Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:185 (26 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7408.185
Ellen M Redinbaugh, research instructor1, Amy M Sullivan, assistant professor2, Susan D Block, associate professor2, Nina M Gadmer, project manager2, Matthew Lakoma, research assistant2, Ann M Mitchell, assistant professor3, Deborah Seltzer, research associate4, Jennifer Wolford, research assistant4, Robert M Arnold, professor4
1 Department of Behavioural Medicine and Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, 5150 Centre Ave #445, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA, 2 Division of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, 44 Binney St, Boston, MA 02115, USA, 3 University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, 415 Victoria Building, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA, 4 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh
Correspondence to: E M Redinbaugh ellenr{at}pitt.edu
Design: Cross sectional study using quantitative and qualitative data.
Setting: Two academic teaching hospitals in the United States.
Participants: 188 doctors (attending physicians (equivalent to UK consultants), residents (equivalent to UK senior house officers), and interns (equivalent to UK junior house officers)) who cared for 68 patients who died in the hospital.
Main outcome measures: Doctors' experiences in providing care, their emotional reactions to the patient's death, and their use of coping and social resources to manage their emotions.
Results: Most doctors (139/188, 74%) reported satisfying experiences in caring for a dying patient. Doctors reported moderate levels of emotional impact (mean 4.7 (SD 2.4) on a 0-10 scale) from the death. Women and those doctors who had cared for the patient for a longer time experienced stronger emotional reactions. Level of training was not related to emotional reactions, but interns reported needing significantly more emotional support than attending physicians. Although most junior doctors discussed the patient's death with an attending physician, less than a quarter of interns and residents found senior teaching staff (attending physicians) to be the most helpful source of support.
Conclusions: Doctors who spend a longer time caring for their patients get to know them better but this also makes them more vulnerable to feelings of loss when these patients die. Medical teams may benefit from debriefing within the department to give junior doctors an opportunity to share emotional responses and reflect on the patient's death.
Previous research has linked level of training with doctors' emotional reactions to deaths. In a longitudinal study "dealing with death and dying" was the most commonly reported source of stress among junior house officers,6 and it was related to psychological distress.7 As general practitioners, these same doctors did not find death and issues around dying to be stressful.8 These data provide some general expectations about emotional differences between junior hospital doctors and attending physicians (consultants). However, little has been published on junior doctors' use of coping strategies and social resources to manage powerful feelings evoked by their work.
We sought to extend previous research by investigating doctors' reactions to patients' deaths in two large US teaching hospitals. We explored the role of training level and other variables related to doctors and patients on doctors' experiences in caring for the dying. Finally, we examined how doctors coped with their emotions and the role of senior doctors in helping junior doctors to cope with their emotional reactions to patients' deaths.
= 0.8 and
= 0.01. Information abstracted from the charts of the 81 eligible
cases included diagnosis, demographics, length of stay, whether or not the
patient died in intensive care, and whether resuscitation was attempted.
Doctors
We reviewed charts to identify the medical student, intern (junior house
officer), resident (senior house officer), and primary attending physician
(consultant) who were caring for the patient at the time of death. In the 81
index cases, only two medical students participated in an index patient's care
and as they were both acting interns they were combined with the interns.
Doctors who were providing temporary care while the patient's assigned doctor
was off duty were ineligible for the study. Demographic comparisons of primary
care physicians (similar to UK general practitioners) and attending physicians
in intensive care and in general medicine indicated no significant differences
between groups on demographic factors including age, sex, marital status, or
race; therefore we combined all attending doctors into one group.
Analysis of variance comparisons of doctors from general medicine (n = 67), intensive care (n = 8), and primary care physicians (n = 12) indicated that primary care physicians reported feeling closer to the patient (F = 3.58, P < 0.04), feeling more disturbed by the death (F = 4.50, P < 0.02), using more coping behaviours (F = 3.2, P < 0.05), having more grief symptoms (F = 3.88, P < 0.03), and having more trauma symptoms on the impact of events scale (F = 4.17, P = 0.02). Doctors from general medicine and intensive care did not differ on any of the outcome variables. We reran our comparisons of interns, residents, and attending physicians excluding the 12 primary care physicians. None of the results changed, so we included primary care physicians in the group of attending physicians.
Of the 251 doctors who had cared for the 81 patients in the index cases,
246 remembered working with the patient and were therefore eligible for the
study. Of the eligible doctors, 196 agreed to participate in the study (80%
response rate). Eight were excluded because of insufficient data, resulting in
a final sample of 188 doctors. Group comparisons of the participants (188/246
eligible doctors) and non-participants/excluded doctors (58/246 eligible
doctors) indicated that Jewish doctors were more likely to be
nonparticipants/excluded doctors (
2 = 14.1, P < 0.01). The
groups did not differ with regard to level of training, race, marital status,
or age.
For a case to be included in data analyses we required a minimum of two interviewees. From the original 81 cases we excluded 13 because there was only one interviewee. There were no differences between included and excluded index cases with regard to diagnosis, demographics, length of stay, location of death, and resuscitation orders.
Procedures
We obtained informed consent from all participants before data collection.
Qualitative data were gathered with a semistructured interview that allowed
doctors to tell their individual stories about caring for a patient who died.
At the end of the interview doctors were asked six questions that summarised
the interview material (see table
1). Doctors then completed self administered questionnaires. We
have focused on the quantitative data, including the six questions
administered at the end of the interview and self administered
questionnaires.
|
Measures
We grouped the measures under one of three headings: doctors' experiences
in providing patient care, doctors' emotional reactions to the death of the
patient, and doctors' use of coping resources after the patient's death
(table 1). We used three
measures that show good reliability and validity in general populations: the
grief reaction
scale,9 a short
version of the impact of events
scale,10 and the
brief COPE.11 The
distributions for these scales were positively skewed in our sample,
indicating that most doctors endorsed either "never or rarely" or
"occasionally" having a given symptom or using a particular coping
strategy. Therefore we dichotomised the scale items into endorsed/not endorsed
and summed the rescaled items. The resulting distributions met normality
assumptions necessary for conducting analyses.
We used literature review and discussions with experts to generate questions relevant to doctors' experiences in caring for the dying. We piloted and revised the questions to enhance their content validity. Questions generated by the study included: "How emotionally powerful was this death?" and "How satisfying was it to participate in the care of this patient?" Doctors' responses to the questions fell within a normal distribution.
Data analyses
Table 1 shows the outcome
variables, including doctors' experiences, emotional reactions, and use of
coping resources. The key predictor variable of interest was level of training
(intern, resident, or attending physician); other predictors were variables
related to doctors and patients, such as sex, marital status, duration of care
(table 2). To reduce the
probability of type I errors from multiple testing, we set a more stringent
predetermined
of 0.01 (two tailed), and we have reported only those
variables that were consistently related to outcome variables (that is, a
given variable was significantly related to at least three outcome
variables).
|
We report univariate statistics as means and standard deviations for
continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. We tested
bivariate associations using
2 tests to compare categorical
variables, correlation coefficients to measure linear associations,
independent groups t tests to compare means, and analysis of variance
to compare means of more than two groups.
The analysis of variance models to test the association between level of training and the outcome variables needed to account for doctors clustering within shared index patient cases. We used the CROSSTAB procedure (SUDAAN, Research Triangle Institute, NC) and SURVEYMEANS and SURVEYREG (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) procedures to compute the model estimates.12 These programs adjust for covariance related to cases among doctors' scores so that the three analysis of variance groups were independent of one another.
3 on a 0-10 point scale) (table
3). On the other hand, 21 (11%) reported feeling very close to the
patient, and this was associated with providing patient care for a longer
period of time (r = 0.38, P < 0.01).
|
One hundred and thirty nine (74%) doctors thought that taking care of the patient was a satisfying or very satisfying experience (table 3). Longer durations of providing care were associated with more satisfying experiences (r = 0.20, P < 0.01). Few doctors reported conflict among family and members of the healthcare team regarding the goals of patient treatment (32, 17%), poor symptom management (8, 4%), or patient suffering (24, 13%).
Doctors' emotional reactions to the patient's death
Descriptive analyses indicated that many doctors reported moderate
emotional impact from a patient's death, though 58 (31%) doctors rated the
death as having strong emotional impact
(table 3). Many doctors (103,
55%) reported that the patient's death disturbed them very little, but 43
(23%) reported that the patient's death was very disturbing to them. On
average, doctors reported experiencing two (out of a possible 14) symptoms of
grief after the death. The most commonly reported symptoms were "feeling
upset when thinking about the patient" (88, 47%) and feeling
"numb" (45, 24%). Doctors reported around one symptom (out of six)
on the impact of events scale, with "Avoid getting upset when thinking
about the patient" being the most commonly endorsed item (70, 37%).
The differences in emotional reactions by level of training (from analysis of variance models) were non-significant. Although interns reported more symptoms of grief than attending physicians (mean 2.9 (SD 2.9) v 1.7 (2.5), P < 0.03), this finding was not significant. Longer durations of providing care were consistently associated with stronger emotional reactions: r = 0.21 (P < 0.01) for emotional impact, r = 0.19 (P < 0.01) for disturbing, r = 0.26, (P < 0.01) for grief, and r = 0.20 (P < 0.01) for the impact of events scale. Female doctors reported more symptoms of grief than male doctors (3.3 (3.2 v 1.8 (2.1), P < 0.01).
Doctors' use of coping resources after the patient's death
Doctors reported using an average of two coping strategies (out of five) to
manage the emotions associated with an index patient's death. The most
commonly endorsed were "getting emotional support from others"
(86, 46%), "trying to see the death in a different light to make it seem
more positive" (68, 36%), and "turning to work or other activities
to take your mind off of it" (68, 36%). Female doctors used more coping
behaviours than male doctors (2.2 (1.5) v 1.4 (1.4), P < 0.01),
and residents used more coping behaviours than either interns or attending
physicians (2.1 (1.5) v 1.6 (1.4) and 1.2 (1.4), P < 0.01).
Most doctors (156, 83%) reported needing little emotional support from their colleagues (table 3). Interns reported needing more emotional support than attending physicians (2.3 (2.2) v 1.1 (1.7), P < 0.01). Female doctors reported needing more emotional support than male doctors (2.5 (2.4) v 1.3 (1.7), P < 0.01). Although most doctors in need of support felt they had received it from their colleagues, 66 (35%) felt their needs had gone unmet.
Most residents (42, 74%) and interns (43, 68%) spoke to the attending physicians about the death of the patient (table 4). However, residents (48, 84%) and interns (56, 89%) relied more on talking with each other or another resident about their experiences with the death (table 4). Less than a quarter of residents (14, 24%) and interns (13, 21%) identified an attending physicians as the most useful person in helping them cope with the patient's death (table 4).
|
While all groups reported needing relatively low levels of support, interns reported the greatest need for emotional support, and they typically sought support from residents. Although interns and residents were usually successful in identifying someone among their peers who they could talk to about the death, it is striking that more than a quarter of interns and residents had no postmortem follow up with an attending physician.
Our findings regarding sex differences are consistent with broader psychological findings. Compared with men, women consistently report more psychological symptoms,13 greater need for social support, and higher levels of received support.14 Female doctors report more psychological distress than male doctors, whether they are interns, residents, or attending physicians.8 15-17 In our study, female doctors reported more symptoms of grief and used more coping resources than male doctors. In particular, female doctors needed and received more support from their colleagues than male doctors.
The amount of time a doctor spends taking care of a dying patient seems to be both a source of satisfaction and a source of distress. Longer duration of care was associated with a more satisfying experience and greater feelings of closeness to the patient. However, it was also associated with finding the death more disturbing and emotionally powerful as well as more reported symptoms of grief and trauma. Our findings are similar to qualitative research in which doctors describe satisfaction in providing good end of life care while simultaneously expressing a sense of loss after a patient they knew well died.18
Potential risk factors
Our data show that while most deaths do not elicit a strong emotional
response in doctors, we can identify those situations in which greater needs
for emotional support may be present. These include the presence of a long
doctor-patient relationship or the involvement of a female doctor or an
intern. Being able to identify deaths in which the clinicians may be "at
risk" of higher levels of emotional distress provides educators with
some guidance about situations in which extra attention to these issues is
essential. Unfortunately, in our current environment, these needs are likely
to be unaddressed. Research has shown that senior physicians in charge of
training house officers tend to underestimate emotional distress in junior
doctors.19
20 Furthermore, the
culture of medicine, through its emphasis on biomedical issues and its lack of
emotional
support,21 may also
contribute to trainees' reluctance to report needs for emotional support.
Although interns and residents were usually successful in identifying someone
among their peers to talk to about the death, 46% (36) of attending physicians
found that no one was helpful. What is the cumulative impact of emotionally
draining deaths on attending physicians who "do not need"
emotional support?
Limitations
Our study had several limitations. While we made every effort to contact
respondents within two weeks of the patient's death, interviews were sometimes
delayed, leading to potential recall bias. Although we used standardised
instruments whenever possible, few standardised measures exist that
specifically assess doctors' emotions. The quantitative measures used may have
lacked the sensitivity to measure subtle and highly individual reactions to
death that may be better elucidated through qualitative methods. We will
report on our qualitative findings in subsequent papers.
Conclusions
Our research provides new insights into the effect of patients' deaths on
doctors and raises some questions about current medical training in the United
States. Doctors are moved by the deaths of the strangers for whom they care,
and they are often powerfully affected by the deaths of patients with whom
they have forged close relationships. The attending physicians in charge of
the learning of their interns and residents do not often discuss these strong
emotional responses. This conveys a message about how death is to be handled
and potentially isolates learners who could benefit from having an opportunity
to receive a seasoned perspective on what it is like to care for a patient who
dies. A conspiracy of silence toward emotions can potentially cause trainees
to develop maladaptive coping patterns that lead to burnout and other forms of
emotional
distress.22 The
finding that a substantial number of trainees did not talk to their attending
physician, and that most did not find attending physicians to be the most
helpful resource in dealing with the death, points to a major gap in the
clinical education of interns and residents and an important opportunity for
attending physicians to improve their clinical training skills. As the
clinical leader and role model for the team, it is incumbent on the attending
doctor to teach and model both excellent patient care and appropriate self
care in managing challenging patients. Senior physicians have a major role in
legitimising discussions of these issues and in helping doctors in training to
construct their losses in a meaningful and adaptive manner. Further research
should investigate both how the attending physicians respond to distress in
junior doctors as well as studies of how junior doctors' opinions regarding
how attending physicians can be supportive.
|
Contributors: EMR was responsible for conceptualisation and design of the study, collection of the data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript. AMS analysed and interpreted the data, revised the manuscript, and advised on statistical analyses. SDB was responsible for conceptualisation and design of the study, wrote the grant application, oversaw data collection, analysed and interpreted the data, and revised and finally approved the manuscript. NMG was responsible for conceptualisation and design of the study, collected the data, analysed and interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript. ML analysed and interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript. AMM analysed and interpreted the data and revised the manuscript. DS analysed and interpreted the data and revised the manuscript. JW collected the data, analysed and interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript. RMA was responsible for conceptualisation and design of the study, wrote the grant application, oversaw data collection, analysed and interpreted the data, revised the manuscript, and finally approved the manuscript (in conjunction with SDB). EMR, RMA, and SDB are the guarantors.
Funding: Nathan Cummings Foundation. The guarantors accept full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: The study received approval by the internal review board at each study site.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses