Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Dec;32(12):683-7.
doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.014084.

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

E Ferrand  1 , P Jabre, S Fernandez-Curiel, F Morin, C Vincent-Genod, P Duvaldestin, F Lemaire, C Hervé, J Marty
Affiliations

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

E Ferrand et al. J Med Ethics. 2006 Dec.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Smedira N G, Evans B H, Grais L S.et al Withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. N Engl J Med 1990322309–315. - PubMed
    1. Ferrand E, Robert R, Ingrand P.et al Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive‐care units in France: a prospective survey. French LATAREA Group. Lancet 20013579–14. - PubMed
    1. Société francophone de Médecine d'Urgence Ethique et Urgences. Réflexions et recommandations. JEUR 200316106–120.
    1. Recommandations des experts de la Société de Réanimation en Langue Française Les limitations et arrêts de thérapeutique(s) active(s) en réanimation adulte. Réanimation 200211442–449.
    1. Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique Rapport et Recommandations n° 63, 27 Janvier 2000. Fin de vie, arrêt de vie, euthanasie. Paris: Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique, 2000