HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.01050306v1 1/5/1023    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Davison, S. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Davison, S. N.

Facilitating Advance Care Planning for Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: The Patient Perspective

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Immunology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Address correspondence to: Dr. Sara N. Davison, 11-107 Clinical Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2G3. Phone: 780-407-3322; Fax: 780-407-7878; E-mail: sara.davison{at}ualberta.ca

Comprehensive care of patients with ESRD requires expertise in advance care planning (ACP), including attention to ethical, psychosocial, and spiritual issues related to starting, continuing, withholding, and stopping dialysis. However, there are no standards of care regarding when to initiate or how to facilitate ACP. The purpose of this study was to determine the perspectives of patients with ESRD of the salient elements of ACP discussions. An ethnographic, qualitative, in-depth interview study was conducted of outpatients of a university-affiliated nephrology program. Twenty-four patients with ESRD were purposively selected from the renal insufficiency, hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis clinics. Establishing patient "buy-in" by identifying perceived benefits of ACP along with acknowledging patients’ sense of personal empowerment were critical both for the effective framing of facilitated ACP and for determining patients’ ability to participate in facilitated ACP. Patients required more information and earlier initiation of ACP discussions. Information needed to focus more on the individual and how his or her illness and interventions would affect his or her life and relationships and what he or she values most. Empathetic listening also was viewed as an integral component of facilitated ACP. Physicians clearly were seen as having the responsibility for initiating and guiding ACP. The role of patients and family within ACP is complex and varies significantly between patients. For most, family was an integral component of ACP, and many relied extensively on family to make end-of-life decisions. These findings identify a precarious tension between patients’ preferences in terms of facilitated ACP and current clinical practice.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. A Brown, E. J. Chambers, and C. Eggeling Palliative care in nephrology Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., March 1, 2008; 23(3): 789 - 791. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. Patel and J. L. Holley Withholding and Withdrawing Dialysis in the Intensive Care Unit: Benefits Derived from Consulting the Renal Physicians Association/American Society of Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline, Shared Decision-Making in the Appropriate Initiation of and Withdrawal from Dialysis Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2008; 3(2): 587 - 593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]