CJASN
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published ahead of print on August 2, 2006
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
© 2006 American Society of Nephrology
doi: 10.2215/CJN.01050306
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
CJN.01050306v1
1/5/1023    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davison, S. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davison, S. N.

Received March 29, 2006
Accepted on June 16, 2006

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

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

Sara N. Davison 1

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


1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sara.davison{at}ualberta.ca.


   Abstract

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.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Nephrology.