0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Surrogate Consent for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy FREE

Jeffrey T. Berger, MD; Sven Hida, MD; Henian Chen, MD, PhD; David Friedel, MD; James Grendell, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Divisions of Geriatric Medicine (Dr Berger) and Gastroenterology (Drs Hida, Friedel, and Grendell), Department of Medicine, and Office of Health Outcomes Research (Dr Chen), Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, New York.


Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(2):178-182. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.494.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Feeding patients with dementia though percutaneous endoscopically inserted gastrostomy (PEG) tubes has not been shown to improve functional status, nutritional status, or mortality, despite its frequent use.13 Because anorexia due to dementia follows a loss of decision-making capacity, a surrogate's consent is generally required for PEG tube insertion. Unfortunately, surrogate decisions are often inaccurate,4 and elderly patients generally reject PEG feeding for a condition of dementia.5 General deficiencies in informed consent also contribute to the misapplication of PEG tubes.6,7 In addition, decisions for PEG may reflect an emotional response to avoid “starvation.” Lastly, the personal, nonevidence-based views of many health professionals about tube feeding for cases of dementia may also contribute to PEG misuse.8

After institutional review board approval, 39 persons who had provided consent for PEG tube placement for inpatients with stage 7 dementia according to the criteria from Reisberg et al9 were enrolled, with an inclusion rate of 100% (Table). A questionnaire developed for this study elicited information about the process and content of consent including expectations for PEG and the ethical basis for the surrogate's decision. Responses were collected within 1 week of PEG tube placement (T1), and approximately 2 months after placement (T2). Data were analyzed with a χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Logistic regression analyses estimated effects of demographic variables. P < .05 represented statistical significance.

At T1, respondents described the information provided about benefits of PEG as very complete (n = 16; 40%) and adequate (n = 22; 58%), and information about harms as very complete (n = 13; 33%) and adequate (n = 25; 65%). All 39 respondents recalled specific benefits and harms of PEG. Benefits were improved nutrition (n = 38; 97%), improved strength (n = 11; 28%), maintenance of condition (n = 10; 26%), and improved healing (n = 5; 13%). Harms were bleeding (n = 28; 72%), infection (n = 27; 69%), perforation (n = 23; 59%), and aspiration (n = 1; 3%). Thirty-seven respondents (95%) recalled alternatives to PEG. These were nasogastric tube feeding (n = 30) and simply no feeding (n = 7).

At T1, 31 respondents (80%) were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the consent process, and 36 (93%) would definitely or probably make the same decision if presented again with the choice. On logistic regression, satisfaction with the decision inversely correlated with patient age (odds ratio, 0.72; P = .02). Respondents identified the decision-making standard that most closely represented the basis for consent for PEG; 4 (10%) stated that they knew the patient's explicit wishes, 13 (33%) made a substituted judgment based on inferred wishes, and 22 (56%) perceived PEG as serving the patient's best interests. Respondents identified anticipated benefits of PEG: 4 (10%) cited improved function, 20 (50%) reported improvement in overall condition, and 10 (26%) reported maintenance of current condition. Only 5 respondents (13%) expected a decline in overall condition. Fifteen respondents (38%) reported that they would not consider discontinuing PEG tube use under any circumstance, 22 (58%) would discontinue it because of a further diminished quality of life, and 1 (3%) would discontinue PEG tube use if the patient's quality of life did not improve. Seventeen respondents (43%) reported that the patient had previously executed an advance directive.

Ten respondents (25%) would consent to PEG even if they knew that the patient had expressed a contrary preference. These surrogates were more likely to be older, a spouse, and Catholic (P = .049, .047, and .07, respectively). Twenty-eight respondents (70%) reported wanting a PEG tube for themselves under a hypothetical condition of advanced dementia.

Satisfaction with the PEG decision decreased between T1 and T2 (χ2 = 15.234; P < .001). Probability of reconsenting to PEG decreased as well (χ2 = 11.595; P = .001). There was no significant change from T1 to T2 for responses about the basis of the consent, the anticipated benefits, the conditions under which they might choose to discontinue the PEG, or the likelihood of consenting to PEG if the patient had previously declined it. At T2, fewer respondents (n = 20; 53%) would want to have a PEG tube for themselves under a hypothetical condition of dementia (χ2 = 10.917; P = .001).

The PEG consent process remains problematic. Despite surrogates' favorable rating of the process, their knowledge of PEG was very limited. For example, risk of aspiration was vastly underrepresented and the likelihood of improved condition was overrepresented. Respondents' most often cited patient's best interests as the ethical basis for PEG. However, objective data does not support such expectation of benefit. Perhaps surrogates base decisions on considerations not well captured by this study, such as personal biases, anticipatory grief, or lack of options. Certainly, surrogates were ignorant of palliative alternatives. Motivation for PEG decisions remains unclear.

These data underscore the need for a more robust process for PEG consent, which should include verification of surrogates' factual knowledge about PEG to ensure realistic expectations. Decision support tools such as standardized, multimedia, educational interventions should be explored as part of a quality improvement process. Because feeding, orally or medically, carries great symbolic and emotional weight for surrogates, psychosocial supports and palliative care resources should also be integrated into the consent process. Further research is warranted, including sociologic research on decision-making processes by distressed surrogates and research on physician behavior and bias during the consent process.

Correspondence: Dr Berger, Department of Medicine, Winthrop University Hospital, 222 Station Plz N, Ste 518, Mineola, NY 11501 (jberger@winthrop.org).

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Berger, Hida, and Friedel. Acquisition of data: Hida, Friedel, and Grendell. Analysis and interpretation of data: Berger, Chen, Friedel, and Grendell. Drafting of the manuscript: Berger and Grendell. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Berger, Hida, Chen, and Friedel. Statistical analysis: Chen. Administrative, technical, and material support: Berger, Hida, Friedel, and Grendell. Study supervision: Berger and Grendell.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Rabeneck  LWray  NPPetersen  NJ Long-term outcomes of patients receiving percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11 (5) 287- 293
PubMed Link to Article
Abuksis  GMor  MSegal  N  et al.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: high mortality rates in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95 (1) 128- 132
PubMed Link to Article
Sanders  DSCarter  MJD’Silva  JJames  GBolton  RPBardhan  KD Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: a worse outcome in patients with dementia. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95 (6) 1472- 1475
PubMed Link to Article
Brett  ASRosenberg  JC The adequacy of informed consent for placement of gastrostomy tubes. Arch Intern Med 2001;161 (5) 745- 748
PubMed Link to Article
Berger  JTMajerovitz  D Stability of preferences for treatment among nursing home residents. Gerontologist 1998;38 (2) 217- 223
PubMed Link to Article
Van Rosendaal  GMAVerhoef  MJKinsella  TD How are decisions made about the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for long-term nutritional support? Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94 (11) 3225- 3228
PubMed Link to Article
Mitchell  SLBerkowitz  RELawson  FMLipsitz  LAA A cross-national survey of tube-feeding decisions in cognitively impaired older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48 (4) 391- 397
PubMed
Hasan  MMeara  RJBhowmick  BKWoodhouse  K Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in geriatric patients: attitudes of health care professionals. Gerontology 1995;41 (6) 326- 331
PubMed Link to Article
Reisberg  BFerris  SHde Leon  MJCrook  T The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry 1982;139 (9) 1136- 1139
PubMed

Figures

Tables

References

Rabeneck  LWray  NPPetersen  NJ Long-term outcomes of patients receiving percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11 (5) 287- 293
PubMed Link to Article
Abuksis  GMor  MSegal  N  et al.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: high mortality rates in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95 (1) 128- 132
PubMed Link to Article
Sanders  DSCarter  MJD’Silva  JJames  GBolton  RPBardhan  KD Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: a worse outcome in patients with dementia. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95 (6) 1472- 1475
PubMed Link to Article
Brett  ASRosenberg  JC The adequacy of informed consent for placement of gastrostomy tubes. Arch Intern Med 2001;161 (5) 745- 748
PubMed Link to Article
Berger  JTMajerovitz  D Stability of preferences for treatment among nursing home residents. Gerontologist 1998;38 (2) 217- 223
PubMed Link to Article
Van Rosendaal  GMAVerhoef  MJKinsella  TD How are decisions made about the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for long-term nutritional support? Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94 (11) 3225- 3228
PubMed Link to Article
Mitchell  SLBerkowitz  RELawson  FMLipsitz  LAA A cross-national survey of tube-feeding decisions in cognitively impaired older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48 (4) 391- 397
PubMed
Hasan  MMeara  RJBhowmick  BKWoodhouse  K Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in geriatric patients: attitudes of health care professionals. Gerontology 1995;41 (6) 326- 331
PubMed Link to Article
Reisberg  BFerris  SHde Leon  MJCrook  T The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry 1982;139 (9) 1136- 1139
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 2

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles