To Reorient or Validate? Caregivers and Dementia

I would guess most of us have encountered dementia. With approximately 14% of those over 70, and estimates that 40% of those over the age of 90 have the disease, the expectations are that if not yet, soon, we will all interact with someone who has the disease.

The diagnosis of dementia brings with it overwhelming scenarios for caregivers, as they deal with more than just the loss of function over time, but also the loss of personality, memories, and the relationship itself with their loved ones.  Dementia changes communication and when it begins to rob our loved ones of this gift, we feel we our ‘losing’ them, despite them physically still being present.  

One of the hallmark symptoms of patients with dementia is that they become disoriented to the current time and situation. It starts small, thinking it’s Sunday, when actually it’s Friday. Then it becomes a different season, a different year, and ultimately a different reality. This disorientation can be one of the biggest challenges to caregivers. How should you approach someone who says they need to head to work when they’ve been retired for 20 years?

Until recently, the main recommendation has been something called reality orientation. As the name suggests, clinicians recommended reorienting someone. “You can’t go to work today, you retired 20 years ago!”  This therapy includes frequent discussion of current events, using calendars, clocks, and other items to refocus patients to the here and now.  Research has suggested there is a small cognitive benefit with reality orientation, better with mild forms of dementia vs. more moderate types. 

One of the issues caregivers complain about with reality orientation, however, is a decrease in quality of life measures such as mood and behavior with this therapy. You can imagine if someone with dementia is verbally corrected continually, they might become frustrated, depressed, and even angry.

Caregivers begin to dread their interactions with loved ones, spending the majority of time reorienting them to reality. This task can spiral a pleasant encounter into something that ends in silence, both parties frustrated.

There is an alternative. In Hospice, we use something called validation therapy.  With validation therapy, caregivers enter into the world of the person with dementia. “Tell me, what’s on the agenda for work today?”  Instead of trying to bring that person into your world, validation therapy asks you to step into his world. Caregivers report increased communication, increased positive mood of the patient, and greater satisfaction with the relationship.

The idea behind validation therapy is that of respect. Even if a memory being told is incorrect, the wrong place or the wrong people, as caregivers we can smile and go along with it. This essentially validates the person with the memory, and despite the dementia, they feel heard and loved and thus everyone involved has a better quality experience.  

For those who have worried about doing harm by encouraging the improbable things patients with dementia talk about, now you know it can be beneficial and is a true therapy. 

As with most medical things, there is never an absolute. Sometimes a combination of both therapies works the best. With such a difficult disease, I think anything that can make the day to day interactions more positive should be considered. 

The Trouble with Pain

When I made the decision in college to turn from my pursuit of becoming a psychologist to that of a physician, it was based on my perception that medicine was a field of black and white answers and not the uncomfortable gray of psychology.   How wrong I was!  I have since learned that medicine is not black and white equations with simple answers, but complex paradoxes with many unknowns.  Ironically, I spend time now treating one of the most nebulous realms in all of medicine; pain and suffering.

One difficulty with pain is subjectivity.  Unlike a broken bone that we can see on an x-ray, or a number we can read on a machine, pain on the outside cannot be seen or verified by any test.  It is strictly the experience of the injured person.  We try in medicine to objectify pain, by asking patients to put a number on their experience.  But what does a 7 out of 10 rating for pain actually feel like?  If a wasp were to sting two random people, each one may rate the pain of that sting differently.  One may feel it was 10 out of 10, another just 2 out of 10 in severity.  The insult was the same, and yet the perception and experience of the pain differs from person to person.

Thus, the first rule in pain management is not to judge what we think should or should not be painful, but to take a patient by their word, and try to reduce the severity of their experience with the tools we have available.

If the pain has a source, the first treatment should be to fix that source; notice I did not say the first treatment should be to mask the pain with medicine.  If the pain is from a broken bone, fix the fracture, if from infection, fix the infection, if from arthritis, reduce the inflammation.  It is only when the source of the pain cannot be healed that we turn to masking the pain with pills.  The goal with masking pain is crucial. It is not to escape from the reality of the pain, but to return the ability to function to the person who has pain.

Here is the true problem of pain, especially at the end of life; much of what people call “pain” is actually suffering.  Pain in the physical sense originates in the body. You can point to where you hurt.  Suffering on the other hand is in the mind.  It is the mind that questions why this diagnosis, the mind that worries about what happens after death.  It is the mind that remembers the past, harbors guilt, longs for forgiveness, and races with fear.  It the mind that says, “I hurt” and “this isn’t fair”.

In hospice, we term suffering ‘existential pain’, acknowledging that like physical pain, it is real and should be treated in the same way.  If possible, this means tackling the source of the suffering and is why hospice includes a team of social workers, chaplains, nurses, volunteers and physicians, all there to listen and explore and help heal.  When time is too short to fix the source, then like other pain, we turn to medicine; however, existential pain requires different medicine than physical pain, which again adds to the complexity.

To experience pain and suffering, or watch someone else endure it is excruciating, which is why I for one, am on a lifelong quest to better understand and treat this complex issue. 

Image Credit: Pablo Picasso "Weeping Woman with Handkerchief"

A Handful of Medication

If you’ve ever helped as a caregiver to someone in the twilight years of their life, or perhaps you yourself are at this stage, you may have noticed when it was medication time that there were a lot of pills.  It is true there are exceptions to this rule, those individuals who only take one or two medications a day.  However this is the exception, and there doesn’t seem to be much middle ground. Either you are on pages worth of medication, or hardly any as you begin to enter the last stages of life.

The first question is, how does this happen?  A large culprit to this phenomenon stems from the expectations for the doctor/patient encounter.  When a patient comes to see a provider with a specific complaint, they expect a remedy.  The unspoken words from every patient are “fix me”.  While most complaints aren’t easy to alleviate quickly, culture demands instant relief.  Thus, handing out a new medication for a complaint certainly feels like the problem has been addressed. This is not much different to what happens when my 3 year old skins his knee.  He has been enculturated to believe that with any scrape a Band-Aid is the ultimate solution.  As a parent, I can tell that most of his injuries medically don’t need Band-Aids, and yet when I relent I’m amazed at the immediate soothing effect it has because something has been done to “fix” him.  Medications at times are like Band-Aids, they may not be essentially needed, but we expect something from them, and so in turn, they pacify us.

The next issue with medications is the tendency that once started they are never stopped.  Someone comes into the hospital for knee surgery and complains of indigestion due to anxiety about the surgery, so an antacid is prescribed.  The person is discharged with the new medication, and years later are still taking it, despite not medically needing it.  When I put a Band-Aid on my 3 year old, it takes some convincing after a day that I can remove it, because he is now healed.  How funny it would be if we left Band-Aids on indefinitely, never evaluating if the injury healed.  Yet this is often the case for pills, started by other specialists, or for specific reasons in the past, we trust their benefit, like the Band-Aid, without pondering if still needed.

When it comes to end of life, the harm of over prescribing and not eliminating medications is something called ‘pill burden’.  Patients fatigued from their disease and having more difficulty swallowing become burdened by the handful of medications we expect them to take.  Many pills can be eliminated because of the above scenarios, but even more can be stopped when we evaluate why someone is taking the pill in the first place.

Many medications prescribed are preventative, meant to stave off unwanted future risks.  Some of these drug classes are blood thinners, cholesterol lowering agents, blood pressure medications, dementia medications, and all vitamins.  These agents are meant to prevent things years in the future, so it makes no sense continuing them on hospice when time is limited.

Pill burden doesn’t just occur at the end of life. It’s okay to be an advocate and sit down with your physician to discuss the necessity of medications prescribed.  The key is to ensure the pills you take are working for you, because it can be work to take them in the first place. 

The Conundrum of Energy and Fatigue

A good rule of thumb for end of life issues should be ‘forget what you think you know about normal.’  This is where much of the confusion and misguided expectations comes from in hospice.  People try to overlay what they understand about a healthy or diseased body onto a person whose body is shutting down.  The problem is they are not the same.  Somewhere along the line, a healthy body becomes diseased, and then, usually unrecognized by most, a transition from chronic disease shifts to actual dying.  This transition begins weeks and months ahead of an actual death, and yet everyone surrounding the patient, including the medical team, tends to treat the patient with the faulty assumption that the ‘normal’ rules are at play.

I see this especially in regards to the idea of energy and fatigue.  In the normal/chronic disease model, we know that exercise is good.  In fact, you have probably been told that to combat fatigue, you should exercise.  Expending energy actually leads to a boost in energy.  We even have phrases tucked away in our subconscious such as “use it, or lose it”, “no pain, no gain”, and “stay strong, live long”.   This becomes ingrained; to get better, or live longer, we must simply get up and move.   If you were to put this into a math equation, it would be spend two units of energy and get four units back.  

It is no wonder then, with this idea of normal in our minds, why we get frustrated when we attempt to apply this formula at the end of life and it fails. 

Both patients and families seem confounded when people aren’t getting stronger, despite forcing themselves to get up and move.  They are using it, but still losing it.  They experience pain, as families push them to stay active, and yet there is no gain.  That is because at the end of life, there are new rules at play.

    

The energy formula when the body has started to shut down is, spend two units of energy and get zero units back.  There is no boost at the end of life when you get up and move, instead people find themselves worn out, and exponentially more tired.  A trip to the store equals an afternoon of sleeping.  An outing to a family function means the next two days will be in bed.  Eventually, even eating a meal will require a 3-hour nap to recuperate.

   

Unlike what we think of as ‘normal’, to eat more protein, or add more calories, has little effect on the formula.  It is important to realize that nothing will increase that day’s allotment of energy.  With no ability to increase energy, the day becomes a negotiation of the most important way to spend those units. It may be in conversations, or eating, or completing tasks, or outings; the key should be allowing the patient to decide and not imposing our own ideas of importance on them.

 

Although the body behaves differently at the end of life, recognizing what the new normal is, will lead to less disappointment and frustration, and ultimately to better quality of life.

Please Die, Don't Die

It is gut wrenching to watch someone die. I use the term purposefully; as in internal anguish or the visceral twisting that people feel on the inside.  Even when the person passing is completely at peace, and all symptoms treated, there will inevitably be something on the inside that doesn’t feel right.

There is the more obvious reason to be feeling this way, which is impending grief.  Our unique ability as humans to anticipate and even predict how an event will affect us emotionally, mentally, and physically allows for the pre-grieving that loved ones do in the waiting period.

Thinking about the future loss will certainly be gut wrenching, and this emotion doesn’t necessarily surprise us.  What does surprise us, however, is a far more common internal conflict that is nearly universal and yet seldom acknowledged because of the guilt associated with it.

Usually this is the realization that some part of us actually desires for our loved one to die. We chide ourselves and feel guilty, but can’t help the thoughts. This feeling, however, doesn’t stem from malice, but from empathy and compassion. It occurs when we allow ourselves to step into our loved ones reality. We think about how they must feel, the pain they may be experiencing, the waiting they are doing. If there is even a hint of potential suffering, then because of our great love for them, we want to take that suffering away and ultimately that may mean death.  Despite the altruistic etiology of this emotion, it nonetheless feels wrong to wish for death for someone we love.  Thus, our gut wrenches.

There is a flip side to this that can cause just as much internal strife, and that is the desire for our loved ones to live.  This would seem to be contrary to conflict, for shouldn’t we want our loved ones to live? Yes, unless our loved ones don’t want to live. When they voice to us to ‘let me go’, or show signs of suffering, and yet we recognize within ourselves an opposing and opposite emotion for them to live, this causes anguish. Unlike the desire for death, the etiology of the desire for our loved ones to go on living is actually selfish.  In the face of suffering, for us to say ‘keep living’, we are asking for our hopes to be met, not theirs.  This ultimate longing doesn’t stem from malice, but from our deep love that wants that person to continue to exist.  It is the reality of the selfish nature of this wish, which leads our gut to wrench.

Essentially, as we sit in the space of waiting while our loved ones die, we experience all of these gut-wrenching emotions.  The problem is we expect to be sad, but we don’t expect to be fighting a monumental internal battle over life and death.  Please die, don’t die. We expect to feel grief, but we don’t expect guilt.  Please die, don’t die.

Bottom line, the gut wrenching felt when we experience death indicates great love.  Altruistic motives, selfish motives; at the core is love.

Always a Choice

If you’ve ever been admitted to the hospital you might realize what a well-oiled machine it is, and must be to function well. Depending on what diagnosis is at play, whether that is illness or pregnancy, there are a series of things that get set in motion the moment someone enters as a patient.  There are protocols, which say: if this, do that. Most of the interventions and medications ordered are what people in health care call standard of care, meaning when x is the diagnosis most people get y.

While this system is in place for the patients’ benefit, to limit errors and reduce subjective variance for treatments, there are some negative things that come with this as well.  Many of these automatic triggers for treatment can make a patient feel they are on a moving walkway, taking them on a path with only one direction.

I often meet patients and families at the end of this path, by that time frustrated, exhausted, and confused at what all of the treatments and procedures were for.  They shrug their shoulders resigned to the corralling; vocalizing their discontent with where they feel the system has taken them.

The truth is, while the system is manufactured to push a certain direction, there is always a choice.  Patients and families forget that they can step off of the moving walk at any time.  Remember, that our medical world favors autonomy and gives ultimate consent to the patient. 

This does not mean it would be wise to make decisions in flippant, uninformed, or in haphazard ways.  However, I absolutely advocate for informed discussions on what other alternatives there are, especially for major interventions.

You should feel empowered to say “I know that most people are treated with surgery with this diagnosis, but can we talk about what would happen if we didn’t do surgery” or “They’ve told us our mom will need rehab, frequent doctor visits, labs drawn, and extensive medication management, could you tell us how things would look if chose not to go down that path?” 

Many assume that if there are alternatives, that these would have already been discussed or presented.  Let me tell you the medical machine is unfortunately not set up in this way, the most common plan of action is what gets recommended and carried out. It takes a bold voice to stop the current and ask “Is there another option?”  Just because no one has mentioned another choice, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.  You always have a choice.

The choice for what is being done is most important as we near the end of our lives. This is where the path can lead in nearly opposite directions. With hospice, families have chosen to step off the automatic disease centered path and start journeying on the patient centered path. Nothing in hospice is automatic, but instead individual decisions are made, usually with goals of quality of life as paramount. 

The medical system excels at what it is designed to do; fix and treat disease in an automatic way. The problem is we are more than mere disease; which is why we should always have the freedom of choice. 

Morphine Fears

It is the most dangerous misinformation about hospice that exists. I run into it so often that clearly somewhere it must have become woven into our cultural ideas about how people die when hospice is involved. I am speaking of the idea that morphine is given to purposefully hasten someone’s death.

You cannot blame people for this falsehood, as there are many explainable reasons why this belief has been thought to be true.  The first reason is coincidental approximation; meaning often when someone is in the dying process they may be having pain or trouble breathing that requires morphine to alleviate the symptom. Family members in the room see the medicine given and hours later when the patient dies they connect the morphine to the death. This is quite frankly an improbable connection. Usually a person has required morphine days before death, at the very same dose. If it was the morphine causing death, it would have happened days earlier.

The other problem with this improbability is how morphine works.  Contrary to what many think, usual doses of morphine do not stop people from breathing or cause respiratory arrest. In fact, morphine actually eases the work of breathing, increasing oxygen delivery.  Instead of harming someone’s ability to breath, the morphine given near the end actually makes it easier to breath.

Another reason this wrong idea has become a part of culture is due to dissemination of information.  I overhear families say such things as “Well, they are starting morphine, so it won’t be long now.” This phrase is passed on, as if the two were connected. Someone being on morphine has little predictive value on prognosis.  What we really should be passing on is information about the symptoms that do indicate dying. The phrases “They are no longer able to swallow, so we think it is near” or “We haven’t been able to rouse him for over 24 hours, so I think you should come” offer much more truth and connection to the timing of death than morphine use.

One of the largest culprits of the mistruths of morphine rests with the media.  I have watched movies that depict small amounts of morphine being given as a means to hasten death. It is a glamorized view of something medically improbable.  Any medicine, even Tylenol, given in unreasonable quantities can cause death, and morphine is no exception. But the notion that just one more dose will end life, as is often depicted on the screen, has only harmed the reputation of a perfectly useful medication.

The idea that we as humans even require morphine at death has also perpetuated this false belief. We actually don’t need anything to die. Death is a natural process of systems shutting down as we sink into ourselves to the point of unresponsiveness.  Morphine, if used, is only a tool to reduce symptoms that cause suffering.  I have just as many patients pass with no medications in their system, as those with medications.

So the next time you hear someone mention morphine as related to dying, be bold and clear up the misinformation. It’s the only way we can hope to change the culture.