Antibiotics for URI when on Hospice

If your loved one had a terminal illness such as the late stages of alzheimers would you want them to die from the illness itself or from the uti that they developed which could have been prevented if treated. Hospice should not take measures to stop progression of the terminal illness but anyone can develop a uti. Hospice is not there to speed up the process by not taking care of other things that come up. If they develop a temp, arent you going to give them tylenol. When I worked at the hospital and I had a pt who was a dnr and something would come up I would get so mad when I called the physician for something and he would say"why are you callling me, they are a dnr!". Hello, they may be dying but lets let them die from the terminal illness itself instead of something else, that is just pure neglect.

yes, yes, YES, you treat infection w/abx.
hospice is for terminal folks in LIVING out their remaining time with as much quality and comfort as possible.
infections hurt, and need to be treated (as long as it's not r/t adm dx).
we are not there to kill them, but to let them die.
big difference.

definite sore spot of mine.
yes, to abx.

leslie

I see it as a comfort measure and support the practice for this reason.

Do Not Resuscitate does not mean Do Not Treat.

I agree with all of the above. This is an advocacy issue. Infections = s/s of discomfort. We treat to provide comfort.

An upper respiratory infection (URI) may be problematic depending on the terminal illness and the stage of dying.

We've had quite a few lung cancer patients recently - end stage. I don't think we would have treated an upper respiratory infection. However we did take a Dilantin level on one of these patients and up his meds due to increased seizure activity.

As to a urinary tract infection that another poster mentioned - we've treated those. One patient was on prophylactic antibiotics because she was bed bound and at risk for developing decubs.

I agree that DNR does not mean Do Not Treat.

steph

I always ask myself "what would I want if I was the patient"; I do not think I would my URI treated with antibiotics, just keep me comfortable; a UTI on the other hand might be quite painful and I think I would want it treated, or at least the pain/discomfort treated - on the other hand my living will states NO ANTIBIOTICS!
we have a quite a few patients, they get started on antibiotics for a few days then die any way before the course is ever finished, so if they were more comfortable great; on the other side of the coin: we waste a horrendous amount of meds (money); it is a decission pts/families need to make, not mine.

WooHoo, what a touchy topic. Responses are interesting here, even in this column. Interesting response by leslie "infections hurt and need to be treated(as long as it's not related to the adm. diagnosis)". Hmmm, I have seen too many of Leslie's responses to believe that she means "we can treat them if they hurt for something that's not related to the terminal diagnosis, but not if it is related to the terminal diagnosis". Leslie's responses are too humane for that type of intended response. We all have personal opinions here, so here goes mine:

We treat symptoms and promote comfort. Hospice is a philosophy of care, and that philosophy is different to different cultures, families and individuals. We really do "have to listen and know our patients", asShariWN admirably states. This is not about our opinions, but rather, about the patient and the family unit. How often does an AIDS patient actually die from the disease itself????(very rarely--death is usually from an opportunistic infection) If we treat every single opportunistic infection that pops up during the course of the hospice AIDS patient, we are, in all likelihood, going to cause suffering to that patient, and to that family unit. Our jobs as hospice professionals is to listen, to guide (when asked)and to promote comfort always. Many disease courses, Alzheimer's, Failure to Thrive, have a very, very low mortality rate of themselves. The "killers" in FTT or Alzheimer's patients are the pneumonias, UTI's and aspiration events. How long do we continue to treat these? Always, per request, sometimes per guidance, and rarely if we are at a point where the family is on board, the patient is ready and if the infection is causing no discomfort.
If the patient and family have accepted the philosophy of care----we treat the symptoms and provide the comfort and the tools to say goodbye. Recently read a large study with geriatric population and mis-use, abuse of antibiotics for common infections URI's,UTI's----arrrrgggghhhhh, can't find the reference for this column, but the results were favorable towards not treating every infection in the elderly. Along with treating infections comes the risk of C-Dif, fungal and yeast infections and thrush (all of which can be more uncomfortable than the original infection) along with unintended potential side effects, diarrhea, decreased appetite, confusion, psychosis and the set-up for super-infections if we are not able to get every single dose down the patient .Several studies show "less is best" when it comes to adding medications to the elderly patient's regime. Absolutely, DNR does not mean Do Not Treat--- but personal preference is treating the symptoms and allowing nature to take it's course if the patient and family have accepted the philosophy. Very, very frequently, the current pneumonia or UTI (that could lead to sepsis and death) is a much, much more humane death than what is around the corner for patients of certain diseases (metastatic bone cancer, COPD, SC lung, ALS, etc).
Okay, that's my personal opinion, now, have at it.....