bathing, dressing, and toileting. You may live in this condition for several years.SCENARIO 3
Imagine you have advanced cancer and it has spread to other areas. You are tired and weak, requiring some help with household chores. Imagine you have a pain that requires the constant use of medication. In the opinion of your doctor, you have no chance of recovery. Your doctor estimates that you have about six months to live.
People with dementia were asked to consider themselves in each scenario and indicate their preference for receiving three discrete life-sustaining medical treatments in each of the three scenarios using a five point Likert Scale (‘definitely would want’, ‘probably would want’, ‘unsure’, ‘probably would not want’ and ‘definitely would not want’). The treatments were antibiotics, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and tube feeding. Each treatment was explained to participants as often as necessary and a ‘prompt card’ (see Box 2) was used when needed.
Box 2. Life Support Preference Questionnaire Treatment choices
1. Antibiotics
Doctors use these medicines to treat serious infections (e.g., pneumonia). Without antibiotics, serious infections can cause life threatening complications or death.
2. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)
Doctors use cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR, when a person's heart stops beating or a person stops breathing. Doctors press on the chest to help pump blood, and use artificial breathing. Artificial breathing means the doctor puts a tube in the windpipe. Then, a machine breathes for the patient through the tube. Patients usually get medicines by vein. Patients often need an electrical shock to help restart the heartbeat. Without CPR, the heart will not start beating again, and the patient will die.
3. Artificial Feeding and Fluids
Doctors use artificial feeding and fluids when people are unable to take enough food and water to stay alive. The food goes through a feeding tube. Usually, the feeding tube goes through the skin into the stomach. Without this treatment, patients die within 710 days.
Measures: Carers
We used four instruments:
- Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) []. Comprising 22 items, the ZBI assesses the current burden experienced by caregivers. Items are scored on a rating scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (almost always); total scores range between 0 and 88, higher scores indicating greater burden.
- The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) [] is a 10-item measure of psychological distress based on expressed levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms. Items are scored on a rating scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time) with higher scores indicating greater psychological distress.
- Quality of Carer Patient Relationship (QCPR) []. (The PWD had indicated their responses earlier in the interview).
- The modified LSPQ [] where the carer was asked to predict those preferences previously made by the person with dementia.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the demographic features of the cohort. We report the frequencies and percentages of the ZBI and K10. The scores were also categorised to indicate levels of carer burden e.g. ‘severe carer burden’ (score = 61–88) (ZBI) [30], and ‘moderate mental disorder’ (score = 25–29) (K10). The QCPR scores were dichotomised into ‘good’ and ‘poor’ relationships using the median carer scores, a method developed by Spruttye et al []. The median score in the present study cohort was 60, so a dyad was counted as being in the ‘good’ relationship category if either the PWD or the carer achieved a score of 60 or above.
For the LSPQ, we created indices, dichotomizing the scale by collapsing ‘definitely want’, ‘probably want’, and ‘unsure’ responses into a want treatment category, and ‘definitely don't want’ and ‘probably don't want’ into a don't want treatment category [,]. We categorized ‘unsure’ responses with ‘want treatment’ responses because the clinical default is often to provide treatment unless specifically refused personally or in an advance decision to refuse treatment. Thus, we assigned a value of zero for ‘do not want treatment’ and one for ‘want treatment’. However, to ensure any level of uncertainty was captured, ‘unsure’ responses were also examined and analysed separately.
The three LSPQ scenarios were expressed in 2x2 tables and described using percentage agreement and the kappa coefficient. Due to the unbalanced distribution of the cell counts in the 2x2 tables the Prevalence Adjusted Bias Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) measure was also applied to all calculations []. The level of agreement was described using indices developed by Fleiss et al. [34].
We used the modified LSPQ data to develop an ‘agreement index’ that reflected levels of agreement on treatment preferences. Where a carer could accurately estimate the PWD’s treatment preference, whether that was for active treatment or not, they gained a score of one. Uncertainty only achieved a score of one if that also predicted uncertainty for the treatment preference of the PWD. Thus, we used a score of 0–9; 0 = no ability to predict through to 9 = full ability to predict treatment preferences. Combining scores from all carers gave an overall indication of level of agreement in the sample. Given there was very little missing data for items in measures such as the K10 and ZBI, missing values were replaced by the mean for patients with complete data [35].
Finally, we used multiple linear regression to explore the association between carer and PWD’s characteristics and agreement scores.
Ethical considerations
The study was approved by the NHS Health Research Authority, NRES Committee South East Coast—Surrey in January 2012 (12/LO/0106).
Results
Description of sample
The cohort comprised 60 dyads of a PWD and a family carer or friend recruited from four study sites, the majority recruited from site 1 (see Table 1). Overall we approached 79 dyads over the four sites, of whom 17 declined to participate (76% response rate). The commonest reason for refusal (n = 8) was the carer declining on behalf of the dyad due to their own level of ‘stress’. Demographic characteristics of the cohort are presented in Table 2.
Table 1
Site | Dyads who were approached | Dyads who refused or were excluded | Dyads who were interviewed |
---|---|---|---|
1. BEH | 52 | 10 (19%) | 42 (81%) |
2. CPT | 9 | 1 (11% | 8 (89%) |
3. WLMHT | 12 | 4 (33%) | 8 (67%) |
4. LPT | 6 | 4 (67%) | 2 (33%) |
Total | 79 | 19 (24%) | 60 |
Note: Dyad = person with dementia and their family carer/friend; BEH = Barnet Enfield & Haringey MH NHS Trust; CPT = Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation Trust; WLMHT = West London Mental Health Trust; LPT = Leicestershire Partnership MH Trust.
Table 2
PWD (n = 60) | Carers (n = 60) | |
---|---|---|
Age (mean (SD) [range]) | 79.2 (6.8) [58–93] | 66.6 (12.8) [39–93] |
Gender (% male) | 26 (43%) | 19 (32%) |
MMSE (mean (SD) [range]) | 25.4 (2.4) [20–29] | |
Diagnosis | ||
F00.1 (Alzheimer’s late onset) | 40 (67%) | |
F00.2 (atypical or mixed type Alzheimer’s) | 12 (20%) | |
other | 8 (13%) | |
Ethnicity | ||
White British | 38 (63%) | 42 (70%) |
White other* | 16 (27%) | 12 (20%) |
Other** | 6 (10%) | 6 (10%) |
Previous education | ||
Left school ≤ 14 years | 14 (23%) | 5 (8%) |
Left school ≥ 15 years | 46 (77%) | 55 (92%) |
Living situation of PWD | ||
Alone | 14 (23%) | |
Spouse/partner | 37 (62%) | |
Other | 9 (15%) | |
Relationship to PWD | ||
Spouse | 35 (58%) | |
Adult child | 18 (30%) | |
Other | 7 (12%) | |
Employment—SOC 2010 | ||
1. Higher managerial, administrative and professional qualifications | 28 (47%) | 31 (52%) |
2. Intermediate occupations | 15 (25%) | 18 (30%) |
3. Routine and manual occupations | 16 (27%) | 9 (15%) |
Never worked or long-term unemployed | 0 | 1 |
Missing | 1 | 1 |
Note: PWD = Person with dementia. MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination. ICD 10 = International Disease Classification. SOC = National Statistics Standard Occupational Classification.
* White other includes Irish, Jewish, Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot, Polish and Russian.
Treatment choices and carer agreement in prediction
LSPQ data are presented as the treatment preferences for active or non-active treatment (see Tables Tables33 & 4) and the carer’s ability to discern these.
Table 3
Treatment | Scenario 1: As you are today | Scenario 2: Severe stroke with coma | Scenario 3: Advanced cancer |
---|---|---|---|
Antibiotics | 59 (98%) | 28 (47%) | 28 (47%) |
CPR | 53 (88%) | 20 (33%) | 18 (30%) |
Tube feeding | 39 (65%) | 23 (38%) | 22 (37%) |
Table 4
Carer predictions for PWD choice for active treatment (N/%).
Treatment | Scenario 1: As you are today | Scenario 2: Severe stroke with coma | Scenario 3: Advanced cancer |
---|---|---|---|
Antibiotics | 56 (95%) | 17 (29%) | 33 (56%) |
CPR | 49 (83%) | 10 (17%) | 19 (32%) |
Tube feeding | 30 (51%) | 16 (27%) | 22 (37%) |
Scenario One (‘as you are today’)
Most PWD (98%) expressed a preference to receive antibiotics. However, the preference for active treatment was lower for CPR (88%) and tube feeding (65%). Carer and PWD agreement was highest for antibiotic treatment in scenario one The level of agreement for tube feeding was no better than chance, 20% (k = -0.02; PABAK = -0.60) (see Table 5).
Table 5
LSPQ—carer’s ability to accurately estimate the treatment preferences of PWD presented as agreement.
LSPQ Scenario | % Agreement | % Expected agreement | Kappa (k) | PABAK |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario 1 ‘As you are today’ | ||||
Antibiotics | 71.2 | 59.4 | 0.34 | 0.42 |
CPR | 62.7 | 45.2 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
Tube feeding | 20.3 | 22.0 | -0.018 | -0.60 |
Scenario 2 ‘Severe stroke with coma’ | ||||
Antibiotics | 22.0 | 24.0 | -0.022 | -0.60 |
CPR | 42.4 | 30.0 | 0.21 | -0.20 |
Tube feeding | 44.1 | 26.0 | 0.25 | -0.12 |
Scenario 3 ‘Advanced cancer’ | ||||
Antibiotics | 24.0 | 21.4 | 0.03 | -0.52 |
CPR | 27.1 | 32.0 | -0.07 | -0.45 |
Tube feeding | 39.0 | 23.4 | 0.20 | -0.22 |
Note: LSPQ = Life Support Preferences Questionnaire; PWD = Person with dementia; PABAK = Prevalence And Bias Adjusted Kappa; CPR = cardio pulmonary resuscitation.
Scenario Two (severe stroke with coma)
about half of the PWD showed a preference for no active treatment (antibiotics, 50%; CPR, 57%; tube feeding, 50%) (See Table 3). Carers agreed less in this scenario tending to overestimate the PWD’s desire for no treatment (antibiotic, 67%; CPR, 73%, tube feeding, 66%) (See Table 4). Carers’ ability to estimate the treatment choices of the PWD was lower than in scenario one. In the choice of antibiotic treatment, the strength of agreement was ‘poor’ at 22% (k = -0.022; PABAK = -0.60). There was a 42% level of agreement in the choice of CPR (k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.20). Carers were able to predict the treatment choice of tube feeding with a 44% agreement (k = 0.25; PABAK = -0.12) (See Table 5).
Scenario Three (Advanced cancer)
People with dementia were more in favour of antibiotic treatment (47%) than other treatment options (CPR, 30%; tube feeding, 37%) (See Table 3). Carers had similar views to PWD overall (antibiotics, 55%, CPR, 31%; tube feeding, 37%) (See Table 4). However, when it came to concordance within dyads, the level of agreement was low; antibiotic treatment was only 24% which was rated poor (k = -0.03; PABAK = -0.52). For CPR, agreement was also low at 27% but with only ‘poor’ reliability indicated (k = -0.07; PABAK = -0.45). Concordance between the PWD and carer for tube feeding was 39%, however this was only ‘low’ strength (k = 0.20; PABAK = -0.22) (see Table 5).
Antibiotic treatment achieved the highest level of all treatment options in all scenarios at 71% (k = 0.03; PABAK = 0.4).
Uncertainty
When either the PWD or the carer expressed uncertainty by choosing the ‘unsure’ response on the modified LSPQ, this was potentially lost in the way the modified LSPQ scores were later dichotomised and analysed. In scenario one, PWD were confident in making their preferred treatment choices, and carers agreed with this. However, the selection of the ‘unsure’ response increased for treatments of CPR and tube feeding and within scenarios two and three (see Tables Tables66 & 7).
Table 6
Treatment | Scenario 1: As you are today | Scenario 2: Severe stroke with coma | Scenario 3: Advanced cancer | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Antibiotics | 0 | 2 (3%) | 7 (12%) | 9 (15%) |
CPR | 1 (1%) | 6 (10%) | 6 (10%) | 13 (22%) |
Tube feeding | 8 (13%) | 7 (12%) | 7 (12%) | 22 (37%) |
Total | 9 (15%) | 15 (25%) | 23 (35%) |
Table 7
Carer–‘Unsure’ of PWD’s preference for treatment choice.
Treatment | Scenario 1: As you are today | Scenario 2: Severe stroke with coma | Scenario 3: Advanced cancer | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Antibiotics | 0 | 2 (3%) | 6 (10%) | 8 (14%) |
CPR | 2 (3%) | 5 (8%) | 4 (7%) | 11 (19%) |
Tube feeding | 10 (16%) | 3 (5%) | 3 (5%) | 16 (27%) |
Total | 12 (20%) | 10 (17%) | 13 (22%) |
Carer burden, distress and quality of relationship
On the ZBI, almost half of carers (40%) perceived ‘mild to moderate’ levels of carer burden’, 32% ‘little or no burden’ and 27% ‘moderate to severe burden’. Analysis of the K10 indicated the majority of carers fell within the range defined as ‘well’ (score <20; 66.7%). Eight (13.3%) were defined as having a ‘mild mental disorder’, 10% as having a ‘moderate mental disorder’, and 10% a ‘severe mental disorder’ (score ≥ 30). Analysis of QCPR data showed no statistically significant association between the quality of the relationship as perceived by the PWD and that perceived by carers (Pearson’s r = -0.048; P = 0.718).
Association between carer measures and life support preferences
No significant association was revealed between the Life Support Preference Questionnaire and the variables examined (i.e. care burden, distress and quality of care giver/care receiver relationship).
Discussion
The treatment preferences of PWD varied across the three scenarios as did family carers’ agreement with those preferences, with a significant degree of decisional uncertainty in both. Perception of relationship quality, carer burden and distress had no effect on carers’ accuracy in estimating the PWD’s treatment preferences.
Treatment preferences of PWD
People with dementia indicated their preference for life saving treatments in the here and now. The wish to receive life sustaining treatments reduced in the future hypothetical scenarios, especially for CPR and tube feeding.
The hypothetical scenario method can be used to derive information by asking study participants how they would act under certain circumstances [,]. Hypothetical scenarios are commonly used in studying sensitive healthcare issues that are difficult to research directly, for example, asking opinions at the bedside of a dying patient [38]. Whilst all the PWD in our study met the essential criteria regarded as necessary to be able to undertake ACP [,] and had the capacity to participate, the complex judgments required to place themselves in hypothetical health states may have presented too great a challenge. Our nominal group study [] showed that PWD find it difficult to contemplate their future selves in hypothetical scenarios, for example, what circumstances might present in the future that may prevent them continuing to live in their own home. This suggests that they would have difficulties making care planning decisions for the future and thus they (as well as their clinicians) may rely on their families and friends. Unfortunately, our results indicate that such reliance may be misplaced.
Treatment preferences in relation to different health states
There has been little exploration of the future treatment preferences of PWD. This presumably reflects either an assumption that they lack capacity to express a consistent view or else a reluctance to raise sensitive topics with PWD. However, we found that PWD could express their preferences and that there were notable differences across the three health state scenarios. They were more likely to show a preference for antibiotic treatment across all proposed health states but much less likely to opt for more ‘invasive’ treatments, such as tube feeding, this especially so in stroke with coma and this concurs with the findings of Low et al.[] in interviews with nursing home residents who did not have dementia
Our findings are consistent with other studies investigating the views of older people [,] where participants (who did not have dementia) wished to forego treatments in the event of being in a coma. However, Scandrett et al. [] found little consistency in treatment preferences across a range of hypothetical health states. However, neither of these studies involved participants with dementia; indeed, dementia was presented as one of the hypothetical scenarios.
We cannot assume that in the event of a diagnosis of dementia that people’s end of life care treatment and care preferences will change. Indeed, our findings suggest that they maybe do not change much. Therefore, any discussions about end of life care should start with the PWD. Schellinger et al. [] advocated the use of disease-specific advance care planning, conducted by clinicians who are knowledgeable and skilled in communication relating to the life limiting condition with which a person is diagnosed. Though they did not test this approach in dementia, Schellinger and colleagues reported improvements in end of life care communication for people with heart disease, with a correspondingly increased access to hospice care.
Carers’ agreement with the treatment preferences of PWD
Carers’ agreement with the end of life treatment preferences of the PWD varied across the three scenarios. Most carers agreed with the PWD’s preferences in the here and now, perhaps because it is a known situation that requires less consideration, concurring with findings of similar studies []. However, as the scenarios increasingly focused on severe future illness states, carers’ and PWD’s level of agreement became, at best, moderate. The more interventional treatments, such as CPR and tube feeding, showed lower levels of agreement across all scenarios. This may be due in part to most carers having previous knowledge and experience of antibiotic treatment whereas CPR and tube feeding may be less familiar to them or indeed be seen as more emotive and ‘high stakes’ as treatment options. Overall, carers showed a moderate to low ability to estimate the treatment preferences of the PWD, and lower than that found in other research [,].
In general, research on carers’ ability to predict accurately the preferences of a PWD have produced conflicting findings. Whitlach et al [12] examined the accuracy of family carers’ ability to estimate the PWD’s treatment preferences and concluded it to be ‘adequate’, but without specifying what ‘adequate’ actually meant. In contrast, Shalowitz et al [] found that, in one-third of cases, next-of-kin and patient-nominated decision makers incorrectly predicted patients' end of life treatment preferences. In their review, they concluded that even discussing preferences for treatment or designating a person to make decisions on their behalf failed to improve the surrogates' predictive accuracy.
Factors that might influence accuracy
Our study revealed no association between carer burden and distress or quality of relationship that influences the ability to predict accuracy in decision making, which is not consistent with other studies [12,]. Carers may find it difficult to reconcile their own emotional needs with those of the person they care for, struggling to decide what they think the person would have wanted []. Although our study did not incorporate a specific measure for this, we found that both PWD and carers showed marked uncertainty for treatment choices in future scenarios and choosing the ‘unsure’ response in the LSPQ scale. This is common in dementia care around issues such as imprecision in diagnosis, lack of information and communication about prognosis [] and lack of knowledge about care and treatment options for the future []. Mishel [] proposed a ‘theory of uncertainty’ whereby, especially in chronic illness-related situations, the decision maker finds it very stressful and difficult to make a judgment or to predict what an individual might or might not want due to lack of cues and information []. In an earlier study [] we found that family carers perceived a future with dementia as bleak, which may in part be due a lack of support, communication and information on what the future holds for them as a carer, but this may also influence the decisions they think the PWD would make for themselves. However, the preferences expressed by the PWD in the earlier stages of the disease may not be consistent as they move through the illness and adapt to the diagnosis; their views on what constitutes a good quality of life may change [].
Methodology and limitations of the study
This study is the first to have used the LSPQ with PWD in the UK in considering treatment options in hypothetical illness scenarios. The research was undertaken by one interviewer on a sample that may not be representative of this population. However, issues such as the inevitable worsening of dementia, impending loss of decision-making capacity, and the likelihood of future physical illness are universal for all people affected by this condition and their families and friends.
Recruitment to the study was challenging, despite being extended across four geographical areas and two dementia research registers. Requiring consent of both parties of the dyad may have been restrictive in recruitment with either the PWD or their carer in any potential dyad refusing to take part. As in other studies, carers tended to ‘gate keep’ researcher access to the PWD [,]. Some clinicians were cautious in recommending some dyads, reasoning that they had only recently received the diagnosis and it was too soon to seek their interest in a study on ACP and end of life care. This caution may reflect clinician reluctance to discuss the nature of the research topic for fear of causing distress; however no potential participants expressed any distress or concern regarding the topic.
A PWD may find end of life care issues especially difficult to process. Whilst approaches, such as the LSPQ, may attempt to mimic actual healthcare scenarios, they are in danger of being minimalist in their descriptions, lacking specific detail and failing to reflect how complex and emotionally draining decision making can be. This may lead participants to make choices that may not reflect the reality of a future health state or indeed reflect their wishes and preferences in the event, so we cannot assume that participants would make these choices when faced with such a situation. Nor do we know if the PWD’s wishes are simply overridden by the carer if those views were different. However, the actual outcome of events for these dyads is not what we measured here. Rather, of interest was carer agreement and the extent to which different scenarios led to different patterns of agreement.
The lack of association between measures of the carer relationship, carer burden and levels of agreement on health preferences was not entirely expected. However, we must emphasise that this study was may not have been powered to examine these associations.
Significance of this research
This study contributes novel findings about decision making and how PWD and carers might make choices about future health care. A key finding of this study was that carer burden and distress did not seem to influence a carer’s ability to estimate the preferences of his or her PWD, therefore further exploration is required to understand in more depth the complexities of proxy decision making for PWD at end of life.
Clinical implications
The work has clinical implications, for example further demonstrating the need to take time to ensure that the PWD (especially) have the relevant information to make their own choices, where possible, and that these are clearly communicated and recorded, so that any ACP is readily available when required in the future.
There is often an assumption in practice [,] that carers and PWD will speak with one voice but we found this cannot be assumed. This suggests that there is a need for targeted educational initiatives and support, on the nature and course of dementia but also on how to plan ahead and with that dialogue to be revisited and reviewed at frequent intervals. We will need to give more consideration to the problem of uncertainty if we are to support families in decision making as the dementia progresses and also to prepare professionals [] in providing appropriate support.
Conclusion
Whilst robust evidence for the presumed benefits of end of life communication and ACP in dementia is still lacking, this study furthers our understanding of the challenges that face PWD and their families in considering end of life care treatment preferences. Advance care planning may offer a range of benefits to PWD and their families such as initiating conversations that lead to thinking ahead and articulating wishes and preferences for care in the future. But, there remain significant barriers that will need to be addressed in order to gain optimum outcomes of any such intervention. PWD find it difficult to conceive of their future selves and think about preferences for end of life care and in the absence of a process of continued communication this makes it difficult for them to identify future treatment choices for any possible hypothetical health scenario they may experience. Moreover, their carers, who may be forced to make proxy decisions, are often not aware of, or cannot estimate, their preferences.
Acknowledgments
This doctoral research study was supported by Dementia UK and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, UCL.
Abbreviations
CPR | Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation |
K10 | Kessler Psychological Distress Scale |
LSPQ | Life Support preferences Questionnaire |
MMSE | Mini Mental State Examination |
PABAK | Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa |
PWD | People with dementia |
QCPR | Quality of Carer Patient Relationship |
ZBI | Zarit Burden Inventory |
Funding Statement
The authors have no support or funding to report.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the paper.
References
1. Alzheimer's Society (2014) Dementia 2014: Opportunity for change.
2. Sampson EL, Gould V, Lee D, Blanchard MR (2006) Differences in care received by patients with and without dementia who died during acute hospital admission: a retrospective case note study. Age Ageing35: 187–189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Davies E, Higginson IJ (2004) Better Palliative Care for Older People.
4. WHO (2004) Palliative Care for Older People: Better Practices.
6. DH (2009) Living Well with Dementia: A National Dementia Strategy.
7. DH (2012) Prime Ministers Challenge on Dementia: Delivering major improvements in dementia care and research by2015.
8. Jolley N (1999) Locke: His philosophical thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
9. Fratiglioni L, Qiu C (2013) Epidemiology of dementia In: Dening T, Thomas A, editors. Oxford Textbook of Old Age Psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; pp. 389–414. [Google Scholar]
11. High DM (1994) Surrogate decision making. Who will make decisions for me when I can't?Clinics in Geriatric Medicine10: 445–462. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Whitlach CJ, Piiparinen R, Feinburg LF (2009) How well do family caregivers know their relatives' care values and preferences?Dementia8: 223–243. [Google Scholar]
13. Wendler D, Rid R (2011) Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Annals of Internal Medicin154: 336–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL (1992) Proxy decision making for incompetent patients. An ethical and empirical analysis. JAMA267: 2067–2071. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Hirschman KB, Kapo J, Karlawish J (2006) Why doesn't a family member of a person with advanced dementia use a substituted judgment when making a decision for that person?American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry14: 659–667. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Mezey M, Kluger M, Maislin G, Mittelman M (1996) Life sustaining treatment decisions by spouses of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of American Geriatric Society44: 144–150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Amjad H, Towle V, Fried T (2014) Association of Experience with illness and End-of-Life Care with Advance Care Planning in Older Adults. JAGS62: 1304–1309. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Hansen L, Archbold PG, Stewart BJ (2004) Role strain and ease in decision-making to withdraw or withhold life support for elderly relatives. Journal of Nursing Scholarship36: 233–238. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Vig EK, Starks H, Taylor JS, Hopley EK, Fryer-Edwards K (2007) Surviving surrogate decision-making: what helps and hampers the experience of making medical decisions for others. Journal of General Internal Medicine22: 1274–1279. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Livingston G, Leavey G, Manela M, Livingston D, Rait G, Sampson E, et al. (2010) Making decisions for people with dementia who lack capacity: qualitative study of family carers in UK. BMJ. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Russ AJ, Kaufman SR (2005) Family perceptions of prognosis, silence, and the 'suddenness' of death. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry29: 103–123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Winter L, Parks SM (2008) Family discord and proxy decision makers' end-of-life treatment decisions. Journal of Palliative Medicine11: 1109–1114. 10.1089/jpm.2008.0039 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Coppola KM, Bookwala J, Ditto PH, Lockhart LK, Danks JH, Smucker WD (1999) Elderly adults' preferences for life-sustaining treatments, the role of impairment, prognosis, and pain. Death Studies23: 617–634. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Ditto PH, Smucker WD, Danks JH, Jacobson JA, Houts RM, Fagerlin A, et al. (2003) Stability of older adults' preferences for life-sustaining medical treatment. Health Psychology22: 605–615. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. WHO (1992) ICD-10: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. World Health Organisation. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) 'Mini-mental State'. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research12: 189–198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Spruytte N, Audenhove CV, Lammertyn F, Storms G (2002) The quality of caregiving relationship in informal care for older adults with dementia and chronic psychiatric patients. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice75: 295–311. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Zarit SH, Todd PA, Zarit JM (1986) Subjective burden of husbands and wives as caregivers: A longitudinal study. Gerontologist26: 260–266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SL, et al. (2002) Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence's and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine32: 959–976. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Hérbert R, Bravo G, Préville M (2000) Reliability, validity and reference values of the Zarit Burden Interview for assessing informal caregivers of community-dwelling older persons with dementia. Canadian Journal on Aging19: 494–507. [Google Scholar]
31. Fagerlin A, Ditto PH, Danks JH, Houts RM, Smucker WD (2001) Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatment. Health Psychology20: 166–175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA, Cain KC (1988) Physicians' and spouses' predictions of elderly patients' resuscitation preferences. Journal of Gerontology43: M115–M121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB (1993) Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology46: 423–429. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
35. Huisman M (2000) Imputations of Missing Item Responses: Some Simple Techniques. Quality and Quantity34: 331–351. [Google Scholar]
36. Kodadek MP, Feeq VD (2002) Using vignettes to explore how parents approach end-of-life decision making for terminally ill infants. Paediatric Nursing28: 333–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Hughes R, Huby M (2002) The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing37: 382–386. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Denk CE, Benson JM, Fletcher JC, Reigel TM (1997) How do Americans want to die? A factorial vignette survey of public attitudes about end-of-life medical decision-making. Social Science Research26: 95–120. [Google Scholar]
39. Fazel S, Hope T, Jacoby R (1999) Assessment of competence to complete advance directives: validation of a patient centred approach. British Medical Journal318: 493–497. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Gregory R, Roked F, Jones L, Patel A (2007) Is the degree of cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease related to their capacity to appoint an enduring power of attorney?Age and Ageing36: 527–531. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Harrison Dening K, Jones L, Sampson EL (2012) Preferences for end-of-life care: A nominal group study of people with dementia and their family carers. Palliative Medicine27: 409–417. 10.1177/0269216312464094 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Low JA, Chan DK, Hung WT, Chye R (2003) Treatment of recurrent aspiration pneumonia in end-stage dementia: preferences and choices of a group of elderly nursing home residents. Internal Medicine Journal33: 345–349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Pearlman RA, Cain KC, Starks H, Cole WG, Uhlmann RF, Patrick DL (2000) Preferences for life-sustaining treatments in advance care planning and surrogate decision making. Journal of Palliative Medicine3: 37–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Gjerdingen DK, Neff JA, Wang M, Chaloner K (1999) Older persons' opinions about life-sustaining procedures in the face of dementia. Archives of Family Medicine8: 421–425. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Scandrett KG, Joyce B, Emanuel L (2014) Intervention thresholds: a conceptual framework for advance care planning choices. BMC Palliative Care13: 2110.1186/1472-684X-13-21 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Schellinger S, Sidebottom A, Briggs L (2011) Disease specific advance care planning for heart failure patients: implementation in a large health system. Journal of Palliative Medicine14: 1224–1230. 10.1089/jpm.2011.0105 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer AB, Wendler D (2006) The Accuracy of Surrgate Decision Makers: a systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine166: 493–497. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Ayalon L, Bachner YG, Dwolatzky T, Heinik J (2012) Preferences for end-of-life treatment: concordance between older adults with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their spouses. International Psychogeriatrics24: 1798–1804. 10.1017/S1041610212000877 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Lord K, Livingston G, Cooper C (2015) A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to and interventions for proxy decision-making by family carers of people with dementia. International Psychogeriatrics27: 1301–1312. 10.1017/S1041610215000411 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Digby R, Bloomer MJ (2014) Families and caregivers of older people: expectations, communication and care decisions. Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia)21: 345–351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Schenker Y, Crowley-Matoka M, Dohan D, Tiver GA, Arnold RM, White DB (2012) I don't want to be the one saying 'We should just let him die': Intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in ICU. Journal of General Internal Medicine27: 1657–1665. 10.1007/s11606-012-2129-y [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Mishel MH (1990) Reconceptualization of the uncertainty of illness theory. Journal of Nursing Scholarship22: 256–262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Karlawish JH, Schmidt FA (2000) Why physicians need to become more proficient in assessing their patients' competency and how they can achieve this. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society48: 1014–1018. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Ashton S, Roe B, Jack B, McClelland B (2014) End of life care: The experiences of advance care planning amongst family caregivers of people with advanced dementia—A qualitative study. Dementia: International Journal of Social Research and Practice. 10.1177/1471301214548521 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Sugarman J, Cain C, Wallace R, Welsh-Bohmer KA (2001) How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society49: 1110–1119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Berger JT, Majerovitz SO (2005) Do elderly persons' concerns for family burden influence their preferences for future participation in dementia research?The Journal of Clinical Ethics16: 108–115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Sulsamy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, Miller DJ, Stallings RY, Vetesse MA, et al. (1998) The accuracy of substituted judgements in patients with terminal diagnosis. Annals of Internal Medicine128: 621–629. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Goodman C, Froggatt K, Amador S, Mathi E, Mayrhofer A (2015) End of life care interventions for people with dementia in care homes: addressing uncertainty within a framework for service delivery and evaluation. BMC Palliative Care1410.1186/s12904-015-0040-0 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science
PMID: 24427179
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract
Appropriate management of advanced dementia requires it to be recognised as a terminal condition that needs palliative care. Interventions during this stage should be carefully chosen to ensure the improvement or maintenance of the quality of life of the person with dementia. Advanced care planning is an important aspect of dementia care. Carers and relatives should be educated and encouraged to actively participate in discussions related to artificial nutrition, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and other medical interventions.
Keywords: advanced dementia, end-of-life care, palliative
Caring for someone near the end of their life is an integral aspect of dementia care. The advanced stage of dementia is recognised as a terminal illness; however, many relatives and health professionals find it difficult to acknowledge this. Creating awareness about advanced dementia is therefore essential. It is important to focus on dementia as a disease that starts affecting the brain, but then, as it progresses, affects the whole body. This will result in the shift from aggressive medical treatment to palliative care in advanced dementia. There are differences in end-of-life care for patients with dementia and those who are still cognitively aware. Issues associated with end-of-life care share certain aspects with those suffering from various other degenerative diseases, but there are some unique challenges as well.
In a condition like advanced dementia, it is beyond the skill of doctors to give an accurate estimation of how long the patient is going to live. Researchers have been working on tools to estimate the lifespan of people with dementia in the advanced stages of the disease. The terminal stage is often defined by a set of symptoms that include rapid irreversible deterioration on a day-to-day basis, the inability to eat orally, changes in breathing patterns, weight loss, lack of mobility and semiconsciousness. Towards the end of their life, a person with dementia (PwD) is usually unable to communicate and also becomes completely dependent on others for day-to-day living. They are usually doubly incontinent, frequently have infections like pneumonia and are troubled by bed sores.
Ways should be found to provide quality person-centred care for advanced dementia. Ethically appropriate care in advanced dementia consists of several principles. Good person-centred care responds to the needs of the individual patient successfully. There has been a steady increase in the number of dementia patients receiving palliative care in hospices in the developed world, but this has not received considerable attention in the developing world. Many also question the transference of a patient in the end stages of life to an unfamiliar setting. Slowly but steadily, end-of-life care in dementia is moving towards a palliative care approach. Access to specialist palliative care should be based on need. Even towards the end of life it is possible to help the person have a good quality of life and a dignified death. Families need to be educated about nutrition, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and pain management to help them actively take part in decision making. During the decision-making process, religious and cultural aspects of care should also be considered.
Advanced care planning (ACP) is also essential in dementia. It refers to a process of discussing an individual's preferences for care they would like to receive at a time when they may no longer be able to make such decisions or be able to make their wishes known. It is quite difficult to know the best time to carry out ACP in dementia as the patient loses the capacity to make decisions as the disease progresses. Many consider it unacceptable and inappropriate to discuss end-of-life issues and death with patients who have dementia and their relatives as it might be a traumatic experience. However, a recent qualitative study has shown that ACP done for people with memory problems and dementia soon after diagnosis can be acceptable and perceived as a positive and useful intervention. Carers found it helpful to know the patient's wishes in case they had to make a decision on behalf of the patient in the future. Advance directives, in which a person with dementia can indicate his or her wish to refuse medical treatment, have been associated with reduced family stress.
Even though dementia is an illness that affects one's cognitive abilities, it is often not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, even in an advanced stage of the disease. Carers should be sensitive about the body language, reactions, gestures and facial expressions of the PwD since they are valid guides to their feelings and preferences. There definitely will be times when the PwD is able to express him/herself very clearly and the people around them should stay alert to these instances so that they can understand their preferences and wishes. Every effort should be taken to explain things to the PwD. Even in places where there is no equivalent of a legally valid advanced directive, efforts should be taken to document in detail the PwD's expressed wishes, especially regarding artificial nutrition, CPR, ventilating and medical treatments, and they should be honoured as far as possible. People close to the patient would be good advocates to let the medical team know about their values and possible choices.
Artificial nutrition is a sensitive issue and a difficult decision to make for professionals and relatives alike. At some stage of the disease, many patients stop eating. Patients in an advanced stage of dementia do not eat for several possible reasons, including impaired swallowing, fear of choking, aspiration, lack of taste and aversion to food. Progressive loss of learned behaviour is a core feature of dementia. As commonly believed, tube feeding may not increase survival rates in severe dementia.6–9 There is also some evidence to suggest that tube feeding is not associated with improved nutritional status, prevention of pressure ulcers or reduced infections. Lack of eating may not be associated with pain or discomfort. It should be a carefully considered decision whether to tube feed someone who cannot consent or understand what is happening as it is a procedure that has discomfort and several complications. In most cultures, providing food for survival is a basic aspect of love and care and withholding it equates to starvation and suffering, which would evoke severe feelings of guilt. Transcultural aspects of care beliefs should be taken into account in all decision making. Feeding patients small amounts of food by spoon, giving small sips of fluids, keeping the mouth and lips moistened and good oral care are more important than tube feeding in most patients.
What constitutes appropriate medical care and how invasive can the interventions be for someone with advanced dementia? A helpful guide to medical decision making would be whether the procedure provides any long term benefit and the amount of discomfort associated with it. When in doubt, it would also be helpful to consider whether the PwD would have wanted it if he/she was able to make the decision, judged by his/her decision making and actions from the past. Carers should be actively involved in all decision making processes. The discussion should be geared towards withholding aggressive interventions without tangible benefits. The treating team should identify a surrogate decision maker for the patient based on the patient's previous wishes or the closeness of the relationship. They should explain in detail the possible prognosis and the medical treatments available. It should be the responsibility of medical personnel to educate the family about the benefits and burdens of each treatment option. This should be explained in detail and information leaflets should be provided if possible. After this discussion there should be some clarity in the relative's mind as to what the appropriate treatment is and what would be burdensome and invasive to the patient, impairing their quality of life. Diagnostic tests and procedures should be carefully chosen to ensure that they have some bearing on improving quality of life. Stressed relatives who want the best for their loved ones can sometimes forget that the most invasive and aggressive tests and treatment may not necessarily contribute to a better quality of life. It is often the responsibility of the professional to focus the attention on quality of life. Aggressive interventions should be replaced by good quality palliative care resulting from effective care co-ordination. The focus should be on symptom management and developing specialist palliative care services.
There are several other decisions that the treatment team must make and care components they have to be aware of. These include the management of pain, the use of CPR, ethnic differences and spirituality. The impact of pain on the behaviour of a PwD is becoming more recognised. Adequate pain management is an important aspect of good quality care and carers should be educated on how to recognise, identify and monitor pain. There have been ethical concerns about applying the traditional default of using CPR in end-stage dementia patients, which can have untoward effects. Using this default is flawed in end-stage dementia patients as a large majority of patients would not have wanted it. There have been proposals of using no CPR in end-stage dementia as the default unless specifically chosen by the patients in an advance directive or by a surrogate decision maker. Behavioural and psychological symptoms associated with dementia will remain a challenging issue, even in advanced stage. Aggression and resistance to care may be indicators of unmet needs such as under-detected or undertreated pain, delirium or infection.
Families go through varying degrees of feelings of loss, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration and hopelessness, and often they do not get an opportunity to express their feelings as they are too busy with caring for the patient and fear being judged. It is important to provide family carers with space and time to talk about their own feelings. They should be equipped to deal with anticipatory grief. The multidisciplinary care providers should be mindful of this as studies have shown that ethnic group differences exist in end-of-life care experiences among carers, even though carer pressures are similar. Disparities in end-of-life care for people with dementia from ethnic minority groups appear to exist, possibly because of the double disadvantage of dementia and ethnic minority status.
The training of nursing and auxiliary staff in hospitals and care homes in the palliative care approach is essential to improve their knowledge and skills in this area. Even if there are ethical and practical difficulties in conducting good-quality research in advanced dementia, there should be no reason not to use a palliative care approach in dementia management. Palliative care specialists emphasise that identifying and responding to the physical care needs of the PwD must form the cornerstone of any approach. There are several care models, such as the Gold Standard Framework (GSF), that focus on care in the last year or months of life, or, like the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), focus on the last days and hours of life. GSF is a systematic approach for professionals to provide good quality care at the end of life.18 GSF emphasises good communication, coordination, control of symptoms, continuity, continued learning, carer support and care of the dying. There should be regular communication and information-sharing between the family and the professionals involved in care to ensure improved quality of care and avoid confusion, mis-trust and misunderstanding so that everyone involved is aware of what is happening.
Contributor Information
CT Sudhir Kumar, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Comprehensive Dementia Care Project, Alzheimer's and Related Disorders Society of India, Cochin, Kerala, India.
Jacob Roy Kuriakose, Chairman, Alzheimer's Disease International, London, UK.
REFERENCES
1. Sampson EL, Gould V, Lee D, et al. (2006) Differences in care received by patients with and without de-mentia who died during acute hospital admission: a retrospective case note study. Age and Ageing2006;35:187–9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Miller SC, Lima JC, Mitchell SL.Hospice care for persons with dementia: the growth of access in US nursing homes. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias2010;25:666–73 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Harris D.Forget me not: palliative care for people with dementia. Postgraduate Medical Journal2007;83:362–6 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Poppe M, Burleigh S, Banerjee S.Qualitative evaluation of advanced care planning in early dementia (ACP-ED). PLoS ONE2013;8(4):e60412.10.1371/journal.pone.0060412 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Engel SE, Kiely DK, Mitchell SL.Satisfaction with end-of-life care for nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society2006;54:1567–72 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Mitchell SL, Kiely DK, Lipsitz LA.The risk factors and impact on survival of feeding tube placement in nursing home residents with severe cognitive impairment. Archives of Internal Medicine1997;157:327–32 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Fisman DN, Levy AR, Gifford DR, et al. Survival after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among older residents of Quebec. Journal of American Geriatric Society1999;47:349–53 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Sanders DS, Carter MJ, D'Silva J.Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: a worse outcome in patients with dementia. American Journal of Gastroenterology2000;95:1472–5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Meier DE, Ahronheim JC, Morris J, et al. High short-term mortality in hospitalized patients with advanced dementia: lack of benefit of tube feeding. Archives of Internal Medicine2001;161:594–9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Sampson EL, Candy B, Jones L.Enteral tube feeding for older people with advanced dementia. Cochrane Database Systematic Review2009;15(2):CD007209 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Pinderhughes ST, Morrison RS.Evidence-based approach to management of fever in patients with end-stage dementia. Journal of Palliative Medicine2003;6:351–4 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Van der Steen JT, Hertogh CM, de Graas T, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of a family booklet on comfort care in dementia: sensitive topics revised before implementation. Journal of Medical Ethics2013;39:104–9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Scherder E, Herr K, Pickering G, et al. Pain in dementia. Pain2009;145:276–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Volandes AE, Abbo ED.Flipping the default: a novel approach to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in end-stage dementia. Journal of Clinical Ethics2007;18:122–39 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Sampson EL.Palliative care for people with dementia. British Medical Bulletin2010;96:159–74 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Connolly A, Sampson EL, Purandare N.End-of-life care for people with dementia from ethnic minority groups: a systematic review. Journal of American Geriatrics Society2012;60:351–60 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Lawrence V, Samsi K, Murray J, et al. Dying well with dementia: qualitative examination of end-of-life care. British Journal of Psychiatry2011;199:417–22 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. SCIEEnd of life care for people with dementia. Social Care Institute of Excellence, 2013. www.scie.org.uk/publications/dementia/endoflife/index.asp (accessed 31/07/2013). [Google Scholar]
Articles from Mental Health in Family Medicine are provided here courtesy of Radcliffe Publishing and Wonca