Dr. Alexander K. Smith
is a brave man.
It has
taken physicians a very long time to
accept the need to level with
patients and their families when they
have terminal illnesses and death
is near — and we know that many times
those kinds of honest,
exploratory conversations still don’t
take place.
Now
Dr. Smith, a palliative care specialist
at the University of
California, San Francisco, who also
practices at the San Francisco
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and two
co-authors are urging another
change, one they acknowledge would
“radically alter” the way health
care professionals communicate with
their very old patients.
In a
recent article in The New England
Journal of Medicine, they suggested
offering to discuss “overall prognosis,”
doctorspeak for probable life
expectancy and the likelihood of death,
with patients who don’t have
terminal illnesses. The researchers
favor broaching the subject with
anyone who has a life expectancy of less
than 10 years or has reached
age 85.
“Advanced
age itself is the greatest predictor of
poor prognosis,” Dr. Smith told
me in an interview.
By age
85, the article points out, the average
remaining life expectancy for
Americans is six years. An 85-year-old
has a 75 percent chance of
living another three years, but only a
one in four chance of surviving
for 10. Which category a particular old
person falls into has much to
do with the medical problems he or she
has, or doesn’t have, and with
his or her ability to function.
When
the odds are that they have only a few
remaining years, should doctors
discuss that with them?
Dr. Smith and his
co-authors, Dr. Brie Williams and Dr.
Bernard Lo — a geriatrician and
an internist, respectively — vote yes.
“This is about empowering
patients to make informed choices and
encouraging individual
decision-making,” he said.
Sadly,
it takes guts to propose this when
mention of the D word to patients
still raises alarms. The Obama
administration had to cancel plans for
Medicare to reimburse doctors when they
discuss end-of-life care with
their patients. Death panels! Rationing!
But to
Dr. Smith, understanding how much time
remains could help his older
patients make the most of those years
and help them ward off
interventions, tests and treatments
whose benefits, if any, are years
away but whose harms could be immediate.
A
“substantial minority” of older patients
won’t want to have this
discussion, Dr. Smith acknowledged.
“It’s important to offer the
information, not force it on people,” he
said.
But in
his experience, it’s the protective
family caregivers who object to
talking about prognosis, more than their
older relatives. “A lot of
very elderly patients realize they’re in
their final years,” he said.
“This doesn’t come as a surprise to
them. My friends in their 90s are
already thinking about it.”
He
cited a study he and colleagues
published in The Journal of General
Internal Medicine, based on interviews
with 60 older people with
disabilities, their average age 78 — an
admittedly small but ethnically
diverse sample. About two-thirds told
researchers they’d want their
doctors to tell them if they had less
than five years to live. (Readers
here had even stronger opinions: see
this post about public access to
longevity indexes.)
And
when they do think about it, Dr. Smith
continued, “they want to get
their finances in order, plan for
long-term care, spend time with
children and friends.” They may be able
to take fewer medications and
undergo fewer procedures, with the
emphasis on quality of life, or
otherwise shift priorities.
“This
is a challenge to people,” Dr. Smith
acknowledged. “I’ve had reactions
from ‘This is terrific; I’ve been
arguing for this for years,’ to a
mentor at U.C.S.F. who said, ‘This is
ridiculous; my patients don’t
want to hear this, and there is no way
to predict life expectancy
anyway.’”
But
while it’s true that no one can foretell
a particular individual’s
death with any certainty — and health
care workers should be clear
about those limitations, Dr. Smith
emphasized — a number of geriatric
calculators do provide reasonably good
projections, based on several
health factors, age, cognitive status
and functional abilities and
sometimes laboratory test results. An
index developed by Dr. Smith’s
U.C.S.F. colleague Sei Lee, for example,
can correctly predict
mortality within four years about 75
percent of the time.
Still,
it’s O.K. with Dr. Smith if
professionals and patients have strong
reactions, pro and con. “The point of
the article is to get a national
conversation started about this,” he
said. It’s a conversation you’re
invited to join in the comments section
below.