"It's not broke, so let's not try to fix it": Why patients decline a cardiovascular implantable electronic device

Abigale L. Ottenberg, Paul Mueller, Rachel J. Topazian, Sharon Kaufman, Keith M. Swetz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Few patients decline therapy of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED), and little is known about the characteristics or reasoning of those who do. Our objective was to describe the reasons why patients decline CIED implantation using qualitative methods.

Methods Qualitative, engaging thematic analysis. Three patient focus groups led by two trained facilitators and one semi-structured interview guide.

Results Of the 13 patients, two were women and all were white (median age [range], 65 [44-88] years). Five themes emerged: (1) don't mess with a good thing; (2) my health is good enough; (3) independent decision making; (4) it's your job, but it's my choice; and (5) gaps in learning. Most patients who decline CIEDs are asymptomatic. Other reasons to decline included feeling well, enjoying life, acceptance of the future, desire to try to improve health through diet and exercise, hearing of negative CIED experiences, and unwillingness to take on associated risks of CIED implantation. A medical record review showed that clinicians understand patients' reasons for declining CIED treatment. However, focus group data suggest that gaps in patients' knowledge around the purpose and function of CIEDs exist and patients may benefit from targeted education.

Conclusions Patients decline implantation of CIEDs for various reasons. Most patients who decline therapy are asymptomatic at the time of their device consult. Focus group information show data suggestive that device consultations should be enhanced to address gaps in patient learning and confirm knowledge transfer. Clinicians should revisit treatment options iteratively.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1306-1314
Number of pages9
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume37
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Focus Groups
Learning
Health
Therapeutics
Hearing
Medical Records
Decision Making
Emotions
Referral and Consultation
Interviews
Exercise
Diet
Education

Keywords

  • decision making
  • ethics
  • implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • refusal
  • treatment imperative

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

"It's not broke, so let's not try to fix it" : Why patients decline a cardiovascular implantable electronic device. / Ottenberg, Abigale L.; Mueller, Paul; Topazian, Rachel J.; Kaufman, Sharon; Swetz, Keith M.

In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 37, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 1306-1314.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ottenberg, Abigale L. ; Mueller, Paul ; Topazian, Rachel J. ; Kaufman, Sharon ; Swetz, Keith M. / "It's not broke, so let's not try to fix it" : Why patients decline a cardiovascular implantable electronic device. In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2014 ; Vol. 37, No. 10. pp. 1306-1314.
@article{64cefe72c048456cb04521aefb4cb70c,
title = "{"}It's not broke, so let's not try to fix it{"}: Why patients decline a cardiovascular implantable electronic device",
abstract = "Background Few patients decline therapy of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED), and little is known about the characteristics or reasoning of those who do. Our objective was to describe the reasons why patients decline CIED implantation using qualitative methods.Methods Qualitative, engaging thematic analysis. Three patient focus groups led by two trained facilitators and one semi-structured interview guide.Results Of the 13 patients, two were women and all were white (median age [range], 65 [44-88] years). Five themes emerged: (1) don't mess with a good thing; (2) my health is good enough; (3) independent decision making; (4) it's your job, but it's my choice; and (5) gaps in learning. Most patients who decline CIEDs are asymptomatic. Other reasons to decline included feeling well, enjoying life, acceptance of the future, desire to try to improve health through diet and exercise, hearing of negative CIED experiences, and unwillingness to take on associated risks of CIED implantation. A medical record review showed that clinicians understand patients' reasons for declining CIED treatment. However, focus group data suggest that gaps in patients' knowledge around the purpose and function of CIEDs exist and patients may benefit from targeted education.Conclusions Patients decline implantation of CIEDs for various reasons. Most patients who decline therapy are asymptomatic at the time of their device consult. Focus group information show data suggestive that device consultations should be enhanced to address gaps in patient learning and confirm knowledge transfer. Clinicians should revisit treatment options iteratively.",
keywords = "decision making, ethics, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, refusal, treatment imperative",
author = "Ottenberg, {Abigale L.} and Paul Mueller and Topazian, {Rachel J.} and Sharon Kaufman and Swetz, {Keith M.}",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/pace.12433",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "1306--1314",
journal = "PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "0147-8389",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "It's not broke, so let's not try to fix it"

T2 - Why patients decline a cardiovascular implantable electronic device

AU - Ottenberg, Abigale L.

AU - Mueller, Paul

AU - Topazian, Rachel J.

AU - Kaufman, Sharon

AU - Swetz, Keith M.

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - Background Few patients decline therapy of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED), and little is known about the characteristics or reasoning of those who do. Our objective was to describe the reasons why patients decline CIED implantation using qualitative methods.Methods Qualitative, engaging thematic analysis. Three patient focus groups led by two trained facilitators and one semi-structured interview guide.Results Of the 13 patients, two were women and all were white (median age [range], 65 [44-88] years). Five themes emerged: (1) don't mess with a good thing; (2) my health is good enough; (3) independent decision making; (4) it's your job, but it's my choice; and (5) gaps in learning. Most patients who decline CIEDs are asymptomatic. Other reasons to decline included feeling well, enjoying life, acceptance of the future, desire to try to improve health through diet and exercise, hearing of negative CIED experiences, and unwillingness to take on associated risks of CIED implantation. A medical record review showed that clinicians understand patients' reasons for declining CIED treatment. However, focus group data suggest that gaps in patients' knowledge around the purpose and function of CIEDs exist and patients may benefit from targeted education.Conclusions Patients decline implantation of CIEDs for various reasons. Most patients who decline therapy are asymptomatic at the time of their device consult. Focus group information show data suggestive that device consultations should be enhanced to address gaps in patient learning and confirm knowledge transfer. Clinicians should revisit treatment options iteratively.

AB - Background Few patients decline therapy of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED), and little is known about the characteristics or reasoning of those who do. Our objective was to describe the reasons why patients decline CIED implantation using qualitative methods.Methods Qualitative, engaging thematic analysis. Three patient focus groups led by two trained facilitators and one semi-structured interview guide.Results Of the 13 patients, two were women and all were white (median age [range], 65 [44-88] years). Five themes emerged: (1) don't mess with a good thing; (2) my health is good enough; (3) independent decision making; (4) it's your job, but it's my choice; and (5) gaps in learning. Most patients who decline CIEDs are asymptomatic. Other reasons to decline included feeling well, enjoying life, acceptance of the future, desire to try to improve health through diet and exercise, hearing of negative CIED experiences, and unwillingness to take on associated risks of CIED implantation. A medical record review showed that clinicians understand patients' reasons for declining CIED treatment. However, focus group data suggest that gaps in patients' knowledge around the purpose and function of CIEDs exist and patients may benefit from targeted education.Conclusions Patients decline implantation of CIEDs for various reasons. Most patients who decline therapy are asymptomatic at the time of their device consult. Focus group information show data suggestive that device consultations should be enhanced to address gaps in patient learning and confirm knowledge transfer. Clinicians should revisit treatment options iteratively.

KW - decision making

KW - ethics

KW - implantable cardioverter defibrillator

KW - refusal

KW - treatment imperative

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908023007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908023007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/pace.12433

DO - 10.1111/pace.12433

M3 - Article

C2 - 24889010

AN - SCOPUS:84908023007

VL - 37

SP - 1306

EP - 1314

JO - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 0147-8389

IS - 10

ER -