UK Catholic Medical Association Goes After Palliative Care

The "double effect," supported by the American Medical Association, states that a doctor may prescribe pain medication to a dying patient in doses that are lethal because the intention of the doctor is to relieve pain, not end the patient's life. Palliative medicine, the specialty field that focuses on ways to alleviate pain, is often held to account by opponents of assisted suicide because of what fails to be a "bright line" during the process of dying. How much medicine is too much? Who decides? What if the patient has no advanced directive? Would they want to be in pain or to life a few hours or days longer?

A story in Saturday's The Underground, a UK publication on "Pop Culture from a Christian perspective" quotes the president of the UK Catholic Medical Association (and a lot of excerpts from the U.S. based LifeNews) on the unfounded accusation that "mercy killing" is rampant in that country. A clip from the article, below. Note the muddling of end of life issues by confusing palliative care, hospice, assisted suicide and prevalent Catholic teaching on suffering, along with a restatement of the U.S. case of Terri Schiavo:

One reason for the occurrence of euthanasia, Walker told Scottish Catholic Observer, is that “The standards of medical ethics and of interpretation of existing legislation appear to vary greatly around the country and from one organization to the next, even in the same local area.”

Misuse of LCP

Another reason is the misuse of the Liverpool Care Pathway, which was developed in the 1990s at the Marie Curie hospice and royal Liverpool Hospital, so that palliative care for end-of-life patients could improve, the Scottish Catholic Observer said.

The LCP provides criteria that must be followed before ending life-sustaining treatment and applying palliative care, LifeSiteNews said. However, reports have indicated that LCP has been used in the cases of people who were not dying, such as dehydrating someone to death on the grounds of LCP.

Walker said, “If it is used out of context, then it could be used to the detriment of patients e.g. a patient comes into a resuscitation bay, and it is not always clear if a condition is acute and can be treated,” LifeSiteNews reported.

A recent report on crematorium records showed that 23% of all deaths in one city in the U.K. were people put on LCP without any definite diagnosis of their stage of life, LifeSiteNews said.

LifeSiteNews mentions the case of in the U.S. of Terri Schiavo, who was not dying, but who was withheld hydration, as an example of euthanasia. However, if a person is “actively dying and/or is unable to assimilate H & N, [t]hat person is actually dying and the provision of H & N provides little to no benefit and may cause suffering.” In such case, it would not be euthanasia.

Addressing Fear of Litigation.

Thaddeus Pope reminds us that even perceived fear - in this case, among care practitioners of prosecution for refusing inappropriate medicine or for overmedicating - is legitimate. The cause of the fear may not be justified (prosecution/accusations may be rare) but the fear itself is. It comes from somewhere - the culture, the stigma of pain, etc. - and we are remiss to not address it as such. Only education, "safe harbors" and communication can combat this and allow care providers with the freedom to, in conjunction with the patient and their family, to make the best decisions.

In her "Regulating Physician Behavior: Taking Doctors' 'Bad Law' Claims Seriously" Childress Lecture, Sandra Johnson makes a compelling case that, even when they are misinformed, the risk perceptions of healthcare providers must be addressed. They can be addressed through safe harbors, through education, and through other mechanisms. But it is not sufficient to simply dismiss provider concerns even if they do lack a solid (or any) basis in legal reality. Perceptions of risk, not actual risk, guides behavior. Therefore, to get optimal treatment behavior, it is not sufficient to reduce or eliminate the risk itself. Providers must also view the risk as de minimus or non-existent. I was reminded of this twice today.

First, this morning during the Council on Health Care Economics and Policy conference at the RWJF in Princeton, Norm Fost argued that the risk of liability or prosecution for unilaterally refusing inappropriate medicine is close to zero. He may be right. Nevertheless, such care is regularly provided. Sometimes, it is because physicians themselves want to provide it. Sometimes. providers understand the legal risk is low, but still want to avoid conflict and cave-in. But still other times, providers really do fear some sanctions.

The second event from today that reminded me of the importance of perceptions is a report in today's British Telegraph that a significant percentage of British nurses fail to provide adequate pain control. Why? Because of a fear or prosecution for accelerating death.

More, Better Hospice Care.

Patrice Villars writes at GeriPal on the ways to improve care for patients in hospice care: make treatments more individualized:

Registered nurses are trained to alleviate suffering through diagnosis and treatment of human responses to actual or potential illness. We are trained to assess and treat based on holistic goals and to view the patient in the context of their defined family. Palliative care and nursing philosophy share a holistic approach to care that encompasses physical, emotional and spiritual concerns of the patient and family unit. It is no small wonder that nurses have been the foundation of community hospice work since its beginnings. Physicians are trained to formulate and treat medical diagnoses. Nurse Practitioners are, well, the middle children. We are nurses who have advanced training in diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions in addition to our foundational training. Our medical training is not as deep or broad as that of physicians. Nurse practitioners often pursue further training to develop an area of expertise.

None of us truly knows what we don’t know. Even the most experienced hospice nurses don’t know how their practice would differ if they had the advanced education and training of a nurse practitioner. Few physicians or physician assistants understand the level of training of RNs or LVNs/LPNs, nor their scope of practice. How could they? They’re not nurses. Only the nurse practitioner holds the dual training and, as such, is the perfect liaison for optimal collaboration between these two disciplines.

Surprisingly, nurse practitioners do not play a pivotal role in most community hospice agencies. Medicare requires that there be a physician medical director. Registered nurses usually function as the hospice case manager for the care of the end stage illness.

Hospice nurses are well trained in using medications to manage symptoms. Hence the array of the (all too often) ‘one size fits all’ order set of PRNs. This makes sense when the nurse is out in the home or on the phone doing her/his very best to assess and treat distressing symptoms at the end of life. It’s pretty difficult to track down the doctor of record, contact her/him, describe the situation, request an order and get it to the patient within a reasonable period of time such that the patient (and family) does not suffer for hours longer. Having pre-signed orders to use PRN can be a life-saver (no pun intended) at times. The downfall is the one size fits all practice. Shortness of breath equals morphine; anxiety equals lorazepam; confusion/agitation equals haldol.

There is continued grumbling among hospices and palliative care folks that patients are often referred too late to hospice care. However, at least in the case of patients with some non-cancer diagnoses, are they? Is our system set up to care for these patients optimally at the end of life? Sadly, I think not.
Happily, there is a relatively easy solution – use nurse practitioners who have advanced training in palliative care and (my bias) gerontology.
What if hospice nurses had easy access to a palliative care NP who had the training to assess and treat medically complex patients at the end of life? What if the hospice nurses had access to someone who understood their practice and could provide the appropriate education and support to improve their practice? What if the NP was available for home visits? Hospice nurses might practice differently. Patients would get better care. And health care providers might not be so reticent to refer their patients a little earlier.

Opioid Use for Elder, Chronic Pain Relief.

Don't miss the fantastic discussions at Pallimed and GeriPal regarding the use of opioids for relief of pain in the elderly. Last week's study is dissected by the amazing commenters and you'll have a better understanding of the challenges faced when working to relieve pain.

Here's a clip from GeriPal's article to bring you up to speed:

As noted on the Pallimed blog, a study published last week in Annals of Internal Medicine reports on adverse events associated with the prescription of opiates for chronic non-cancer pain.

In brief: they studied 9940 HMO patients (mean age 54) who received 3 or more opioid prescriptions within 90 days for chronic noncancer pain between 1997 and 2005. They used ICD codes with subsesquent chart review to identify "opioid-related overdoses", and found 51 events, of which 6 were fatal. After stratifying by categories of opiate exposure, they estimated that annual overdose rates were 0.2%, 0.7%, and 1.8% among patients receiving less than 20 mg, 50 to 99 mg, and more than 100 mg of opioids per day, respectively. (For more journal-club style details and analysis, check out the Pallimed post, which is good reading for those with a little more time and interest.)

I'll confess that when this article caught my eye, one of my first thoughts was "Argh! Now it will be even HARDER for me to persuade my elderly patients to try a little low-dose opiate for their severe arthritis, when all else has failed to control their pain."

Yes, it's true. I have some of my arthritic elders taking a little daily opiate for their pain: it allows them to walk around a little more and maintain their function, or so I tell myself.

But what do the rest of you think? In particular I'm curious to know what the primary care clinicians among you prefer to use for chronic noncancer pain in frail elders. And how easy do you find it to address the patient's (or often, the family's) worries about the risk of addiction or overdose? Will this latest study change your practice?

And here's the link to Pallimed. Don't miss the comments at either section.