UCSF

Objective: Characterize hospice staff practices and perspectives on discussing end-of-life care preferences with patients/families, including those desiring intensive treatment and/or full code. Background: Patients in the United States can elect hospice while remaining full code or seeking intensive interventions, for example, blood transfusions, or chemotherapy. These preferences conflict with professional norms, hospice philosophy, and Medicare hospice payment policies. Little is known about how hospice staff manage patient/family preferences for full-code status and intensive treatments. Methods: We recruited employees of four nonprofit US hospices with varying clinical and hospice experience for semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Open-ended questions explored participants' practices and perceptions of discussing end-of-life care preferences in hospice, with specific probes about intensive treatment or remaining full code. Interdisciplinary researchers coded and analyzed data using the constant comparative method. Results: Participants included 25% executive leaders, 14% quality improvement administrative staff, 61% clinicians (23 nurses, 21 social workers, 7 physicians, and 2 chaplains). Participants reported challenges in engaging patients/families about end-of-life care preferences. Preferences for intensive treatment or full-code status presented an ethical dilemma for some participants. Participants described strategies to navigate such preferences, including educating about treatment options, and expressed diverse reactions, including accepting or attempting to shift enrollee preferences. Discussion: This study illuminates a rarely studied aspect of hospice care: how hospice staff engage with enrollees choosing full code and/or intensive treatments. Such patient preferences can produce ethical dilemmas for hospice staff. Enhanced communication training and guidelines, updated organizational and federal policies, and ethics consult services may mitigate these dilemmas.