To explore how physicians elicit patients' preferences about cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during hospital admission interviews.
Conversation analysis of 37 audio-recorded CPR patient-physician discussions at admission to a geriatric hospital.
The most encountered practice is when physicians submit an option to the patient's validation ("do you want us to resuscitate"). Through it, physicians display presuppositions about the patient's preference, which is not elicited as an autonomous contribution. Through open elicitors ("what would you wish"), physicians treat patients as knowledgeable about options and autonomous in determining their preference. A third practice is related to patients delivering their preference in anticipation of the request and is encountered only for choices against CPR. These decisions are revealed as informed and autonomous, and the patient as collaborative.
The way that physicians elicit patients' preferences about CPR influences the delivery of autonomous and informed decisions. Our findings point to an asymmetry in ways of initiating talk about the possibility of not attempting CPR, potentially exacerbated by the context of admission interviews.
Decisions about the relevancy life-sustaining interventions need an adequate setting in order to allow for patient participation. Our findings have implications for communication training in regard to involving patients in conversations about goals of care.