Withholding Antibiotic Treatment in Pneumonia Patients With
Dementia
A Quantitative Observational Study
Jenny T. van der Steen, MSc; Marcel E. Ooms, MD, PhD; Herman J. Adèr,
PhD; Miel W. Ribbe, MD, PhD; Gerrit van der Wal, MD, PhD
Background Pneumonia is a life-threatening disease in nursing home patients
with dementia. Physicians and families face choices about whether to withhold
antibiotics when patients are expected to die soon or when treatment may be
burdensome. However, little information exists on what factors influence this
complex decision-making process.
Objective To identify factors associated with decisions on whether to
withhold curative antibiotic treatment in patients with dementia who have
pneumonia.
Methods We performed an observational cohort study with 3-month monitoring
for cure and death. Patients with pneumonia (N = 706) were enrolled in nursing
home units for patients with dementia from all over the Netherlands (61 nursing
homes). Characteristics of patients, physicians, and facilities were related to
the outcome of withholding antibiotic treatment.
Results In 23% of the patients, antibiotic treatment was withheld. The
other patients received antibiotics with palliative (8%) or curative (69%)
intent. Compared with the patients who received antibiotics with curative
intent, patients in whom antibiotic treatment was withheld had more severe
dementia, had more severe pneumonia, had lower food and fluid intake, and were
more often dehydrated. In addition, withholding antibiotics occurred more often
in the summer and in patients with an initial episode of pneumonia.
Characteristics of facilities and physicians were unrelated to the decision.
However, considerable variation occurred in how patient age, aspiration, and
history of pneumonia were related to decision making by individual physicians.
Conclusions In the Netherlands, antibiotic treatment is commonly withheld in
pneumonia patients with severe dementia who are especially frail. Understanding
the circumstances in which this occurs can illuminate the international
discussion of appropriate dementia care.
Arch Intern Med.
2002;162:1753-1760
PNEUMONIA OCCURS frequently in nursing home
patients.1 It is a
potentially life-threatening infectious disease,1-3 especially in
patients with end-stage dementia.4 From studies in US
nursing homes, it seems that most pneumonias are treated with antibiotics.5-7 Residents with
pneumonia are also often admitted to the hospital.1, 8-11 However, patients
with dementia are frequently excluded from studies.12 In fact, as early as
1979, withholding curative treatment was observed in US nursing homes by Brown
and Thompson.13 Their classic study
on nontreatment in 9 extended care facilities in Seattle, Wash, showed that 41%
of respiratory infections were (intentionally) not treated with antibiotics
and/or patients were not hospitalized.
Moreover, during the last decade, questions have
been increasingly raised on treatment decisions for patients with advanced
dementia.4, 12, 14, 15 In a study on hospitalized
patients, Morrison and Siu4 observed that
pneumonia was not considered a terminal diagnosis in patients with end-stage
dementia, despite the high probability of death. They questioned whether these
patients should have received as many burdensome procedures as cognitively
intact persons.
With progressive dementia, patients also become
incompetent to make decisions.16-18 They become unable
to balance the benefits and burdens of treatments themselves. Physicians and
families may consider curative treatment too burdensome and benefits too small
if life expectancy is short and aggressive procedures would be required;
therefore, they decide to withhold treatment.12, 19 Attempting cure may
cause a burden when, for example, intravenous hydration or antibiotics require
restraints to prevent removal of the intravenous line.4, 20 In addition, the
potential benefit of treatment is decreased in patients with dementia
considering their diminished expected life span, altering the risk-benefit
ratio.12 Some even
raise the question if further exposure to the deteriorating course of the
dementia process represents an undue burden of pneumonia treatment.16 In considering benefits
and burdens of the treatment options, open discussions with family members are
highly desirable for all parties involved.21
Little is known about which factors influence decisions
about whether to withhold antibiotic treatment in incompetent patients. Even
less is known on variation among physicians with respect to these
considerations. Until now, studies have relied on reporting of physicians'
opinions in discussions on life-sustaining treatment22, 23 or on hypothetical
cases (vignettes).24, 25
In the Netherlands, as in Great Britain,26 physicians are culturally
and legally responsible for the ultimate decision about withholding treatment
in incompetent patients. Good practice, however, involves consultation with
families to reconstruct patients' wishes if their present wish is unknown or to
discuss what is in the patients' best interest if no wish could be
reconstructed.17, 27
In this article, we examine factors associated
with the decision to withhold antibiotic treatment in nursing home patients
with pneumonia and severe dementia and the variation among physicians regarding
this decision. Characteristics of nursing home patients with dementia, their treating
physicians, and the facilities are reviewed to look at sources of variation in
withholding antibiotic treatment. Our data provide insight into the factors
that influence decision making and should facilitate the international debate
among physicians on this controversial issue.
Between October 1, 1996, and July 31, 1998, we
identified 706 consecutive pneumonia patients in psychogeriatric units of Dutch
nursing homes in the Pneumonia Study. Dutch nursing homes are divided into
somatic (physical disability) and psychogeriatric units. Most (96%) of the
patients in the latter units have dementia and stay within the unit the rest of
their lives. Physicians undergo a 2-year training program following their basic
clinical training to become certified as a nursing home physician. These
physicians belong to the staff of the nursing homes. Facilities employ
physicians in a ratio of 1 full-time physician to 100 patients.28-31 Even after hours
or on weekends, ill residents are seen at the bedside; telephone consulting is
not usual practice in the Netherlands.
The Pneumonia Study was performed in 61
facilities all over the Netherlands affiliated with our department and covered
24% of all long-term psychogeriatric (dementia) care beds in the country.30 Nursing home
physicians in training (similar to a residency in the United States) at these
facilities participated in the study in 2 ways: by reporting on their own
patients and by monitoring form completion on all enrolled patients in the
facility. The treating physician (whether regular staff or a trainee) was
responsible for completing all data forms. Because facilities had agreed to
participate, the physicians' effort was considered part of their employment.
The physicians were informed of the 2 main study goals: guideline development
and assessing clinical predictors for the course of pneumonia.
The patients had to meet the following criteria:
(1) have a psychogeriatric disease (almost always dementia); (2) reside in the
nursing home for at least 4 weeks; and (3) be diagnosed as having pneumonia by
the physician. The physicians were explicitly instructed to include terminal
patients as well. A patient could be included only once, even if a second
episode of pneumonia occurred during the study period.
The study protocol was approved by the medical
ethics committee of the VU University Medical Center. Confidentiality of data
was guaranteed by physicians providing coded information to the researchers (as
opposed to patient or physician names). Informed consent was not deemed
necessary by the ethics review committee because physicians were simply
reporting information gleaned from usual practice. However, patients and
families were informed of the study and were provided the opportunity to refuse
transfer of data to the researchers.
DATA COLLECTION
Patients were assigned to treatment solely on the basis of the decision of the
physician. Each patient was followed up for 3 months, during which incident
cure (recovery as judged by the treating physician) and death were monitored
continuously. The physicians completed questionnaires about the patients at the
time of the treatment decision that described the patient's current condition
(baseline) and their condition 2 weeks earlier (variables recorded are
displayed in Table 1
and Table 2).
Rehydration therapy was assessed 3 days after the treatment decision.
Demographic data on the physicians and the facility characteristics were
obtained during site visits by one of the authors (J.T.v.d.S.). During a
limited period (from March 1, 1997, until the end of data collection), data on
expected outcomes, advanced care planning, food intake, weight loss, and
vaccination for influenza were collected.
We used scales specifically developed for
patients with severe dementia. Discomfort was measured at baseline (also
retrospectively) using the 9-item observational Discomfort Scale–Dementia of
Alzheimer Type,32 which ranges from 0
(no observed discomfort) to 27 (high level of observed discomfort). The
physicians were instructed on the proper use of the scale during a training
session in which an instructional videotape was shown. Several studies32-36 have demonstrated
acceptable reliability and validity. A small study indicated acceptable
reliability of retrospectively assessed data (J.T.v.d.S., H.J.A., J. van
Assendelft, MD, M. Kooistra, MD, P. Passier, MD, and M.E.O, unpublished data,
1997). The severity of dementia before the onset of pneumonia was measured at
baseline, referring to the condition before the pneumonia, with the Bedford
Alzheimer Nursing Severity Scale (BANS-S).37 This scale consists
of assessments on seven 4-point items rating cognitive deficits, functional
deficits, and occurrence of pathologic symptoms, of which the separate items
are considered relevant with respect to decision making as well. Summed scores
range from 7 (no impairment) to 28 (complete impairment). The BANS-S is a valid
measure with discriminative power even in patients with severe dementia,
including those with dementias other than Alzheimer disease.38 Subjective clinical
judgment on illness severity was rated on a numeric rating scale running from 1
(not ill) to 9 (moribund).39
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The patients selected for analysis in this article included those in whom
antibiotic treatment was withheld (AB-withheld) and those in whom antibiotic
treatment was promptly initiated with the explicit goal of curing the patient
(AB-curative). Patients treated with antibiotics according to the treating
physician for palliative reasons (AB-palliative) are described only. The 2
statistic for contingency tables was used to test for differences between
AB-withheld and AB-curative patients in proportions of symptom relief.
Independent sample nonparametric tests were used to compare time until death or
recovery.
The relation of patient, physician, and facility
variables with the treatment decision was first examined with univariate
logistic regression analysis. Next, using forward stepwise logistic regression
analysis, a multivariable model for withholding antibiotic treatment was
constructed. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were
computed. All facility, physician, and patient variables that were univariately
related were candidates for entry, except for the global measure on clinical
judgment of illness severity because it was not considered specific enough to
provide the desired information. Pneumonia symptoms were grouped to assess
relevance compared with other conditions. The variables collected during a
limited period were tested in the final model only to preserve power.
Accounting for the hierarchical structure of the data, in which variables at
the facility, physician, and patient level were present, we used logistic
multilevel analysis.40, 41 This allows
assessment of the level of variation, that is, to test whether patient
variation, physician variation, or facility variation best explains the
results. The multilevel modeling was performed with respect to variation on the
physician level. Therefore, where the random contribution to a variable could
not be neglected, there was a lack of uniformity among physicians with respect
to that variable. This implies that physicians weighed such a variable
differently in their decisions. Model performance (calibration and
discrimination)42 was tested using the
Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic (C test)43 and the area under
the receiver operating characteristic curve (c statistic), respectively.44 Finally, to examine
which items of the summary measures in the model were most important, the
summary measures were replaced by their separate items. The multilevel analysis
was performed with the computer program MlwiN45; all other analyses
were performed using SPSS statistical software for Windows, version 7.5, except
for model performance, which was performed using version 9.0 (SPSS Inc,
Chicago, Ill).
PATIENTS AND TREATMENTS
Treatment with antibiotics was withheld in 23% (AB-withheld) of the 706
patients in the Pneumonia Study. A few patients (8%) were treated with antibiotics
according to their physicians for palliative reasons (AB-palliative), whereas
all others (69%) were treated with antibiotics for curative reasons
(AB-curative).
Table 3
describes the characteristics of the treatments used in the patients who were
treated promptly. Antibiotics were overwhelmingly given orally. In AB-withheld
patients, symptom relief in general and opiates specifically were instituted
more often than in AB-curative patients (P<.001).
Only 0.6% (n = 4) of all patients were admitted to a hospital at any time
during the disease course. In these patients, antibiotic treatment had been
started in the nursing home initially. Further analyses are restricted to the
165 AB-withheld patients and 470 AB-curative patients treated promptly. Most
patients had severe dementia (Table 4),
with an average BANS-S score of 17.5. (For comparison, in a study of Alzheimer
patients, an average BANS-S score of 17.1 has been associated with an average
Mini-Mental State Examination46 score of 5.0.38)
PHYSICIANS' EXPECTATIONS
At the time of the treatment decision, the physicians expected 96% of
AB-withheld patients (55/57) to die within "a short or a somewhat longer time"
when withholding antibiotics (the sample size is smaller because we asked this
question for only a limited portion of the study). However, in 37% (n = 21) of
these cases, physicians believed that the patients would have been cured (28%
[n = 16] partly and 9% [n = 5] fully) if they had been treated with
antibiotics. The physicians expected that 98% (136/139) of the AB-curative
patients would be at least partly cured within 1 month.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE DECISION
MAKING
Most of the more than 50 patient factors tested proved to be univariately
significantly related to withholding antibiotic treatment (Table 1
and Table 2).
The strongest association in univariate analysis was with the clinical judgment
of illness severity at the time of the treatment decision (OR, 2.7 per point
increase on a 9-point scale; 95% CI, 1.8-3.9). The illness severity of
AB-withheld patients could be characterized as severe (mean value, 7.1), and
AB-curative patients were moderately to severely ill (mean value, 5.4).
Furthermore, strong associations were found with dehydration (OR, 5.6; 95% CI,
3.9-8.3), the illness severity 2 weeks before the treatment decision (OR, 1.9
per point increase on the 9-point scale; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1), and eating
dependency at the time of the treatment decision (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.3-9.0).
Because unexpectedly in the youngest quartile of
patients (<80 years) antibiotic treatment was more often withheld, age was
tested for its relation with a variety of possible relevant variables. The
younger pneumonia patients actually had higher scores of discomfort at the time
of the treatment decision, had more severe dementia, and were more severely ill
at the time of and before the treatment decision. Nevertheless, for these
patients the illness severity was less predictive of withholding antibiotic
treatment (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4) than for older patients (OR, 3.3; 95% CI,
2.5-4.3). Of the physician and facility characteristics, the only significant
characteristic was the number of psychogeriatric beds in the facility: a small
number was predictive of withholding antibiotic treatment more frequently (OR,
1.2 per 50 beds less; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4).
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE DECISION
MAKING INDEPENDENTLY
Illness severity by clinical judgment seemed to be the strongest independent
predictor of withholding antibiotic treatment. Table 5
gives a more specified model, which did not include illness severity, and shows
that the most important independent predictors of withholding antibiotic
treatment were all patient factors. Severe dementia was the strongest predictor
in this model. Other independently significant predictors were number of
symptoms of pneumonia, insufficient drinking, dehydration, treatment in the
summer, aspiration, and previous pneumonia.
The most significant item of the BANS-S for
severity of dementia with respect to withholding antibiotic treatment proved to
be eating dependency 2 weeks before the treatment decision. Likewise, of
pneumonia symptoms, decreased alertness was more important than Cheyne-Stokes
respiration, tachypnea, coughing, respiratory distress, fever, malaise, and
abnormal chest auscultation.
Advanced care planning (results used in decision
making in 59% of cases), if included in the final model of Table 5
(data not shown), was also an important independent predictor (OR, 3.3; 95% CI,
1.4-7.4; n = 243). It hardly affected the ORs of the other variables in the
model. In addition, there were no significant differences in the
characteristics of the model between patients for whom advanced care planning
had taken place and for whom this had not taken place (total group,
AB-curative, or AB-withheld).
VARIATION IN CONSIDERING PATIENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Facilities varied negligibly in withholding antibiotic treatment (variation on
nursing home level in multilevel analyses). However, variation with respect to
withholding antibiotic treatment at the physician level was about 5 times larger
than at the patient level. This was owing to variation in importance for
withholding antibiotic treatment attributed to certain patient characteristics.
Namely, the best fitting model allowed random variation for 3 of the 8 factors
in the model of Table 5
(age, aspiration, and having previously had pneumonia). This indicated that for
these factors, the OR varied among physicians. The individual physicians seemed
to vary in the degree to which these predictors were considered when deciding
to withhold treatment. Thus, the physicians varied more in their treatment of
patients younger than 80 years as opposed to older patients, in patients who
previously had pneumonia as opposed to not having prior pneumonia, and in
patients who were thought to have aspirated compared with patients for whom
this was not thought to be the cause of pneumonia.
The values of the other 5 predictors in the
multilevel model of Table 5
seemed almost equally important among individual physicians when deciding to
withhold antibiotic treatment. Modeling only these 5 predictors (dementia
severity, number of pneumonia symptoms, insufficient drinking, dehydration, and
treatment in the summer) showed that model discrimination was as good as
discrimination of the complete model, including the variables that showed
random variation (area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.85
compared with 0.86 for the complete model), as could be expected.
DISEASE COURSE
Most of the AB-withheld patients (90%) died within 1 month, as did 48% of the
AB-palliative patients. Of the AB-curative patients, 27% died within 1 month.
Moreover, most of the AB-withheld patients who died during the 3-month
follow-up period died within a few days (median, 2 days), which was
considerably earlier than the AB-curative patients who died despite antibiotic
treatment (median, 11.5 days; all P<.001
in this section). Median time until death of AB-palliative patients was 5.5
days. Twelve AB-withheld patients survived. The time for their recovery
(median, 9.5 days) was not significantly different from the recovery time of
the AB-curative patients (median, 10 days). Median recovery time for
AB-palliative patients was 9 days.
Most patients with dementia in Dutch nursing
homes who develop pneumonia are treated with antibiotics, typically given
orally. Nevertheless, in 23% of patients, antibiotic treatment is withheld.
Physicians think antibiotics could have saved the lives of 37% of these
patients. Almost two thirds were expected to have died even if treated with
antibiotics. Characteristics of facilities, such as religious affiliation, and
physician characteristics were not associated in multilevel analysis with the
treatment chosen and thus did not seem to substantially influence the decision
making. Several patient characteristics entered as fixed effects at the
physician level in the multilevel model and thus seem to be uniformly
considered by physicians in decision making. However, 3 variables entered as
random effects at the physician level, which suggests substantial variation
among physicians in how these patient characteristics are considered in
decision making.
The typical patient with dementia in whom
antibiotic treatment is withheld is severely ill. Patients have severe
dementia, have severe pneumonia (many symptoms), have low intake of food and
fluids, and are often dehydrated. In addition, withholding antibiotics occurs
more often in the summer. These characteristics alone are highly predictive of
withholding treatment (apparent from excellent model fit), and they are
considered in the same way. However, variation occurs on the importance placed
on not having had pneumonia previously, aspiration, and a relatively young age.
Most physicians and families were inclined to treat with antibiotics those
patients who had survived pneumonia before and for most of whom (96%) an active
approach had been used. In contrast, others seemed to consider recurrent
pneumonia one of the reasons to withhold antibiotic treatment. Similarly, some
physicians (and families) tended to withhold treatment in patients who
aspirated or were relatively young, whereas others did not.
Management of pneumonia in advanced dementia may
exhibit considerable variation in treatment internationally. Our findings
suggest that Dutch physicians tend to uniformly withhold antibiotics in some
patients but vary in the weight they place on other factors. Variation might be
expected to be even greater in countries such as the United States where there
is much less ethical or legal clarity about when to initiate a strictly
palliative hospice approach for dementia. Our findings illuminate the
international discussion on this topic by showing which patients do not receive
antibiotic treatment in a setting where such practices are common.
Severity of dementia (or deterioration) has been
associated with withholding antibiotic treatment independently in both the
current study and other observational studies.13, 47 In our study,
patients in whom antibiotics were withheld had an average BANS-S severity of
dementia score of 20.4. A study37 of the BANS-S
suggests that more than 90% of these patients would have a score of 0 on the
Mini-Mental State Examination.
Antibiotic treatment was also often withheld in
patients with dehydration and insufficient drinking. Antibiotic treatment may
have been expected to be less effective or to cause drug-related toxic effects.48 Furthermore, the (in)dependent
intake of food and fluids may have a subjective (symbolic) meaning as well,
because effects were independent. Considerations other than medical may also
have played a role in withholding antibiotic treatment in relatively young
patients in whom, though more ill, the general illness severity was less
predictive. This was most evident for the 37% of patients who were not treated
with antibiotics but whom physicians thought could have been cured. For three
quarters of these patients, the expectation was for only partial cure. We did
not specify this, but the physicians may have feared these patients would be
cured of the pneumonia at the cost of a decreased general condition. The
occurrence of a pneumonia may have been used as an opportunity to let the
patient die a natural death. The pneumonia may have been seen as "the old
man's friend."49
Information from the literature concerning the
frequency of withholding antibiotics is limited. Earlier studies13, 47, 50, 51 indicated that
antibiotics were withheld in a quarter to half of patients, but these studies
were not nationwide and included less severe infections than pneumonia. One
study50 concerned a
population with severe dementia that was similar to our study. Physicians in
this specific US nursing home and the Netherlands apparently consider
withholding antibiotic treatment in pneumonia patients with dementia as an
option. In frail patients and, more specifically, in patients with severe
dementia, the physicians may have been inclined to forgo the more technical
solutions often associated with full curative treatment (intravenous
antibiotics and simultaneous rehydration).12 A nonaggressive
strategy in our frail study population is also obvious from rare use of hospital
transfer and procedures, such as blood tests, x-ray examinations, tube feeding,
and rehydration.
On the other hand, when cure was a goal, this
was not achieved in more than a quarter of the patients treated with
antibiotics. In our study, typically oral amoxicillin was given. In most Dutch
hospitals and nursing homes, amoxicillin is the first drug choice in case of
unknown pathogens,52 which is generally
sufficient since antibiotic resistance is still not a major problem in the
Netherlands.53 Physicians were
willing at times to start more invasive procedures in more severely ill
patients. Parenteral antibiotics (mostly intramuscular) were used for more
severely ill patients, although not for patients with more severe dementia
(analyses not shown). This finding suggests that withholding antibiotic
treatment was not merely because of, for example, problems with oral intake. In
our study, withholding antibiotic treatment was mostly, but not always,
accompanied by starting symptom relief. In patients treated with antibiotics,
treatment to relieve symptoms was started in only a few cases. Apparently, the
integrated approach, as suggested by Morrison and Siu,54 is not yet common
practice. Antibiotics were sometimes (8%) given for palliative reasons.
However, evidence of the palliative effects of antibiotics is lacking.55
A limitation of the present study is that we did
not obtain direct information from physicians, families, or medical records
about the basis for decisions that were made. Inferences about factors
considered important in the decision are based on variables that distinguish
those patients who did and did not receive antibiotics. However, lack of
variation with respect to a variable is indirect evidence that it is not
weighted significantly in decision making. Advanced care planning is common in
many of the nursing homes we studied, and good practice includes reconsulting
with the family in the acute situation, even if advanced care planning has
taken place.27 On the other hand,
because the physicians did not know analyses on withholding treatment were to
be performed, it is also a strength of the design because they were not
pressured to exhibit socially desirable responses. Another limitation concerns
the diagnosis of pneumonia, which was often made without laboratory or x-ray
film confirmation. Besides a poor response to antibiotic treatment (for
example, in case of viral pneumonia), mistaken pneumonia diagnosis in patients
who in fact had chronic heart failure or pulmonary embolism may have played a
role in the patient population. However, in studying physicians' decision
making, their diagnosis is what is ultimately of relevance. Finally, a strength
of the study is limited patient variation; patients being much the same makes
it achievable to study decision making.
To our knowledge, this is the first large
quantitative study in which predictors of withholding antibiotic treatment in
daily practice are assessed. Our data may facilitate discussions on whether the
identified factors should really be important in the decision-making process
and on discrepancies between expected and actual outcomes. Furthermore, they
raise questions about how physicians should weigh patient factors in decision
making on withholding antibiotic treatment. Explicitly mentioning identified
factors during advanced care planning might be indicated.
We expect that there are some international
differences in importance attached to specific factors relating to treatment
decisions. The factors we identified relate predominantly to the dementia
severity and the acute illness. We suspect that similar factors would generally
reflect current physicians' attitudes in industrialized countries. They form a
starting point for the conceptualizing of guidelines. These predictors should
be examined prospectively for clinical2, 3 but also for ethical
relevance in making decisions. Furthermore, to promote openness and responsible
decision making, it is helpful to have an ethical and legal framework for
decision making on whether to withhold antibiotic treatment.17, 27 Having a practical
guideline including all these aspects is useful when discussing antibiotic
treatment options with the patient's family and also in advanced care planning.
This should promote prudent end-of-life care in frail, elderly patients.
Author/Article Information
From the Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine (Ms van der Steen and
Drs Ooms, Adèr, Ribbe, and van der Wal), and the Departments of Nursing Home Medicine
(Drs Ooms and Ribbe), Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Dr Adèr), and
Social Medicine (Dr van der Wal), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
Corresponding author: Jenny T. van der Steen, MSc, EMGO Institute, VU University
Medical Center, Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the
Netherlands (e-mail: [log in to unmask]).
Accepted for publication February 6, 2002.
This study was supported by the Society Het
Zonnehuis (Utrecht, the Netherlands) and the Dutch Ministry of Health Care,
Welfare and Sport (The Hague, the Netherlands).
We thank the nursing home physicians of the 61
nursing homes involved in this study and the members of the Advisory Committee
of the Pneumonia Study: J. Th. M. van Eijk, PhD, C. M. P. M. Hertogh, MD, PhD,
G. J. Ligthart, MD, PhD, M. T. Muller, PhD, and G. L. Schut, MD, PhD.
Furthermore, we thank Ellen M. Buunk-Kampers for her administrative support and
F. Boersma, MD, PhD, J. W. P. M. Konings, MD, PhD, and D. R. Mehr, MD, MS, for
their critical review of early versions of the manuscript.
Reprints not available from the authors.
1.
Muder RR.
Pneumonia in residents of long-term care facilities: epidemiology, etiology,
management, and prevention.
Am J Med.
1998;105:319-330.
MEDLINE
2.
Fine MJ, Smith MA, Carson CA, et al.
Prognosis and outcomes of patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a
meta-analysis.
JAMA.
1996;275:134-141.
MEDLINE
3.
Medina-Walpole AM, Katz PR.
Nursing home-acquired pneumonia.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1999;47:1005-1015.
MEDLINE
4.
Morrison RS, Siu AL.
Survival in end-stage dementia following acute illness.
JAMA.
2000;284:47-52.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
| PDF
| MEDLINE
5.
Fried TR, Gillick MR, Lipsitz LA.
Whether to transfer? factors associated with hospitalization and outcome of
elderly long-term care patients with pneumonia.
J Gen Intern Med.
1995;10:246-250.
MEDLINE
6.
Mehr DR, Foxman B, Colombo P.
Risk factors for mortality from lower respiratory infections in nursing home
patients.
J Fam Pract.
1992;34:585-591.
MEDLINE
7.
Marrie TJ, Durant H, Kwan C.
Nursing home-acquired pneumonia: a case-control study.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1986;34:697-702.
MEDLINE
8.
Jackson MM, Fierer J, Barrett-Connor E, et al.
Intensive surveillance for infections in a three-year study of nursing home
patients.
Am J Epidemiol.
1992;135:685-696.
MEDLINE
9.
Beck-Sague C, Banerjee S, Jarvis WR.
Infectious diseases and mortality among US nursing home residents.
Am J Public Health.
1993;83:1739-1742.
MEDLINE
10.
Mylotte JM, Naughton B, Saludades C, Maszarovics Z.
Validation and application of the pneumonia prognosis index to nursing home residents
with pneumonia.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1998;46:1538-1544.
MEDLINE
11.
Naughton BJ, Mylotte JM.
Treatment guideline for nursing home-acquired pneumonia based on community
practice.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
2000;48:82-88.
MEDLINE
12.
Brauner DJ, Cameron Muir J, Sachs GA.
Treating nondementia illnesses in patients with dementia.
JAMA.
2000;283:3230-3235.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
| PDF
| MEDLINE
13.
Brown NK, Thompson DJ.
Nontreatment of fever in extended-care facilities.
N Engl J Med.
1979;300:1246-1250.
MEDLINE
14.
Hurley AC, Volicer BJ, Volicer L.
Effect of fever-management strategy on the progression of dementia of the
Alzheimer type.
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord.
1996;10:5-10.
MEDLINE
15.
Finucane TE, Christmas C, Travis K.
Tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia: a review of the evidence.
JAMA.
1999;282:1365-1370.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
| PDF
| MEDLINE
16.
Hertogh CMPM, Ribbe MW.
Ethical aspects of medical decision-making in demented patients: a report from
the Netherlands.
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord.
1996;10:11-19.
MEDLINE
17.
van der Steen JT, Muller MT, Ooms ME, van der Wal G, Ribbe MW.
Decisions to treat or not to treat pneumonia in demented psychogeriatric
nursing home patients: development of a guideline.
J Med Ethics.
2000;26:114-120.
MEDLINE
18.
Karlawish JHT, Quill T, Meier DE, for the ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus
Panel.
A consensus-based approach to providing palliative care to patients who lack
decision-making capacity.
Ann Intern Med.
1999;130:835-840.
MEDLINE
19.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF.
Principles of Biomedical Ethics.
4th ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1994.
20.
Volicer L, Rheaume YL, Brown J, et al.
Ethical issues in the treatment of advanced Alzheimer dementia: hospice
approach.
In: Volicer L, Fabiszewski KJ, Rheaume YL, Lasch KE. Clinical Management of Alzheimer's Disease. Rockville, Md:
Aspen Publishers Inc; 1988:167-182.
21.
Hanson LC, Danis M, Garrett J.
What is wrong with end-of-life care? opinions of bereaved family members.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1997;45:1339-1344.
MEDLINE
22.
Levin JR, Wenger NS, Ouslander JG, et al.
Life-sustaining treatment decisions for nursing home residents: who discusses,
who decides and what is decided?
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1999;47:82-87.
MEDLINE
23.
Goold SD, Arnold RM, Siminoff LA.
Discussions about limiting treatment in a geriatric clinic.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1993;41:277-281.
MEDLINE
24.
Alemayehu E, Molloy DW, Guyatt GH, et al.
Variability in physicians' decisions on caring for chronically ill elderly
patients: an international study.
CMAJ.
1991;144:1133-1138.
MEDLINE
25.
Molloy DW, Guyatt GH, Alemayehu E, et al.
Factors affecting physicians' decisions on caring for an incompetent elderly
patient: an international study.
CMAJ.
1991;145:947-952.
MEDLINE
26.
British Medical Association.
Withholding or Withdrawing Life-Prolonging
Medical Treatment: Guidance for Decision-making.
London, England: BMJ Books; 1999.
27.
van der Steen JT, Graas T, Ooms ME, van der Wal G, Ribbe MW.
When should physicians forgo curative treatment of pneumonia in patients with
dementia? using a guideline for decision-making.
West J Med.
2000;173:274-277.
MEDLINE
28.
Hoek JF, Penninx BW, Ligthart GJ, Ribbe MW.
Health care for older persons, a country profile: the Netherlands.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
2000;48:214-217.
MEDLINE
29.
Frijters DH, Mor V, DuPaquier J-N, Berg K, Carpenter GI, Ribbe MW.
Transitions across various continuing care settings.
Age Ageing.
1997;26(suppl 2):73-76.
MEDLINE
30.
Institute for Health Care Information (SIG).
SIG Nursing Home Information System Annual
Report Nursing Homes 1996 [in Dutch].
Utrecht, the Netherlands: SIG; 1997.
31.
Ribbe MW.
Care for the elderly: the role of the nursing home in the Dutch health care
system.
Int Psychogeriatr.
1993;5:213-222.
MEDLINE
32.
Hurley AC, Volicer BJ, Hanrahan PA, Houde S, Volicer L.
Assessment of discomfort in advanced Alzheimer patients.
Res Nurs Health.
1992;15:369-377.
MEDLINE
33.
Hurley AC, Volicer B, Mahoney MA, Volicer L.
Palliative fever management in Alzheimer patients: quality plus fiscal
responsibility.
ANS Adv Nurs Sci.
1993;16:21-32.
MEDLINE
34.
Volicer L, Collard A, Hurley A, Bishop C, Kern D, Karon S.
Impact of special care unit for patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease on
patients' discomfort and costs.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1994;42:597-603.
MEDLINE
35.
Mahoney EK, Hurley AC, Volicer L, et al.
Development and testing of the Resistiveness to Care Scale.
Res Nurs Health.
1999;22:27-38.
MEDLINE
36.
Hoogendoorn LI, van de Kamp S, Sheer Mahomed CA, Adèr HJ, Ooms ME, van der
Steen JT.
The role of the observer in the reliability of the in Dutch translated version
of the Discomfort Scale–Dementia of Alzheimer Type (DS-DAT) [in Dutch].
Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr.
2001;32:117-121.
MEDLINE
37.
Volicer L, Hurley AC, Lathi DC, Kowall NW.
Measurement of severity in advanced Alzheimer's disease.
J Gerontol.
1994;49:M223-M226.
MEDLINE
38.
Bellelli G, Frisoni GB, Bianchetti A, Trabucchi M.
The Bedford Alzheimer Nursing Severity Scale for the severely demented:
validation study.
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord.
1997;11:71-77.
MEDLINE
39.
Charlson ME, Sax FL, MacKenzie CR, Fields SD, Braham RL, Douglas RG Jr.
Assessing illness severity: does clinical judgment work?
J Chronic Dis.
1986;39:439-452.
MEDLINE
40.
Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ.
Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to
Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling.
London, England: Sage Publishers; 1999.
41.
Hox JJ.
Applied Multilevel Analysis.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: TT-Publikaties; 1995.
42.
Moreno R, Apolone G, Miranda DR.
Evaluation of the uniformity of fit of general outcome prediction models.
Intensive Care Med.
1998;24:40-47.
MEDLINE
43.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S.
Applied Logistic Regression.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1989.
44.
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ.
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC)
curve.
Radiology.
1982;143:29-36.
MEDLINE
45.
Goldstein H, Rasbash J, Plewis I, et al.
A User's Guide to MLwiN Version 1.0.
London, England: Multilevel Models Project, Institute of Education, University
of London; 1998.
46.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR.
Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of
patients for the clinician.
J Psychiatr Res.
1975;12:189-198.
MEDLINE
47.
Fabiszewski KJ, Volicer B, Volicer L.
Effect of antibiotic treatment on outcome of fevers in institutionalized
Alzheimer patients.
JAMA.
1990;263:3168-3172.
MEDLINE
48.
Dobson ME, Ruben FL.
How to sort through the differential and institute therapy: the special
challenge of pneumonia in the elderly.
J Respir Dis.
1993;14:1145-1167.
49.
Osler W.
The Principles and Practice of Medicine
Designed for the Use of Practitioners and Students of Medicine.
3rd ed. London, England: Young J Pentland; 1898:109.
50.
Volicer BJ, Hurley A, Fabiszewski KJ, Montgomery P, Volicer L.
Predicting short-term survival for patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1993;41:535-540.
MEDLINE
51.
Mott PD, Barker WH.
Treatment decisions for infections occurring in nursing home residents.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
1988;36:820-824.
MEDLINE
52.
Janknegt R, Wijnands WJ, Stobberingh EE.
Antibiotic policies in Dutch hospitals for the treatment of pneumonia.
J Antimicrob Chemother.
1994;34:431-442.
MEDLINE
53.
Goettsch WG, Goossens H, de Neeling AJ, Sprenger MJW.
Infections and bacterial resistance in the community [in Dutch].
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd.
1999;143:1296-1299.
MEDLINE
54.
Morrison RS, Siu AL.
Mortality from pneumonia and hip fractures in patients with advanced dementia.
JAMA.
2000;284:2447-2448.
FULL TEXT
| PDF
| MEDLINE
55.
van der Steen JT, Ooms ME, van der Wal G, Ribbe MW.
Pneumonia: the demented patient's best friend? discomfort following starting or
withholding antibiotic treatment.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
In press.
Edward E.
Rylander, M.D.
Diplomat American
Board of Family Practice.
Diplomat American
Board of Palliative Medicine.