Stability of patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments

Physicians often express concern about the reliability of critically ill patients' preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments. We interviewed 30 Veterans Administration intensive care unit patients to determine their preferences for resuscitation, resuscitation requiring mechanical ventilation, artificial hydration and nutrition, and hospitalization for treatment of pneumonia. Patients expressed their preferences considering their current health and then two hypothetical scenarios, stroke and dementia. Follow-up interviews occurred one month later to assess preference stability. We found a diversity of opinions about life-sustaining treatments. Despite significant changes in health status and mood (p less than 0.05), treatment preferences were stable over time (kappa = .35-.70). Our results suggest that life-sustaining treatment preferences solicited during a serious illness are reliable and may be used in decision-making when a patient becomes unable to communicate or is mentally incapacitated.     

End-of-life care preferences of patients enrolled in cardiovascular rehabilitation programs

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The study assessed the interests of ambulatory cardiac patients in advance planning and their willingness to participate in rehabilitation program-based end-of-life education. DESIGN: Observational survey study. SETTING: Fourteen outpatient cardiac rehabilitation programs in 11 states. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred fifteen subjects enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A questionnaire determined patient preferences for advance planning, completion of advance directives, completion of patient-physician discussions on end-of-life care, and effects of health status on patient acceptance of life-sustaining interventions. Seventy-two percent of patients wanted to direct their own end-of-life care, 86% desired more information on advance directives, 62% wanted to learn about life-sustaining care, and 96% were receptive to advance-planning discussions with their physicians. Seventy-two percent of patients had considered that they might require life-sustaining care in the future; acceptability of resuscitative care depended on health status and probability of survival. However, only 15% had discussed advance planning with their physicians, and 10% were confident that their physicians understood their end-of-life wishes. Physicians and cardiovascular rehabilitation programs were considered desirable sources of information on advance planning. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac patients enrolled in rehabilitation programs want to learn more about end-of-life care and need more opportunities to discuss advance planning with their physicians. Patients consider cardiovascular rehabilitation programs to be acceptable sites for advance planning education.     

Advance care planning

Advance directives allow patients to have some control over decisions even when they are no longer able to make decisions themselves. All states authorize written advance directives, such as the appointment of a health care proxy, but commonly impose procedural requirements. Some states have restricted the use of oral advance directives, although they are frequently used in everyday practice. Advance directives are limited because they are infrequently used, may not be informed, and may conflict with the patient's current best interests. Moreover, surrogates often cannot state patients' preferences accurately. Furthermore, discussions among physicians and patients about advance directives are flawed. Physicians can improve discussions about advance directives by asking the patient who should serve as proxy and by ascertaining the patient's values and general preferences before discussing specific clinical situations.     

The need for safeguards in advance care planning

The recent uproar about Medicare “death panels” draws attention to public and professional concerns that advance care planning might restrict access to desired life-sustaining care. The primary goal of advance care planning is to promote the autonomy of a decisionally incapacitated patient when choices about life-sustaining treatments are encountered, but the safety of this procedure has not received deserved scrutiny. Patients often do not understand their decisions or they may change their mind without changing their advance care directives. Likewise, concordance between patients’ wishes and the understanding of the physicians and surrogate decision makers who need to represent these wishes is disappointingly poor. A few recent reports show encouraging outcomes from advance care planning, but most studies indicate that the procedure is ineffective in protecting patients from unwanted treatments and may even undermine autonomy by leading to choices that do not reflect patient values, goals, and preferences. Safeguards for advance care planning should be put in place, such as encouraging physicians to err on the side of preserving life when advance care directives are unclear, requiring a trained advisor to review non-emergent patient choices to limit life-sustaining treatment, training of clinicians in conducting such conversations, and structured discussion formats that first address values and goals rather than particular life-sustaining procedures. Key targets for research include: how to improve completion rates for person wanting advance care directives, especially among minorities; more effective and standardized approaches to advance care planning discussions, including how best to present prognostic information to patients; methods for training clinicians and others to assist patients in this process; and systems for assuring that directives are available and up-to-date.     

Accuracy of primary care and hospital-based physicians' predictions of elderly outpatients' treatment preferences with and without advance directives

BACKGROUND: Past research has documented that primary care physicians and family members are often inaccurate when making substituted judgments for patients without advance directives (ADs). This study compared the accuracy of substituted judgments made by primary care physicians, hospital-based physicians, and family surrogates on behalf of elderly outpatients and examined the effectiveness of ADs in improving the accuracy of these judgments. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Participants were 24 primary care physicians of 82 elderly outpatients, 17 emergency and critical care physicians who had no prior experience with the patients, and a baseline comparison group of family surrogates. The primary outcome was accuracy of physicians' predictions of patients' preferences for 4 life-sustaining treatments in 9 hypothetical illness scenarios. Physicians made substituted judgments after being provided with no patient AD, patient's value-based AD, or patient's scenario-based AD. RESULTS: Family surrogates' judgments were more accurate than physicians'. Hospital-based physicians making predictions without ADs had the lowest accuracy. Primary care physicians' accuracy was not improved by either AD. Accuracy and confidence in predictions of hospital-based physicians was significantly improved for some scenarios using a scenario-based AD. CONCLUSIONS: Although ADs do not improve the accuracy of substituted judgments for primary care physicians or family surrogates, they increase the accuracy of hospital-based physicians. Primary care physicians are withdrawing from hospital-based care in growing numbers, and emergency medicine and critical care specialists most often are involved in decisions about whether to begin life-sustaining treatments. If ADs can help these physicians better understand patients' preferences, patient autonomy more likely will be preserved when patients become incapacitated.     

An electronic medical record intervention increased nursing home advance directive orders and documentation

OBJECTIVES: To develop an electronic medical record intervention to improve documentation of patient preferences about life-sustaining care, detail of resuscitation and treatment-limiting orders, and concordance between these orders and patient preferences. DESIGN: Prospective before-after intervention trial. SETTING: Veterans Affairs nursing home with an electronic medical record for all clinical information, including clinician orders. PARTICIPANTS: All 224 nursing home admissions from May 1 to October 31, 2004. MEASUREMENTS: Completion of an advance directive discussion note by the primary clinician, clinician orders about resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatments, and concordance between these orders and documented patient preferences. INTERVENTION: The electronic medical record was modified so that an admission order would specify resuscitation status. Additionally, the intervention alerted the primary clinician to complete a templated advance directive discussion note for documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences. RESULTS: Primary clinicians completed an advance directive discussion note for five of 117 (4%) admissions pre-intervention and 67 of 107 (63%) admissions post-intervention (P<.001). In multivariate analysis, the intervention was independently associated with advance directive discussion note completion (odds ratio=42, 95% confidence interval=15-120). Of patients who preferred do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status, a DNR order was written for 86% pre-intervention versus 98% post-intervention (P=.07); orders to limit other life-sustaining treatments were written for 16% and 40%, respectively (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: A targeted electronic medical record intervention increased completion of advance directive discussion notes in seriously ill patients. For patients who preferred DNR status, the intervention also increased the frequency of DNR orders and of orders to limit other life-sustaining treatments.     

Perceived quality of life and preferences for life-sustaining treatment in older adults

We investigated whether perceived quality of life is associated with preferences for life-sustaining treatment for older adults. Participants included chronically ill, elderly outpatients (N = 258) and their primary physicians (N = 105). Patients and physicians were independently administered a questionnaire regarding patient quality of life and preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation for the patient. Physicians rated patients' global quality of life, physical comfort, mobility, depression, anxiety, and family relationships significantly worse than did patients. Nearly all perceptions of patients' quality of life were significantly associated with physicians' perceptions, but not patients' treatment preferences. Patient-physician agreement on patient global quality of life was not significantly associated with agreement regarding treatment preferences. We conclude that primary physicians generally consider their older outpatients' quality of life to be worse than do the patients. Furthermore, physicians' estimations of patient quality of life are significantly associated with physicians' attitudes toward life-sustaining treatment for the patients. For the patients, however, perceived quality of life does not appear to be associated with their preferences for life-sustaining treatment.     

Life‐Sustaining Treatments: What Do Physicians Want and Do They Express Their Wishes to Others?

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether older physicians have discussed their preferences for medical care at the end of life with their physicians, whether they have established an advance directive, and what life-sustaining treatment they wish in the event of incapacity to make these decisions for themselves. DESIGN: Mailed survey to a cohort of physicians. SETTING: Physicians who were medical students at the Johns Hopkins University in graduating classes from 1946 to 1964. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians who completed the advance directive questionnaire (mean age 68). MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires were sent out to known surviving physicians of the Precursors Study, an on-going study that began in 1946, asking physicians about their preferences for life-sustaining treatments. RESULTS: Of 999 physicians who were sent the survey, 765 (77%) responded. Forty-six percent of the physicians felt that their own doctors were unaware of their treatment preferences or were not sure, and of these respondents, 59% had no intention of discussing their wishes with their doctors within the next year. In contrast, 89% thought their families were probably or definitely aware of their preferences. Sixty-four percent reported that they had established an advance directive. Compared with physicians without advance directives, physicians who established an advance directive were more likely to believe that their doctors (odds ratio (OR) = 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.49-4.69) or family members (OR = 9.58, 95% CI = 5.33-17.23) were aware of their preferences for end-of-life care and were more likely to refuse treatments than those without advance directives. CONCLUSION: This survey of physicians calls attention to the gap between preferences for medical care at the end of life and expressing wishes to others through discussion and advance directives, even among physicians.     

Attitudes toward discussing life-sustaining treatments in extended care facility patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine nursing home residents' attitudes toward discussing life-sustaining treatment plans with their physicians and the factors associated with these attitudes. DESIGN: Random-sample, interviewer-administered survey. SETTING: Forty-one nursing homes in which some residents were cared for by house-staff physicians of the Hennepin County (Minnesota) Medical Center Extended Care Department. PATIENTS: Random sample of 150 nursing home residents receiving primary care from Extended Care Department physicians, 131 (87%) of whom completed the interview. RESULTS: Older individuals were less likely to have spoken with physicians and family members about treatment plans (p < 0.05), and to have felt that they had more say than necessary in their treatment (P < 0.05). Only 19 (14.5%) residents had formal treatment plan discussions about limiting life-sustaining treatment. Although perceived current health status did not differ between residents with and without treatment plans, those residents who had discussions about advance directives were more likely to report health improvement over the past 6 months (P < 0.05). Residents with formal advance directives were, on average, 8.4 years younger than those without them (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Younger patients are more likely to have had discussions about life-sustaining treatment and are also more frequently involved in plan development. Preferences for level of involvement should be considered during advance directive planning, and it should be recognized that these preferences may vary with age. Future research should evaluate whether this age relationship is a true age or a cohort effect.     

Physicians’ attitudes towards living wills and cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Objective:To determine whether a physician’s familiarity with the living will directly relates to an expressed willingness to discuss resuscitation issues with patients. Design:Survey of selected primary care and medical subspecialist physicians most likely to care for seriously or terminally ill patients. Setting:Private-practice clinicians practicing in an urban county. Participants:Internists, family practitioners, cardiologists, oncologists, and neurologists in private practice. Interventions:None. Results:Almost all responding physicians (97.2%) knew of the living will, although few (13.5%) had executed one for themselves. Most were willing to keep a copy of their patients’ living wills with their office records. However, only a few physicians (20%) indicated they routinely discussed extraordinary care issues with their patients. In fact, most (70%) reported they rarely or never discussed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with their patients. With terminally ill patients, physician initiative was greater: 69% reported discussing resuscitation preferences. Comparable discussions with elderly patients were undertaken only if the physician believed they would be warranted by the clinical circumstances. When questioned about their own sentiments towards resuscitation, most physicians indicated they would not want CPR if they were terminally ill (86%) or mentally incompetent (93%). A similar number (92%) would refuse artificial feeding if permanently comatose. Conclusions:Many physicians recognize the importance of living wills as an expression of patient treatment preferences. Nevertheless, discussion of patient preferences is unlikely because of physicians’ reluctance, except in limited circumstances, to initiate a dialogue about life-sustaining measures. Because patients also are often unwilling to begin such discussions, better methods of facilitating discussion of CPR and other extraordinary health care measures must be sought. Presented at the Southern Regional Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 19, 1990. Supported by a grant from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Health Services Foundation, Inc.     

Documentation of discussions about prognosis with terminally ill patients

PURPOSE: Previous studies have suggested the importance of communicating with patients about prognosis at the end of life, yet the prevalence, content, and consequences of such communication have not been fully investigated. The purposes of this study were to estimate the proportion of terminally ill inpatients with documented discussions about prognosis, describe the nature and correlates of such discussions, and assess the association between documented discussions about prognosis and subsequent advance care planning. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Inpatients (n = 232) at least 65 years old who had brain, pancreas, liver, gall bladder, or inoperable lung cancer were randomly selected from six randomly chosen community hospitals in Connecticut. The presence and content of discussions about prognosis, advanced care planning efforts, and sociodemographic and clinical factors were ascertained by comprehensive review of medical records using a standardized abstraction form. RESULTS: Discussions about prognosis were documented in the medical records of 89 (38%) patients. Physicians and patients were both present during the discussion in 46 (52%) of these cases. Time until expected death was infrequently documented. Having a documented discussion about prognosis was associated with documented discussions of life-sustaining treatments (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.8 to 12.0) and having a do-not-resuscitate order (adjusted OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 4.2). CONCLUSIONS: Among terminally ill patients with cancer, discussions about prognosis as documented in medical charts are infrequent and limited in scope. In some cases, such documented discussions may be important catalysts for subsequent discussions of patient and family preferences regarding treatment and future care.     

The effect of a social work intervention to enhance advance care planning documentation in the nursing home

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a multicomponent advance care planning intervention directed at nursing home social workers on identification and documentation of preferences for medical treatments and on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Controlled clinical trial. SETTING: New York City nursing home. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine newly admitted long-term care residents. INTERVENTION: Nursing home social workers were randomized to the intervention or control groups. The intervention consisted of baseline education in advance care planning that incorporated small-group workshops and role play/practice sessions for intervention social workers; structured advance care planning discussions with residents and their proxies at admission, after any change in clinical status, and at yearly intervals; formal structured review of residents' goals of care at preexisting regular team meetings; "flagging" of advance directives on nursing home charts; and feedback to individual healthcare providers of the congruence of care they provided and the preferences specified in the advance care planning process. Control social workers received an educational training session on New York State law regarding advance directives but no additional training or interventions. Subjects were enrolled from January 9, 2001 through May 25, 2003 and followed for 6 months after enrollment. MEASUREMENTS: Nursing home chart documentation of advance directives (healthcare proxies, living wills) and do-not-resuscitate orders; preferences for artificial nutrition and hydration, intravenous antibiotics, and hospitalization; and concordance of treatments received with documented preferences were compared for residents assigned to intervention and control social workers. RESULTS: Intervention residents were significantly more likely than residents in the control group to have their preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (40% vs 20%, P=.005), artificial nutrition and hydration (47% vs 9%, P<.01), intravenous antibiotics (44% vs 9%, P<.01), and hospitalization (49% vs 16%, P<.01) documented in the nursing home chart. Control residents were significantly more likely than intervention residents to receive treatments discordant with their prior stated wishes. Two of 49 (5%) intervention residents received a treatment in conflict with their prior stated wishes (one hospitalization, one episode of intravenous antibiotics), compared with 17 of 96 (18%) control patients (P=.04). CONCLUSION: This generalizable intervention directed at nursing home social workers significantly improved the documentation and identification of patients' wishes regarding common life-sustaining treatments and resulted in a higher concordance between patients' prior stated wishes and treatments received.     

Comparing utilization of life-sustaining treatments with patient and public preferences

OBJECTIVE: The movement for advance planning of end-of-life care was motivated in part by the assumption that medical intervention for terminally ill patients varies from what these patients would prefer. We examined the validity of this assumption by comparing actual life-sustaining treatment practices for patients in critical illness scenarios and surveyed patients’ advance care preferences. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We selected at random and reviewed 7,400 inpatient medical records from a single urban teaching hospital during the period just prior to the Patient Self-Determination Act. Records of 198 patients with conditions that matched advance directive scenarios were examined, and practices to withhold or withdraw seven life-sustaining treatments were documented. Practices were compared with surveyed preferences of 102 members of the general public and 495 outpatients who were followed by the same physicians as the 198 patients. Concordance of practices and preferences for the 19 surveyed outpatients who eventually fell into one of the scenarios was also evaluated. One hundred sixty-seven inpatient cases met review criteria for the scenario coma with a small chance of recovery. Hospital patients received medical interventions that were not consistently greater or less than the preferences of the surveyed outpatients or members of the general public. Resuscitation, the most frequently withheld treatment (94% of cases), was withheld more often than surveyed preferences to decline it (56% of outpatients, p<.001). Four treatments—mechanical breathing, artificial nutrition, major surgery, and hemodialysis—were utilized comparably to suveyed outpatients’ preferences (range p=.704−.055). Antibiotics and artificial hydration were withheld (9% and 6%, respectively) less often than surveyed outpatient’s prior preferences to decline them (48% and 52%, respectively, p<.001 for each). Conversely, treatments given to the 19 surveyed patients who subsequently developed one of the illness scenarios were often incongruent with the patients’ prior preferences. Again, in some cases more interventions were provided (26 of 63 declined treatments were given), and in some cases less (10 of 21 desired treatments were withheld). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the assumption that, collectively, patients’ advance care preferences are less interventionist than actual practices for patients in corresponding scenarios. Nevertheless, these results do support the assumption that life-sustaining treatment decisions do not conform well to individual patients’ specific preferences. Progress in end-of-life care should focus on shared decision making at the patient-proxy-physician level rather than on overall life-sustaining treatments utilization. Received from the Division of Medical Ethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Supported by grants from the William F. Milton Fund and the Decamp Foundation.     

Sexuality and Aging:

Previous research has been conducted regarding preferences of physicians for life-sustaining treatments for themselves, but there is a dearth of data on personal use of advance directives (ADs) by geriatricians specifically. Using a phone survey, we contacted all graduates of the geriatric fellowship program to assess their personal use of advance directives and their personal preferences for life-sustaining treatment. Of the 124 living graduates of the Parker Jewish Institute for Health Care and Rehabilitation, 70 agreed to participate. One third of respondents had established ADs for themselves, with higher rates in women than men (p = .054). Older geriatricians were significantly more likely to have advance directives (exact trend test yields, p < .0001). In general, respondents did not inform their health care providers about their desires for end-of-life care. This study revealed that the majority of fellowship-trained geriatricians did not formally establish advance directives for themselves. Further research is needed to determine whether physicians who establish advance directives for themselves are more likely to encourage their patients to do so.     

Life-sustaining treatment for patients with AIDS

Physicians increasingly are being called upon to make difficult decisions about intensive care for patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS patients who require intensive care have a poor prognosis; the in-hospital mortality rate of those receiving mechanical ventilation for P carinii pneumonia is 86-100 percent in most studies. However, in the past year, two studies documenting improved outcome have been published. Physicians should understand these outcome data and use well-established ethical principles to allow informed competent patients with AIDS to express their preferences regarding intensive care. Patients should be encouraged to provide advanced directives regarding life-sustaining treatments or to designate surrogate decision-makers to be consulted should they lose mental competence. The health care system should provide alternatives to the ICU for compassionate terminal care. However, arbitrary policies denying intensive care to AIDS patients for whom it is medically indicated and desired are not warranted.     

Physicians' decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment

BACKGROUND: Few data are available about physicians' decisions in regard to withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures. We therefore studied internists' views on this subject. METHODS: We surveyed 1000 generalist and subspecialist internists about their views on withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Thirty-two hypothetical cases were included. The effect of the demographic data on withholding or withdrawing treatment was analyzed via analysis of covariance and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1000 internists, 407 (41%) completed and returned surveys. A majority of respondents (51%) were willing to withhold or withdraw treatment in all 32 scenarios; 49% were unwilling to withhold or withdraw in at least 1 scenario. Respondents were likely to withhold treatment in 14 of 16 scenarios compared with 13.7 of 16 scenarios for withdrawing treatments (P<.001). Respondents withheld or withdrew feeding tubes in 6.6 of 8 scenarios (P<.001) and antibiotics in 6.7 of 8 scenarios (P = .001) compared with ventilators (7.1 of 8 scenarios) and dialysis (7.3 of 8 scenarios). Respondents were less likely to withhold or withdraw treatments in nonterminally ill (12.9 of 16 scenarios) (P = .02) and alert patients (13.2 of 16 scenarios) (P<.001) compared with terminally ill patients (14.9 of 16 scenarios) and patients with dementia (14.5 of 16 scenarios). CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of internists would be unwilling to adhere to some of patients' wishes to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The clinical scenario and type of treatment affect internists' decisions about whether they would withhold or withdraw such treatment.     

Perspectives on End-of-Life Treatment among Patients with COPD: A Multicenter,Cross-sectional Study in Japan

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality. Since patients with severe COPD may experience exacerbations and eventually face mortality, advanced care planning (ACP) has been increasingly emphasized in the recent COPD guidelines. We conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study to survey the current perspectives of Japanese COPD patients toward ACP. “High-risk” COPD patients and their attending physicians were consecutively recruited. The patients’ family configurations, understanding of COPD pathophysiology, current end-of-life care communication with physicians and family members, and preferences for invasive life-sustaining treatments including mechanical ventilation (MV) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were evaluated using a custom-made, structured, self-administered questionnaire. Attending physicians were also interviewed, and we evaluated the patient–physician agreement. Among the 224 eligible “high-risk” patients, 162 participated. Half of the physicians (54.4%) thought they had communicated detailed information; however, only 19.4% of the COPD patients thought the physicians did so (κ score = 0.16). Less than 10% of patients wanted to receive invasive treatment (MV, 6.3% and CPR, 9.4%); interestingly, more than half marked their decision as “refer to the physician” (MV 42.5% and CPR 44.4%) or “refer to family” (MV, 13.8% and CPR, 14.4%). Patients with less knowledge of COPD were less likely to indicate that they had already made a decision. Although ACP is necessary to cope with severe COPD, Japanese “high-risk” COPD patients were unable to make a decision on their preferences for invasive treatments. Lack of disease knowledge and communication gaps between patients and physicians should be addressed as part of these patients’ care.     

Association of depression and life-sustaining treatment preferences in patients with COPD

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Depressive symptoms and reduced health-related quality of life are common in patients with severe COPD. Therefore, understanding the association between preferences for life-sustaining treatment and depression or quality of life is important in providing care. No prior studies have examined the effects of depression and quality of life on treatment preferences in this population. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Cross-sectional study of 101 patients with oxygen-prescribed COPD. METHODS: Patients completed the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression survey, and questions regarding their preferences for mechanical ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation if needed to sustain life. RESULTS: Median age was 67.4 years, and median FEV1 was 26.3% predicted. Depression was significantly associated with preferences for resuscitation (50% of depressed patients and 23% of patients without depression refused resuscitation; p = 0.007), but was not associated with preferences for mechanical ventilation. Health-related quality of life was not associated with preferences for either resuscitation or mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians caring for patients with oxygen-prescribed COPD should understand that health-related quality of life does not predict treatment preferences and should not influence clinicians' views of patients' treatment preferences. However, depression does appear to influence patients' treatment decisions for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and improvement in depressive symptoms should trigger a reassessment of these preferences.