• Nathan E Goldstein, Davendra Mehta, Ezra Teitelbaum, Elizabeth H Bradley, and R Sean Morrison.
• Department of Geriatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave Levy Place, Box 1070, New York, NY 10029, USA. Nathan.Goldstein@mssm.edu
• J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Jan 1; 23 Suppl 1: 2-6.

ObjectiveTo understand potential barriers to physician-initiated discussions about Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) deactivation in patients with advanced illness.DesignQualitative one-on-one interviews.ParticipantsFour electrophysiologists, 4 cardiologists, and 4 generalists (internists and geriatricians) from 3 states.ApproachClinicians were interviewed using open-ended questions to elicit their past experiences with discussing deactivating ICDs and to determine what barriers might impede these discussions. Transcripts of these interviews were analyzed using the qualitative method of constant comparison.ResultsAlthough many physicians believed that conversations about deactivating ICDs should be included in advance care planning discussions, they acknowledged that they rarely did this. Physicians indicated that there was something intrinsic to the nature of these devices that makes it inherently difficult to think of them in the same context as other management decisions at the end of a patient's life. Other explanations physicians gave as to why they did not engage in conversations included: the small internal nature of these devices and hence absence of a physical reminder to discuss the ICD, the absence of an established relationship with the patient, and their own general concerns relating to withdrawing care.ConclusionWhereas some of the barriers to discussing ICD deactivation are common to all forms of advance care planning, ICDs have unique characteristics that make these conversations more difficult. Future educational interventions will need to be designed to teach physicians how to improve communication with patients about the management of ICDs at the end of life.

23 keywords...

hide…