rss
J Med Ethics 2006;32:683-687 doi:10.1136/jme.2005.014084
  • Clinical ethics

Participation of French general practitioners in end-of-life decisions for their hospitalised patients

  1. E Ferrand1,
  2. P Jabre1,
  3. S Fernandez-Curiel1,
  4. F Morin1,
  5. C Vincent-Genod1,
  6. P Duvaldestin1,
  7. F Lemaire2,
  8. C Hervé3,
  9. J Marty1
  1. 1Service d’Anesthésie Réanimation-SAMU 94, Hôpital Henri Mondor, AP-HP, Créteil, France
  2. 2Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Henri Mondor, AP-HP, Créteil, France
  3. 3Departement d’Ethique Médicale et de Médecine Légale, Faculté de médecine des Saints-Pères—Paris V, Paris, France
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr Edouard Ferrand
 Service d’Anesthésie Réanimation SAMU 94, Hôpital Henri-Mondor, AP-HP 51, avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil cedex, France; edouard.ferrand{at}hmn.aphp.fr
  • Received 26 August 2005
  • Accepted 1 November 2005
  • Revised 31 October 2005

Abstract

Background and objective: Assuming the hypothesis that the general practitioner (GP) can and should be a key player in making end-of-life decisions for hospitalised patients, perceptions of GPs’ role assigned to them by hospital doctors in making withdrawal decisions for such patients were surveyed.

Design: Questionnaire survey.

Setting: Urban (districts located near Paris) and rural (southern France) areas.

Participants: GPs.

Results: The response rate was 32.2% (161/500), and it was observed that 70.8% of respondents believed that their participation in withdrawal decisions for their hospitalised patients was essential, whereas 42.1% believed that the hospital doctors were sufficiently skilled to make withdrawal decisions without input from the GPs. Most respondents were found to believe that they had the necessary skills (91.9%) and enough time (87.6%) to participate in withdrawal decisions. The last case of treatment withdrawal in hospital for one of their patients was described by 40% (65/161) of respondents, of whom only 40.0% (26/65) believed that they had participated actively in the decision process. The major factors in the multivariate analysis were the GP’s strong belief that his or her participation was essential (p = 0.01), information on admission of the patient given to the GP by the hospital department (p = 0.007), rural practice (p = 0.03), visit to the patient dying in hospital (p = 0.02) and a request by the family to be kept informed about the patient (p = 0.003).

Conclusion: Strong interest was evinced among GPs regarding end-of-life issues, as well as considerable experience of patients dying at home. As GPs are more closely corrected to patients’ families, they may be a good choice for third-party intervention in making end-of-life decisions for hospitalised patients.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Contributors: EF: conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the article; PJ: analysis and interpretation of the data, statistical expertise; CH, SF-C, FM, CV-G: conception and design; FL, PD, JM: drafting of the article, critical revision of the article for important intellectual content.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.