Patients’ perceptions of physicians’ recommendations for comfort care differ by patient age and gender

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient characteristics associated with patient and proxy perceptions of physicians’ recommendations for life-prolonging care versus comfort care, and with acceptance of such recommendations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals in Denver, Colo. PATIENTS: We studied 239 hospitalized adults believed by physicians to have a high likelihood of dying within 6 months. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Interviews with patients or proxies were conducted to determine perceptions of physicians’ recommended goal of care and roles in decision making. RESULTS: Patients’ mean age was 66.6 years; 44% were women. In adjusted analysis, age greater than 70 years and female gender were associated with a higher likelihood of believing that comfort care had been recommended by the physician (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89 to 7.24; OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.84, respectively). Patients and proxies gave substantial decision-making authority to physicians: 29% responded that physicians dominate decision making, 55% that decision making is equally shared by physicians and patients, and only 16% that patients make decisions, Increasing age was associated with an increased likelihood of believing that physicians should dominate decision making (P<.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced illness, perceived comfort care recommendations were related to patient age and gender, raising concern about possible gender and age bias in physicians’ recommendations. Although all patients and proxies gave significant decision-making authority to physicians, older individuals were more likely to give physicians decision-making authority, making them more vulnerable to possible physician bias. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society, May 19, 1999. Financial support for this work was received from the Hartford/Jahnigen Center of Excellence in Geriatrics at the University of Colorado and the Colorado Collective for Medical Decisions, a nonprofit organization to improve care of the dying in the state of Colorado.     

Time to Standardize and Broaden the Criteria of Acute Coronary Syndrome Symptom Presentations in Women

Early recognition of the signs and symptoms of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is essential to improving patient management and associated outcomes. It is widely reported that women might have a different ACS symptom presentation than men. Multiple review articles have examined sex differences in symptom presentation of ACS and these studies have yielded inconclusive results and/or inconsistent recommendations. This is largely because these studies have included diverse study populations, different methods of assessing the chief complaint and associated coronary symptoms, relatively small sample sizes of women and men, and lack of adequate adjustment for age or other potentially confounding differences between the sexes. There is a substantial overlap of ACS symptoms that are not mutually exclusive according to sex, and are generally found in women and men. However, there are apparent differences in the frequency and distribution of ACS symptoms among women and men. Women, on average, are also more likely to have a greater number of ACS-related symptoms contributing to the perception that women have more atypical symptoms than men. In this review, we address issues surrounding whether women should have a different ACS symptom presentation message than men, and provide general recommendations from a public policy perspective. In the future, our goal should be to standardize ACS symptom presentation and to elucidate the full range of ACS and myocardial infarction symptoms considering the substantial overlap of symptoms among women and men rather than use conventional terms such as “typical” and “atypical” angina.     

An Investigation of Associations Between Clinicians’ Ethnic or Racial Bias and Hypertension Treatment,Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure Control

BACKGROUND

Few studies have directly investigated the association of clinicians’ implicit (unconscious) bias with health care disparities in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if clinicians’ implicit ethnic or racial bias is associated with processes and outcomes of treatment for hypertension among black and Latino patients, relative to white patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Primary care clinicians completed Implicit Association Tests of ethnic and racial bias. Electronic medical records were queried for a stratified, random sample of the clinicians’ black, Latino and white patients to assess treatment intensification, adherence and control of hypertension. Multilevel random coefficient models assessed the associations between clinicians’ implicit biases and ethnic or racial differences in hypertension care and outcomes.

MAIN MEASURES

Standard measures of treatment intensification and medication adherence were calculated from pharmacy refills. Hypertension control was assessed by the percentage of time that patients met blood pressure goals recorded during primary care visits.

KEY RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-eight primary care clinicians and 4,794 patients with hypertension participated. Black patients received equivalent treatment intensification, but had lower medication adherence and worse hypertension control than white patients; Latino patients received equivalent treatment intensification and had similar hypertension control, but lower medication adherence than white patients. Differences in treatment intensification, medication adherence and hypertension control were unrelated to clinician implicit bias for black patients (P?=?0.85, P?=?0.06 and P?=?0.31, respectively) and for Latino patients (P?=?0.55, P?=?0.40 and P?=?0.79, respectively). An increase in clinician bias from average to strong was associated with a relative change of less than 5 % in all outcomes for black and Latino patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Implicit bias did not affect clinicians’ provision of care to their minority patients, nor did it affect the patients’ outcomes. The identification of health care contexts in which bias does not impact outcomes can assist both patients and clinicians in their efforts to build trust and partnership.