Florid Nightingale

reports from some frontier
FEBRUARY 11, 2009 9:40PM

Thank you, Mrs. Payson

Rate: 12 Flag

It was 7:30 a.m.in the medical ICU.  My shift, one that promised to be busy, was just beginning when I entered Mrs. Paysons' room. Her daughter was softly speaking to her of matters I decided were not meant for my ears.  Trying not to eavesdrop, I checked alarms, verified  intravenous medications, glanced at Mrs. Payson's vital signs, and, satisfied with the gestalt of the room, left to prepare her morning medications.

Mrs. Payson was 76; a little younger than the average female lifespan. She'd been on dialysis for renal failure for 6 years, and she needed surgery for a recurrent, painful bowel obstruction. But before she could have that done, her heart needed some serious tuning up. She had stenosis in 3 of her coronary arteries, the critical vessels that feed oxygen and other essentials to the heart muscle.  Some people can have less invasive stenosis treatment, like balloon angioplasty and stenting, but the only approach to her particular  coronary artery stenoses, because of their unfortunate anatomy, was coronary artery bypass grafting, or CABG (nurses and docs call it "cabbage" because of its acronym).  She would not survive the bowel procedure if the coronary stenoses weren't corrected first, and there was a fair chance she wouldn't survive the CABG.

A CABG is hard enough on someone without chronic renal failure, hypertension, osteoporosis and a slew of other conditions. More robust people leave the hospital after 4 days with chest soreness, activity intolerance, lack of appetite, a list of new medications, armloads of brochures telling them to change their lifestyles, mild cognitive impairment, and, frequently, a whopping case of depression to boot.  These are the after-effects of heart surgery that the surgeon doesn't fully disclose before the procedure, perhaps thinking it will make them happen. They happen anyway.

For Mrs. Payson, CABG was the only path toward relieving her abdominal pain so she could go back to her life, such as it was. 

Just before the cardiology team rounded at 8:30, I entered her room again. Her daughter repeated what I thought I'd heard before.

"Mom, are you thinking there's something you would like to tell the doctors?"

I did not ignore the overheard conversation this time.  I looked at Mrs. Payson's eyes and asked her if she was considering not having the surgery. She nodded. Then I asked if she wished to simply stop medical treatment. Her daughter nodded and answered,

"Mom has some concerns, though."

"Mrs. Payson, I want you to know that if you decide not to have further treatment, we will do everything else for your comfort. We will still take care of you."

"That's what she was worried about."

The cardiology team reached Mrs. Payson's room and began to walk in, four doctors , one medical student and one physician's assistant strong. I stopped them short and reported our discussion. The white-haired attending cardiologist explained again to my patient that we would ensure her comfort and respect her choice in the matter.  He made her a "do not resuscitate," and we transferred Mrs. Payson out of intensive care by 10 a.m.  

I don't know how Mrs. Payson died, or where. I sincerely hope she went home with hospice care. She probably died within several days of stopping dialysis.  Mercifully, as fluid builds up, so do metabolic toxins that blunt consciousness, providing a modicum of comfort as they augment the work of large doses of opioids.  I hope she was given a fairly comfortable death, on her own terms.

Although my contact with Mrs. Payson was brief, I will continue to remember her and her daughter. They are one of my "memorables." Nurses all carry these people with us; the ones who challenge us to grow, teach us something, or leave us unsettled are the most memorable. Mrs. Payson is a memorable because Mrs. Payson let me feel like a hero. In a relationship only 60 minutes old, I was given the chance to stop the medical machine in its tracks and advocate for a quietly suffering person.  I was given the unmatched privilege of articulating what were among this near-stranger's final, most important wishes.

So thank you, Mrs. Payson. And good-bye. 

 

(Names are pseudonyms in all my posts regarding my nursing practice.)

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Thanks for giving her dignity. Rated.
Ok, a few questions:

To what extent do you think her age was a factor? For example, is there some younger age at which you think the hospital staff would have been justified in trying (or perhaps obligated to try) to persuade her to have the CABG?

Was the patient adequately informed of the medical options and likely outcomes, especially those related to quality and length of life?

Do you think the patient was in a position to make a good decision on whether discontinue treatment and switch to palliative care? (E.g., being in hospital with an obstructed bowel might put someone in the "wrong mood" for continued treatment.)

Would an ethics consult have been helpful or appropriate?

I'm not second-guessing her decision, just wondering about some of these other factors.
Important questions, Mishima. I think her age and her years on dialysis were strong factors, yes. At what age would I have tried to talk her out of it? I don't know. It's a difficult-to-describe combination of her chronic illnesses, her age, and the twisted path of medical procedures she would have to follow to regain her former life. It falls under clinical judgment, which has to do with education, experience and your own personal sensibilities.

There was no need for an ethics consult. She knew what she wanted, her daughter was in agreement, and it was a reasonable choice.

I think she was in the only position anyone could be in to make this decision. Often, people in pain just want whatever procedure promises to relieve it, invasive or not. She was thinking in a different vein; in terms of her quality of life.
Thanks for the story. You are a hero everyday, even when you don't see it so clearly.

A few words about the concern for how this decision unfolded (beautifully in my estimation). From a very evidence-based level, this patient (or a similar patient) would score a 9 on a prognostic tool called the Charlson co-morbidity index. Without going into the details, this score is a composit of her age, diseases, and other factors. Her score, from a statistical point of view, indicates that she has less than a 50% likelihood of living another 12 months, that is, if she weren't facing two surgeries surgery. In this settting, undergoing two surgeries gives her an extremely poor likelihood of leaving the hospital at all.

It's good that we have tools that help back up what we know intuitively about prognosis. In this case, in most cases, no one in the medical team is thinking about withholding treatments due to age or other factors. We are moving in the direction, I hope, of being realistic, hopeful, and sensitive to the fact that chronically ill bodies are frail and that quality of life may have more meaning than quantity of life, in some situations.
Thank you, Risa and Catamite. (Hard to call you Bastard when you're so kind!) Thanks for the quantitative information, Risa. I think you are right; our judgment is often correct, but to mitigate the risk it is not, it's good to have tools like the Charlson.
Beautifully told. Particularly the grace note at the end with you thanking her for the unmatched privilege.

Also thanks to Risa for her comments and her ongoing posts.

My brother died recently at age 74 from complications arising from "massive pneumonia" -- it always seems massive when they die. He'd been suffering from Parkinson's for a number of years which may have dimmed his desire to live and affected his decision-making but there was nothing wrong with his mental acuity -- he didn't want a ventilator or any other life support systems. He died, but I always wonder if we should have tried to talk him out of it somehow. I miss him a lot.
Caveat Canem - My hunch is that you did the right thing: what your brother wanted. It's natural to regret the loss of a loved one and to rethink our decisions over and over. Ultimately, though, the question must be asked, "Whose needs will be met?" I tell my students to ask this question of themselves when they appear to be "over-involved" with a patient, e.g., wanting to visit them after hospital discharge, becoming emotionally distressed by a relationship with a patent. My guess is that you met your brother's needs with your presence and support, and trying to talk him out of his decision would not have done so. Peace to you.
She was 76 years old with hypertension, renal failure, bowel obstruction, and osteoporosis, and they wanted todo BYPASS SURGERY on her?

Wow... just wow.

A perfect example of a Medical-Industrial Complex that has completely lost sight of the patient.

Please keep posting. The public needs to know what you know.
Thank you, Patrick. I post as often as I can, being an amateur writer. I take a long time to think about what to write before putting it down.