INTRODUCTIONThis study explored and compared the differences in attitudes toward end-of-life care among patients, relatives and healthcare professionals, including doctors and nurses.

METHODSWe performed a descriptive study on a cross-section of the population of a tertiary hospital in Singapore. Data was collected using a questionnaire survey involving 50 participants from each of the four groups of patients, relatives, doctors and nurses.

RESULTSFamily members were the most commonly nominated surrogate decision-makers by the patient group (76%) and the majority of the relative group (74%) felt comfortable deciding on end-of-life care for their loved ones. However, the patient and relative groups differed significantly in their preferences on end-of-life care options, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (p = 0.001), intubation (p = 0.003), nasogastric tube feeding (p < 0.001) and the use of antibiotics (p = 0.023). Doctors, nurses and relatives demonstrated differences in preference between end-of-life care for themselves and for their loved ones, especially with regard to the use of nasogastric tube feeding. There was also a difference between patients and doctors in their decisions on CPR (p < 0.001) and intubation (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONThis study demonstrated the importance of early planning for end-of-life care. This must be initiated proactively by healthcare professionals to engage patients in a culturally sensitive manner to discuss their preferences, in order to facilitate open communication between the patient and family.

Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Attitude to Health ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ; psychology ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Decision Making ; Family ; psychology ; Female ; Health Personnel ; psychology ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Terminal Care ; psychology ; Young Adult

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing are associated with negative health outcomes in the elderly. Several prescribing tools have been developed to assess medication appropriateness. Explicit (criteria-based) tools often do not take into account patients' preferences and comorbidities, and have little room for individualised clinical judgement. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 243 elderly patients admitted to the Geriatric Medicine service in a Singapore tertiary hospital over one month. We incorporated an implicit (judgement-based) tool developed by Scott et al into a mnemonic, 'S-I-R-E', to assess medication appropriateness: S = symptoms ('Have symptoms resolved?'), I = indication ('Is there a valid indication?'), R = risks ('Do risks outweigh benefits?') and E = end of life ('Is there short life expectancy limiting clinical benefit?'). RESULTS: Inappropriate prescribing was present in 27.6% of patients. The most common reason for inappropriateness of medications was lack of valid indication (62.2%), followed by high risk-benefit ratio (20.7%). The most common medications that lacked valid indication were supplements and proton pump inhibitors. Polypharmacy was found in 93% of patients and was significantly associated with inappropriate prescribing (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION Inappropriate prescribing and polpharmacy are highly prevalent in the hospitalised elderly. The 'S-I-R-E' mnemonic can be used as a memory aid and practical framework to guide appropriate prescribing in the elderly.