BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different. METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale (very unlikely to very likely) was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patients acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.

Objective

This study aimed to examine self-reported code-status practice patterns among emergency clinicians from Japan and the U.S.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to emergency clinicians from one academic medical center and four general hospitals in Japan and two academic medical centers in the U.S. The questionnaire was based on a hypothetical case involving a critically ill patient with end-stage lung cancer. The questionnaire items assessed whether respondent clinicians would be likely to pose questions to patients about their preferences for medical procedures and their values and goals.

Results

A total of 176 emergency clinicians from Japan and the U.S participated. After adjusting for participants' backgrounds, emergency clinicians in Japan were less likely to pose procedure-based questions than those in the U.S. Conversely, emergency clinicians in Japan showed a statistically higher likelihood of asking 10 out of 12 value-based questions.

Conclusion

Significant differences were found between emergency clinicians in Japan and the U.S. in their reported practices on posing procedure-based and patient value-based questions.

Practice implications

Serious illness communication training based in the U.S. must be adapted to the Japanese context, considering the cultural characteristics and practical responsibilities of Japanese emergency clinicians.