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.

Trial of the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool: Building organisational performance in Australian general practice and primary health care

Objective: To nationally trial the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT), an organisational performance improvement tool previously co-created with Australian primary care practices to increase their focus on relevant quality improvement (QI) activities. Design: The study was conducted from March to December 2015 with volunteer general practices from a range of Australian primary care settings. We used a mixed-methods approach in two parts. Part 1 involved staff in Australian primary care practices assessing how they perceived their practice met (or did not meet) each of the 13 PC-PIT elements of high-performing practices, using a 1–5 Likert scale. In Part 2, two external raters conducted an independent practice visit to independently and objectively assess the subjective practice assessment from Part 1 against objective indicators for the 13 elements, using the same 1–5 Likert scale. Concordance between the raters was determined by comparing their ratings. In-depth interviews conducted during the independent practice visits explored practice managers’ experiences and perceived support and resource needs to undertake organisational improvement in practice. Results: Data were available for 34 general practices participating in Part 1. For Part 2, independent practice visits and the inter-rater comparison were conducted for a purposeful sample of 19 of the 34 practices. Overall concordance between the two raters for each of the assessed elements was excellent. Three practice types across a continuum of higher- to lower-scoring practices were identified, with each using the PC-PIT in a unique way. During the in-depth interviews, practice managers identified benefits of having additional QI tools that relate to the PC-PIT elements. Conclusions: The PC-PIT is an organisational performance tool that is acceptable, valid and relevant to our range of partners and the end users (general practices). Work is continuing with our partners and end users to embed the PC-PIT in existing organisational improvement programs.