Futility and the law: Knowledge, practice and attitudes of doctors in end of life care

Despite the potential harm to patients (and others) and the financial cost of providing futile treatment at the end of life, this practice occurs. This article reports on empirical research undertaken in Queensland that explores doctors’ perceptions about the law that governs futile treatment at the end of life, and the role it plays in medical practice. The findings reveal that doctors have poor knowledge of their legal obligations and powers when making decisions about withholding or withdrawing futile treatment at the end of life; their attitudes towards the law were largely negative; and the law affected their clinical practice and had or would cause them to provide futile treatment.

What does “futility” mean? An empirical study of doctors’ perceptions

Objective(s) To describe how doctors define and use the terms “futility” and “futile treatment” in end-of-life care. Design, Setting, Participants A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 96 doctors across a range of specialties who treat adults at the end of life. Doctors were recruited from three large Australian teaching hospitals and were interviewed from May to July 2013. Results Doctors’ conceptions of futility focused on the quality and chance of patient benefit. Aspects of benefit included physiological effect, weighing benefits and burdens, and quantity and quality of life. Quality and length of life were linked, but many doctors discussed instances when benefit was determined by quality of life alone. Most doctors described the assessment of chance of success in achieving patient benefit as a subjective exercise. Despite a broad conceptual consensus about what futility means, doctors noted variability in how the concept was applied in clinical decision-making. Over half the doctors also identified treatment that is futile but nevertheless justified, such as short-term treatment as part of supporting the family of a dying person. Conclusions There is an overwhelming preference for a qualitative approach to assessing futility, which brings with it variation in clinical decision-making. “Patient benefit” is at the heart of doctors’ definitions of futility. Determining patient benefit requires discussions with patients and families about their values and goals as well as the burdens and benefits of further treatment.

Novel application of a discrete choice experiment to identify preferences for a national healthcare-associated infection surveillance programme: A cross-sectional study

Objective: To identify key stakeholder preferences and priorities when considering a national healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance programme through the use of a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Australia does not have a national HAI surveillance programme. An online web-based DCE was developed and made available to participants in Australia. Participants: A sample of 184 purposively selected healthcare workers based on their senior leadership role in infection prevention in Australia. Primary and secondary outcomes: A DCE requiring respondents to select 1 HAI surveillance programme over another based on 5 different characteristics (or attributes) in repeated hypothetical scenarios. Data were analysed using a mixed logit model to evaluate preferences and identify the relative importance of each attribute. Results: A total of 122 participants completed the survey (response rate 66%) over a 5-week period. Excluding 22 who mismatched a duplicate choice scenario, analysis was conducted on 100 responses. The key findings included: 72% of stakeholders exhibited a preference for a surveillance programme with continuous mandatory core components (mean coefficient 0.640 (p<0.01)), 65% for a standard surveillance protocol where patient-level data are collected on infected and non-infected patients (mean coefficient 0.641 (p<0.01)), and 92% for hospital-level data that are publicly reported on a website and not associated with financial penalties (mean coefficient 1.663 (p<0.01)). Conclusions: The use of the DCE has provided a unique insight to key stakeholder priorities when considering a national HAI surveillance programme. The application of a DCE offers a meaningful method to explore and quantify preferences in this setting.