​
This page helps you find doctors and nurse practitioners who spend more time with each patient. More time has 3 benefits: They listen and examine you in more detail. They've listened and examined other patients in more detail, so they've learned about diseases in more depth and breadth than at medical school. They can minimize their own burnout, which affects half of doctors in internal medicine, family medicine, and ob/gyn.

Later, when you know specific treatments you need, you can use a different page to see which specialists have the most experience with each procedure.

1. ​Doctors who Serve 3 Settings These are the few thousand general practitioners who treat patients in the office, hospital and nursing home. Most doctors no longer visit hospitals, and even fewer visit patients in nursing homes. The doctors on the map give continuity of care when their patients need a hospital or nursing for major illnesses. You can decide if one of these is right for you.
   
2. Geriatric Medicine specialists. There are not many of these, but they may be helpful for older patients, even for a consultation.
3. Doctors Making House Calls to homebound and Assisted Living. These can be helpful for patients who cannot get to a doctor's office, though Medicare will fine them if they falsely certify a patient is homebound. Some apps may have additional doctors, and Medicare plans to allow more house calls in 2019.
4. Hospitals This does not list doctors, but has specialized hospitals, such as cancer, children, long term care, psychiatric, rehabilitation and VA
5. Nursing Homes also does not list doctors, and so far only covers a few states, but full list, where you can select your state, is here.

You can call any doctor's office to see which hospital and nursing home they visit. You can also check patient reviews, malpractice, etc. as discussed in STEP C of the specialists page. Maps 1 and 3 include Family and General Practice, Geriatric and Internal Medicine, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants, but they omit Ob-gyn, since Ob-gyn data don't show place of treatment.

Ratings of doctors by other doctors and patients

Spreadsheets list all the doctors. Choose the USA (SLOW ! 142 megabytes; save it  so you don't have to download it again), or Maryland, DC and nearby Virginia (4 megabytes). They show you:

• Doctors who give 45-60 minutes for a first appointment.
• Doctors who average 25 or 30 minutes or more for subsequent appointments.
• Appointment lengths for other doctors, including yours.
• Length of doctor visits in hospitals and nursing homes.
• Which doctors and nurse practitioners also go to assisted living or even home visits.
• The file is based on Medicare data for 2015.

You may not always need long appointments, but doctors with long averages, and their schedulers, at least offer long appointments when needed. Longer appointments include more extensive medical history, cover more severe problems, with more complex medical decisions. 

To find doctors near you, in a specialty, and/or male/female, you can filter the spreadsheets (click an arrow in 3rd row). For example column G shows the state:

1. Click "Enable Editing" if it asks at the top of the screen
2. Click the arrow in the 3rd row of Column G
3. Unclick "Select All"
4. Click the state(s) you want
5. Click OK, and you will see providers in the state(s)

You can also filter on specialty, city, zip code, male or female. To help you find nearby areas, there are maps of 5-digit zip codes, the first 3 digits of zip code, and the first 2 digits, or here. On the map of 3-digit zips, move to new areas by clicking the N, S, E, W arrows, then zoom in; you can see anywhere in the country on their free demo. All of a doctor's appointments are listed at one address, which the doctor provided to Medicare, even if the doctor has multiple locations.

Length of office appointments is based on the typical face-to-face time. Hospital and nursing home visits include both face-to-face time, and time dealing with that patient's needs on the hospital floor or at the nursing home (as explained on p.18 of a presentation). The median hospital doctor claims to spend 16 minutes with each patient. Some audiovisual telehealth contact is also covered (p.31 of the same presentation). Time talking to the family with the patient not present is not covered. Length of appointments at home and in assisted living seems to be face-to-face time.

Medicare will pay for more tele-medicine in 2019. Medicare's "telehealth" has been restricted to non-metropolitan areas by 42 U.S. Code § 1395m(m)(4)(C)(i), also called 1834(m), but Medicare is defining "communication technology–based services" to pay $14 for short interactions anywhere, while cutting pay for office visits to keep the overall budget the same.

You can select male or female, but some specialties have few women.

The spreadsheets also help you find local doctors who give continuity of care by treating their patients in all 3 settings: office, hospital, and nursing home. If you've been hospitalized, you know the difficulty coordinating between your personal doctor and hospital doctors. Life is easier and care may be better if your personal doctor can treat you in the hospital.

A 2017 study shows that hospital patients where the hospital let their personal doctor treat them, had a better survival rate (91.4%) than patients treated by hospitalists (89.2%). The extra 2.2 percentage points mean that for every 45 hospital patients treated by their personal doctor, one more person was alive 30 days after the hospital stay. The map and spreadsheets (USA or DC area) show which doctors and nurse practitioners do treat patients both in and out of hospitals:

• Number of office visits they did in 2012-2014 (for Medicare)
• Number of visits to hospitals in the same years. You can click here to find which hospital the provider uses, to see if it will satisfy you. That site also gives you phone numbers, so you can call providers' offices to confirm the hospital, and find which nursing homes they visit.
• Number of visits to nursing homes
• Number of visits to assisted living. This matters if you are in or may go to assisted living
• Number of home visits. This matters if you are home-bound.

• Ob-Gyn (pelvic and clinical breast) exams are separate; time estimates and locations are not available for these

​A 2017 JAMA article says, "In an ideal world, primary care physicians would follow their patients from the office to the hospital and to the nursing home. This would improve continuity of care and increase the chances that the patients’ preferences, generally better known by the primary care clinician than a new clinician, are respected..." 

On the other hand you can also see the much bigger numbers of providers who specialize and just provide hospital care, office care or nursing home care.

Primary care doctors in hospitals and nursing homes provide basic ongoing care, in addition to specialists and surgeons who provide their specialties. Some hospitals use their own staff "hospitalists" to provide primary care.

​Primary care billing in hospitals (among 49 million Medicare visits billed in 2015):

• 62% of hospital visits are by the 38,522 doctors who do over 90% of their work in hospitals (hospitalists)
• ​7% of hospital visits are by the 4,404 doctors who do 10% or more of their work in each setting: office, hospital, and skilled nursing facility (SNF)*
• ​24% of hospital visits are by the 24,033 doctors who work in office and hospital, but not in SNFs (<10% of their workload)

​Primary care billing in skilled nursing facilities (SNF, among 13 million Medicare visits billed in 2015):

• ​29% of SNF visits are by the 2,866 doctors who do over 90% of their work in SNFs (SNF specialists)
• 22% of SNF visits are by the 4,404 doctors who do 10% or more of their work in each setting: office, hospital, and SNF,* so they can follow patients to each setting
• 27% of SNF visits are by the 5,688 doctors who work in office and SNF, but not in hospitals (<10%)
• 13% of SNF visits are by the 2,565 doctors who do 10% or more of their work in hospitals and 10% or more in SNFs, but under 10% in an office, so they can follow patients between hospital and SNF
• 4% of SNF visits are by the 381 doctors who work in in SNFs and assisted living, but not office or hospital (<10% each), so these doctors can follow patients between assisted living and SNF

* ​For these doctors who work in all 3 settings, on average 42% of their practice is in their office, 31% in hospitals and 26% in nursing homes, so they are experienced in each setting.

​Many physicians have offices close to a hospital, and some devote a day each week to one nursing home, so patients who choose that hospital and nursing home can see their personal doctor if the institution allows.

These percents include Family and General Practice, Geriatric and Internal Medicine.

The spreadsheets have a web link for each doctor, to copy into your browser. It takes you to a consumer rating site, which also takes you to the doctor's website if they can find it. There are helpful hints for using large spreadsheets like this.

You can supplement these bare numbers with all the sources on patient reviews, malpractice, etc. discussed in STEP C of the specialists page.  
​
Some patients want to know who is independent of the hospitals and Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) which have been absorbing most practices, so they can have independent advice. Lists of doctors who are independent of the major health systems are at: aid-us.org/directory, Idaho, Georgia, New York City, Minneapolis-St. Paul, south Charlotte, . Some groups with "independent" in the name are ACOs with incentives to refer to each other. Insurers also pay incentives to doctors to meet financial goals.

Home Visits: Medicare and other insurance plans pay for home visits when there is a reason, such as letting the doctor assess the home situation, coordinating with home caregivers, or difficulty getting to the office. A doctor describes the emotional benefits he gets from even doing a few home visits per week. Doctors are paid more for home visits than office visits, so copays may be higher too. The spreadsheets described above show names and locations of 4,000 US doctors who do more than 2 home visits for Medicare per week (104/year), so you can find one near you. 1,300 of these doctors do more than 10 home visits per week (520/year). An association of doctors advocates for the service, and also has a referral list of about 300 doctors and groups. There are some experimental programs to save money by deterring seriously ill patients from going to hospitals.

Source: The spreadsheets use Medicare data. They are useful for non-Medicare patients too, since they show differences among doctors even if you are young or privately insured. Doctors who work only for managed care plans, like Kaiser or Medicare Advantage (Part C), are not included, so you will need to look elsewhere. Medicare does not release counts of 10 or fewer patients, to protect privacy, so there is little data on doctors who see few Medicare patients. Address cleaning provided by Texas A&M University GeoServices

Earlier spreadsheets showed:

• ​2012-2014 data for USA (129 megabytes) and DC, MD, and nearby VA (4 megabytes).
• 2013 data for USA (199 megabytes), or DC, MD, and nearby VA (7 megabytes), with more detail on each type of appointment

The first column has an overall rank you can adapt. It looks for the highest values on 5 items:

1. Average length of initial, subsequent and nursing home/hospital visits, to show which doctors spend time with you (multiplied by 6 to scale the minutes for comparability with other items).
2. Number of hospital visits, to show which doctors can follow you into the hospital.
   
3. Number of nursing home visits, to show which doctors can follow you into a nursing home.
   
4. Office visits as % of hospital visits. When this is over 100% or 200%, it highlights doctors whose primary loyalty can be to patients, not the hospital.
5. Office visits as % of nursing home, again to highlight doctors who focus on patients in the community, not just those in nursing homes.

The rank looks for doctors who are high on all 5 items. Change it if something else is important to you. An article in Becker's Hospital Review discusses how hard it is to get even 25 minutes from many doctors, but this list shows the doctors who regularly spend that much time with patients.

The spreadsheet shows

• Average bills for doctors' appointments and visits, in case you need to go without insurance
• Average amount Medicare allows, which may be a guide to what you can bargain for, or what other insurers pay. Medicaid usually pays less, and many doctors don't accept Medicaid.

• Number of office appointments for new Medicare patients (col. V). This shows if the doctor is taking new patients. If it is less than 12 or 24 (1 or 2 new Medicare patients per month), the doctor may not have room to take you. You can also compare it to the total number of office appointments (col. O), to see if the doctor has a lot of turnover The number of new patients is high for doctors who see many patients just once, for consultation, or because patients don't like them. There are also some surgeons in the list who show primarily initial office visits, since follow-up care is covered by the surgical fee, and is not billed separately and not listed separately here. Surgeons with a lot of subsequent appointments may be trying non-surgical approaches first. For psychotherapy, new patients cannot be identified separately, so they are all listed as subsequent appointments. A new patient means the doctor has not seen the patient in the past 3 years, and neither has any other doctor in the practice who has the same specialty and subspecialty. 
• The 2013 spreadsheets show total hours per week each provider billed to Medicare for these appointments and visits. If this is useful I can add it to the 2012-2014 file too. You can ask the provider's office how much non-Medicare work they do, to see if the total hours are reasonable. Up to 40 hours or so for Medicare may be reasonable if they have mostly Medicare patients, but could show an overloaded doctor if younger patients are also getting a lot of care. Remember they have many hours administering their practice and keeping up with knowledge, besides the billable hours. 62% of doctors spend less than 46 hours per week seeing all patients, Medicare and others; 82% spend less than 56 hours per week seeing all patients.

Some who bill very high hours may include other staff in their data. Then you won't know what to expect from the specific person you see; for example they could have separate staff for office and hospital work. Usually each doctor, nurse practitioner, etc has a unique number and a separate line in the spreadsheet. Multiple staff are more likely if the specialty is "Multispecialty Clinic/Group Practice" or if the name is ALL CAPS, which means Medicare called them an "office" not an "individual."

Besides averages, the 2013 spreadsheets show the number of visits by length: 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, etc. Medicare does not estimate time for the annual wellness visit, so I estimated the time based on what they pay, compared to what they pay for regular visits of 25, 40 or 60 minutes. These estimates are 48 minutes for an initial wellness visit and 29 minutes for a subsequent one, and appear separately in the spreadsheet, so you can use other estimates if you wish. There are also physical exams in the first 12 months of Medicare enrollment, which are grouped with the initial wellness exams at 48 minutes. ProPublica shows graphs of how many subsequent appointments at each length each doctor gave in 2012, though one cannot search for doctors who give long appointments. They consider long appointments a cost problem, not a patient benefit.

Each column in the spreadsheet summarizes several billing categories. A summary page lists all the detailed categories, how common each is, national average costs, and Medicare's estimate of how long it takes.

In October 2015, Medicare released information on types of Medicare patients seen by each doctor, to show which doctors are most familiar with these types of patients. The information can be added to the doctor files, but would make the files even bigger. A private insurance app suggests that some patients do want to find doctors who treat patients who are similar by age and gender. Comments are welcome below.

Patient age is calculated at the end of the calendar year or at the time of death.

• Average age of Medicare patients.
  
• Medicare patients with disabilities under age 65.
  
• Number between 65 and 74.
• Number between 75 and 84.
  
• Number over 84.

Number female.
Number male.
Race is based an algorithm that uses Census surname lists and geography to improve the accuracy of race/ethnicity classification, particularly for those who are Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islanders.

• Number of non-Hispanic white beneficiaries.
• Number of non-Hispanic black or African American beneficiaries.
• Number of Asian Pacific Islander beneficiaries.
• Number of Hispanic beneficiaries.
• Number of American Indian or Alaska Native beneficiaries.
• Number with race not elsewhere classified.

Number who had no Medicaid benefits in the calendar year.
Number who had Medicaid sometime in the year
Conditions (based on algorithms used at http://ccwdata.org/index.php)

• % with Alzheimer’s, related disorders, or dementia.
• % with Asthma.
• % with atrial fibrillation.
• % with cancer. Includes breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and prostate cancer.
• % with chronic kidney disease.
• % with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
• % with depression.
• % with diabetes.
• % with heart failure.
• % with hyperlipidemia.
• % with hypertension.
• % with ischemic heart disease.
• % with osteoporosis.
• % with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis.
• % with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.
• % with stroke.

Average Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk score of beneficiaries. Beneficiaries with score over 1.08 are expected to cost more than the Medicare average, and vice versa.

• Risk scores are based on age, sex; use of Medicaid, whether a disability before 65, qualified for Medicare, in institution (usually a nursing home); and diagnoses from previous year. The risk model was designed and is more accurate for large groups, such as the enrollees in an HMO.
• CMS uses HCCs to determine the diagnosis-related portion of the risk score. For example, the HCC system for 2010 included a total of 189 conditions, with related conditions grouped into 70 disease hierarchies. One hierarchy had three different diseases that affect the liver: end-stage liver disease, cirrhosis, and chronic hepatitis. Each condition had a weight that reflects its marginal contribution to a beneficiary’s total expected Medicare costs.
• Under the HCC system, CMS calculates the diagnosis-related portion of a beneficiary’s risk score by adding up the weights for the most severe diagnosis that the beneficiary has in each disease hierarchy. Continuing the example above, a beneficiary with both cirrhosis (weight = 0.406) and chronic hepatitis (weight = 0.406) would receive credit only for the cirrhosis diagnosis. The researchers who developed the HCC system adopted this approach after finding that having multiple conditions within a hierarchy did not increase overall patient spending substantially.

 
To protect the privacy of Medicare beneficiaries, the number of beneficiaries fewer than 11 have been suppressed and the percent of beneficiaries between 75% and 100% have been top-coded at 75% .

Many people know someone who has had a knee replacement. Many people think about getting one and look for a specialist. The medical term is "Total knee arthroplasty." The UpToDate from Wolters Kluwer article on it starts by referring readers to medical management of rheumatoid arthritis, and also cites a range of surgical options. The next paragraphs discuss knee replacement, because it is well-known, not because replacement is the first choice. 

The 2012 D25 file (described in the Box) shows that the 20 highest volume Medicare providers are spread all over the country, in 13 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The 2013 file shows an overlapping list of doctors with high volume.

The websites of these high-volume doctors are worth exploring. If one of them accepts your insurance and you live nearby or have friends where you can stay during the long recuperation, you can consider going there. 

Dr Bassett in Harlingen Texas has the highest volume in 2012 with 434 knee replacements. His website has a variety of information from Biomet (which makes joints). His website also says he teaches at the U of Texas, so many of his surgeries are likely done by residents. Consumer sites have several good reviews and one complaint about delays getting a cortisone shot. Dr Dearborn in Fremont California is second with 411 knee replacements. His web page does not say that he teaches; it does have a 10-page pdf description of alternative ways to do the operation and some of its risks. Two of his 12 written reviews on Vitals and one of 20 on AngiesList describe failed surgeries; the others describe successful outcomes or consultations

Wherever you live you can also look closer to home. For eample in the Washington DC region, Dr Dalury north of Baltimore did 211 knee replacements in 2012, and he teaches. Vitals mentions long waits for appointments, but all the consumer sites have praise and no complaints about outcomes. ProPublica says his patients have an average rate of readmissions to hospital within 30 days after surgery, for causes which could be related to the surgery. Checkbook does not list him.

If he is too far and you can accept doctors who do 2 per week instead of 4-8 per week, you can look in the immediate area around Washington (zip codes beginning with 20). The 2012 East file (also in the Box) shows the largest practices are Dr Cannova in Bethesda MD with 120 knee replacements, or Dr Peyton in Sterling VA with 88; neither teaches. One of many written comments on Dr. Cannova complains about a brief appointment and his approach, so the patient went elsewhere; otherwise much praise and no complaints about work he did.  ProPublica found an average rate of readmissions for him, and says he operates at Suburban and Sibley hospitals. 14 of the 31 reviews for Dr Peyton complain about rudeness or long waits in the office to see assistants, little contact with the doctor, even in the hospital. Some of the positive reviews also say contact is generally with assistants; several express happiness with his surgery. ProPublica found a high rate of readmissions for him, and says he operates at Reston. Checkbook does not list Cannova or Peyton.

You can also search ProPublica and/or Checkbook for knee surgeons with low rates of readmission (and other complications at Checkbook). See Section B on another page. Remember that the major result, how well knees work after surgery, is still unknown, so you may want references and higher volume doctors within those lists, to try for the best knees, not just the lowest complications. You can search ProPublica by state. Maryland shows several hospitals, with graphs showing results of individual doctors. The lowest (best) point is in Annapolis, and when you click there, you find Dr. McDonald has lowest readmissions and the hospital billed for 782 knee replacements by him from 2009-2013 (5 years). He could be worth exploring. The Globe1234 files show he billed Medicare for 156 knee replacements in 2012 (deast), and 169 in 2013 (doc13sm). Dr. McDonald did not show up in the previous paragraph, based on zip codes beginning with 20, since his zip code is 21401. 

You can search Checkbook by distance from a zip code. Searching within 75 miles of 20001 (downtown DC), it shows 13 knee surgeons with the lowest "bad outcomes", and you can click each one to see if volume is above average. They do not show detailed numbers on quality or volume, but you can get volume from this site or ProPublica. Dr. McDonald shows well there too. Checkbook's strength is its more thorough count of complications than elsewhere.

Some doctors' websites say why they recommend certain brands of knee joint. When patients see a doctor they can ask about the brands and approaches they have found on other doctors' sites.

These examples show the variation in patient comments, use of residents, and volume, which you might find in any field. Each patient or referring doctor can similarly search for Pain Management, Rheumatology and other specialties to find alternatives, though it is hard to be thorough when you are in pain or worried. If none of the first doctors you evaluate seems good enough, it's always possible to go back to the spreadsheets and find more candidates to consider. Second opinions help too. One patient said he went in to see about knee replacements, and the doctor said those could wait, but he needed 2 hip replacements, which he got and both went well. A a 2nd opinion would definitely seem appropriate.

Medicare and ProPublica tell you what payments each doctor received from medical companies. Biomet paid Dr Peyton $46,000 in royalties, so he may be quite expert on Biomet's joint. Patients need to decide if relationships with medical companies will strengthen or weaken their care. DocFinder and Pacer are ways to search for legal actions against any doctor you consider.

Your correspondent does not know or have any relation with any of these named doctors, and has been fortunate not to need a knee replacement, so there is no personal knowledge or bias here.

RETURN TO ARTICLE ON FINDING HIGH-VOLUME SPECIALISTS

While investigations proceed, consumer reviews provide one way for potential patients to hear about concerns. Other doctors in the area may be another source, but 60% of male doctors and 67% of female doctors do not necessarily tell patients when another doctor is substandard (they fear retaliation). 9% of doctors do not tell patients about mistakes which harm them.

Some state boards provide information on malpractice suits as well as disciplinary actions in the DocInfo  and DocFinder lists, but usually patients have to search the web or state court records. Each state has its own system for searching court records. and there are good search functions in private newsletters in CA, FL, IL, LA, MO, PA, TX and WV which report civil cases. Half of all doctors have been sued for malpractice. Half these doctors who were sued were dismissed from the case before or after trial. 96% of the cases gain money for the plaintiff, often by settlement, without a finding of who was right, since the participants cannot predict which expert a jury will believe. 

Private groups collect information, including TruthMD, LexisNexis and PreCheck.

Lawsuits against makers of drugs and devices are summarized at DrugDangers.com, which is maintained by a law firm. Most are in state courts.

Federal court records (such as Medicare fraud) are easily searchable at Pacer (Public Access to Court Electronic Records, 10 cents/page. $2.40 per audio file of court hearings). Even malpractice cases can appear in federal court when patients and medical suppliers are in different states.

A free archive holds many Pacer records, and Pacer cancels costs under $15 per calendar quarter, so you can do most simple searches without cost. Search tips.

The doctors indicted by Medicare's fraud team appear in Pacer. The highest-volume surgeon for knee replacements is in Pacer as a co-defendant in one federal case in 2014, which became part of a settlement agreement. Patients can ask for information and decide if it matters to them.

The weight loss surgeons reported by the LA Times are in Pacer because of a 2012 whistleblower suit and a suit by the same surgeons against a health insurer. Of two doctors named in the NY Times article on heart surgery, one is in Pacer since he sued the hospital for suspending him; the other is not. The spine surgeon reported by the Washington Post does not appear in Pacer, since the whistleblower suit was filed against the hospital. The three surgeons named by USA Today all appear in Pacer. The cardiologist named by the Justice Department in 2015 appeared in Pacer starting December 22, 2014.

Thus Pacer provides a lot of information, though not a complete list of problems. Searches cost 10 to 50 cents, depending on length. Once you find a case, the "Case Summary" tells you the parties and their lawyers; the "History/Documents" lists documents. I usually click that and then select "Only events with documents" and "Display docket text." From the resulting list you can click the number in front of any document to see its cost and decide whether to view and print it. There's no extra cost for going back to look at a document you already paid for in the same session, though repeating a search costs money, since they do a new search each time.

There is a far more complete list of problem doctors which Congress does not want you to see. The National Practitioner Data Bank lists "800,000 license and hospital disciplinary reports and past malpractice payment reports for clinicians" 1990-2014. Congress forbids showing the list to patients or referring doctors. The federal government shows the list to those it thinks "need to know the most - the hospitals that are considering hiring [doctors] or the licensing board." Malpractice attorneys point out its gaps, but still would find access useful in building cases. There is a public version without names and addresses if you agree to their Data Use Agreement, and a 2011 version without that agreement, but still lacking names and addresses. The size of the list ranges from 900 adverse actions in Hawaii to 50,000 in Texas over the last decade. Several reporters have used the list for stories. Public Citizen used it to summarize doctor's sexual misconduct, and found that Canada has much better reporting and that many state medical boards let doctors continue to practice after hospitals discipline them. It is important to note the Veterans Health Administration does NOT report many disciplinary actions to this National Practitioner Data Bank, so there is no central record of doctors they have disciplined or fired.

Most state medical boards do not search the National Practitioner Data Bank when they license doctors.

RETURN TO ARTICLE ON FINDING HIGH-VOLUME SPECIALISTS

In this video a young woman shows how she put a thin tube through her nose to her stomach every evening for years and took it out again in the morning, getting extra nutrition all night. She had intestinal problems, and needed more nutrition than she could swallow. She says it "helps you feel better." She could have left the tube in all day, but it was so easy to put in and out that she just left it in at night, with a bag of food formula slowly draining into her stomach while she slept.
youtube.com/watch?v=EbNOZt5VQdY

Hospitals insert thick tubes, often quickly, without anesthesia. The woman in the video above has this follow-up where she says she used Chloraseptic spray (an over-the-counter sore throat treatment, generic name is phenol) to numb her throat while she put a thin tube down, especially at first. If the hospital does not use it, you can ask a friend to get it at a drugstore. 
youtube.com/watch?v=56h3x6QTvlQ 

She also said that even in an emergency visit at the hospital, when they decided she needed extra nutrition, she insisted on putting the tube in herself, since hospital staff were too hurried and rough. She does say it feels very "odd" and can cause gagging the first few times, but not after a week.

Often patients are asked to swallow water while the tube goes down, to help it go down like a pill. If the patient is not allowed to swallow water, one video says to suck a dry straw. youtube.com/watch?v=S-GNi6YWID8

Tubes often have a stylet (guide wire, or plastic) to stiffen them during insertion. The stylet is pulled out before putting food in the tube. Nurses used to be advised to use stiff tubes and refrigerate them to make them even stiffer; but an alternative is a stylet to stiffen a flexible tube for insertion, while allowing the tube to be flexible in use.

You can find support groups and books. This site has an article on Catholic teaching about feeding tubes.

Here is another young woman who had a tube surgically implanted through her skin and stomach, into her intestine (jejunum), a J-tube. She has had the tube 4 years, can eat some soft foods and liquids. She tried several suppliers of formula until she found one that her body accepted well. She gets some medicines in liquid form, dissolves some of her other pills, and grinds others. People must ALWAYS ASK the pharmacist before breaking, grinding or dissolving pills, since this usually gives a faster release, which can mean a sudden and fatal overdose.
youtube.com/watch?v=rKNCiSbUanw ​

This is an earlier video by the same woman. Life was harder at that early stage, since she was grinding all her pills and had a nutritional formula which did not agree with her, so it had to go in slowly, and she was on it 24/7. It shows the difference good advice and adjustments can make. She says that when her tube was first put in, the doctors wanted to use local anesthesia. She insisted on general anesthesia and the doctors told her later she was right.
youtube.com/watch?v=92Co-O6Wnr0 

Feeding Tube Variations
If you have trouble eating, such as a broken jaw, muscle spasms, weakness, etc., you can get partial nutrition with an IV tube, or complete nutrition with nose or stomach tubes:

• A nurse can place an intravenous (IV) tube to carry glucose, salts and medicine into a vein.

• You can place a tube through your nose and swallow the end down your throat into your stomach (NG-naso-gastric), or a hospital can lead it all the way into your intestine (ND-naso-duodenal, or NJ-naso-jejunal). It can be flexible and thin: a tenth of an inch. You can also remove it any time.
• An interventional radiologist or gastroenterologist can sew a larger tube through the skin into your stomach or intestine. It can appear as a small button on the skin or have several inches of tube sticking out. Radiologists operate directly on the stomach, as a PRG tube (Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy). Gastroenterologists operate less conveniently down an endoscope in the esophagus, as a PEG tube (Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy). 
• G-tubes go to the stomach (gastric). D and J-tubes go to the intestine (duodenum and jejunum).

US Catholic bishops asked the Pope's office about tube feeding, and the Pope's office answered,

"First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a 'vegetative state' morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient's body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

• "Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

"Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a 'permanent vegetative state', may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

• " Response: No. A patient in a 'permanent vegetative state' is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_risposte-usa_en.html
Official Commentary: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_nota-commento_en.html

Another article discusses the compatibility of this Catholic teaching with the Los Angeles guidelines, discussed above, which tell doctors they do not need to offer artificial feeding to certain patients, even if the patients need artificial feeding to live.

Do End-of-Life Guidelines in Los Angeles Differ from Catholic Teaching?

The article on Ethics has a section on guidelines in Los Angeles and southern California, including Providence, a Catholic hospital chain.

Fr. Luke Dysinger has been kind enough to explain how these guidelines that doctors "are not obliged to offer" feeding tubes relate to Catholic teaching that providing food is obligatory "even by artificial means." Fr. Dysinger is a professor at a Catholic seminary, and was on the program for a press conference announcing the Los Angeles guidelines. Nine major health systems adopted the guidelines in May 2014, including a Catholic group which runs 6 hospitals, Providence Health & Services.

The joint guidelines say that doctors "are not obliged to offer" tube feeding:

• "In patients with late-stage terminal illness, use of interventions such as... intravenous feeding, gastric food feeding... are generally non-beneficial and may cause an increase in pain and suffering (i.e. harm)." (footnote 5, emphasis added)
• And the guidelines say doctors "are not obliged to offer or provide medically non-beneficial treatment" (section 4).

 
The Vatican said in 2007 (approved in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI, building on earlier teaching by Popes John Paul II and Pius XII): 

• "The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented."

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_risposte-usa_en.html
Official Commentary: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_nota-commento_en.html

Fr. Dysinger wrote:

Thank you for your question concerning Catholic teaching on the necessity of nutrition and hydration at the end of life. The short answer to your question lies in the very important words "in principle" within the statement you quoted. The original Italian for this phrase is "in linea di principia" (Pope John Paul II, "Life Sustaining Treatment..." Mar. 20, 2004; reference and citation below) which, as I understand it, can also be translated as "normally", or "generally speaking". Thus the statement does not – and in fact could not – make an absolute statement that artificial nutrition and hydration must always be used in any clinical setting. There is not, nor could there ever be, such a thing as a "Vatican-approved" list of modalities that are always obligatory or always optional for all Catholics. Everything depends on the unique circumstances of the case and the informed desires and moral intentions of the patient. A key summary of Catholic moral teaching on this point may be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 

• §2278. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary (onerosis, periculosis, extraordinariis), or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

For many centuries the Catholic Church has emphasized that the definition of "burden" in any particular setting can only be made by the patients themselves (i.e. not by the physician or the clinical ethicist), and that as long as the patient does not intend to cause or hasten death by refusing treatment (whether understood as "medical acts" or "natural means") , such refusal may be permissible if the patient finds the means or acts morally repugnant (St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori Theologia Moralis Tractate 4. On the Fourth and Sixth Precepts [of the Decalog]. Ch. 1, "What is forbidden by the Precept: You shall not kill", § 366-372. original text with translation: http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/ThM_590_Intro-Bioeth/03_hist-devt/05_enlightenment.htm#4._ALPHONSUS_LIGOURI_ )

So the short answer to the polemical question "Are dying Catholics obliged to have feeding tubes," is "no, they are not, unless they want them." I have never met a trained provider of palliative care who recommended or encouraged parenteral feeding for the dying; and it should be added that the Catholic Church is extremely supportive of palliative care, as is stated quite strongly in the Catechism:

• §2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted​. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

But your question merits a longer answer (as if the foregoing were not long enough!) The statement you have quoted concerning the necessity for nutrition and hydration first occurred in an address of Pope John Paul II entitled "Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Vegetative State: Scientific Progress and Ethical Dilemmas" (March 20, 2004: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320_congress-fiamc_it.html). It was clearly the pope's intention to address the then-popular conviction among secular ethicists that it is morally permissible (or even obligatory) to discontinue nutrition and hydration of patients in the persistent vegetative state. The pope's response in this document is fairly detailed, and most specifically emphasizes that PVS patients are not dying, but are, rather, profoundly disabled; and the pope urges that they be treated as we would treat any other disabled persons who are unable to feed or otherwise care for themselves. 

The pope also pointed out that PVS is a syndrome rather than a disease, that it is often misdiagnosed, and that we do not, in fact, know with certainty what level of consciousness may be present, even in patients who are correctly diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. This last point is crucial, since a fundamental difference (from the standpoint of care) between dying patients and those who are not dying, is that the dying often refuse food and water, yet do not suffer from a subjective sense of thirst or hunger. This would not be the case in an apparently-"vegetative-state" person who nevertheless retained some level of awareness and sensation. There can be little doubt that such a person would, in fact, suffer very great pain from dehydration and starvation if artificial feeding were simply stopped. Recent research published in reputable medical journals (Neurology, the New England Journal of Medicine) has revealed the pope to have been alarmingly correct: a significant percentage of correctly-diagnosed PVS patients are apparently able to understand and properly respond to verbal commands. Needless to say, ethicists who formerly argued that PVS patients should not be provided with nutrition and hydration ought to more carefully nuance their arguments on the basis of these findings: 

• ["Willful Modulation of Brain Activity in Disorders of Consciousness" Monti et.al., NEJM Feb. 3, 2009, 579-589: http://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2011-2012/Owen/Monti%20et%20al.%202010%20NE%20J%20of%20Medicine.pdf . "Probing Consciousness with Event-Related Potentials in the Vegetative State" Faugeras and Rohout, Neurology 77:264–268, July 19, 2011: http://www.unic.cnrs-gif.fr/media/pdf/FaugerasNaccache_Neurology_2011.pdf

So it was in the context of a discussion of the persistent vegetative state, not the terminally-ill or imminently-dying patient, that Pope John Paul stated in the document cited above:

• (§4) The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrit​ion, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery. I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering. 

The pope's words have been misconstrued by Catholics and non-Catholics alike as constituting an obligation to use parenteral nutrition. And it was, perhaps, for this reason, that six months later (and shortly before his own death) Pope John Paul II issued another document in which he described and praised palliative care. I hope you do not mind if I quote the relevant section in full: perhaps you will find it useful in your own work:

• 4. True compassion, on the contrary, encourages every reasonable effort for the patient's recovery. At the same time, it helps draw the line when it is clear that no further treatment will serve this purpose. 

• The refusal of aggressive treatment is neither a rejection of the patient nor of his or her life. Indeed, the object of the decision on whether to begin or to continue a treatment has nothing to do with the value of the patient's life, but rather with whether such medical intervention is beneficial for the patient. 
• The possible decision either not to start or to halt a treatment will be deemed ethically correct if the treatment is ineffective or obviously disproportionate to the aims of sustaining life or recovering health. Consequently, the decision to forego aggressive treatment is an expression of the respect that is due to the patient at every moment. 
• It is precisely this sense of loving respect that will help support patients to the very end. Every possible act and attention should be brought into play to lessen their suffering in the last part of their earthly existence and to encourage a life as peaceful as possible, which will dispose them to prepare their souls for the encounter with the heavenly Father. 
• 5. Particularly in the stages of illness when proportionate and effective treatment is no longer possible, while it is necessary to avoid every kind of persistent or aggressive treatment, methods of "palliative care" are required. 

• ["Address of John Paul II to the Participants in the 19th International Conference of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care" Friday, 12 November 2004; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/november/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20041112_pc-hlthwork_en.html ]

This second document is not as well-known or frequently cited as the one concerning PVS, but I believe it is essential to read both together.

Question Remaining
Fr. Dysinger makes a strong point above that Catholicism teaches tube feeding is a moral choice for patients to make:,

• "definition of "burden" in any particular setting can only be made by the patients themselves (i.e. not by the physician or the clinical ethicist),"
• "refusal may be permissible if the patient finds the means or acts morally repugnant",
• and quoting the Catechism, "decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able."

How can the Los Angeles guidelines say, "Physicians... are not obliged to offer" a list of treatments which includes tube feeding (section 4 and footnote 5)? The guidelines let doctors choose, not necessarily the competent patient. As Rubin wrote, "At its heart the futility debate is a debate about power, who should have it, and how it should be exercised."

Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) means that if the heart stops, the patient does not want Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to try restarting the heart. DNR is only supposed to come into effect when the heart stops, which is rare, but long before that, most doctors give less treatment to people who choose DNR (details in the pamphlet and below). 

Giving someone CPR is described at: University of Washington, American Heart Association, Red Cross, Mayo Clinic. Patients who live to leave the hospital (a sixth to a quarter) usually usually stay alive for years, mostly without injury or mental decline, as discussed in the pamphlet and below. CPR allows organ donation in those who do not live. There are several videos at the bottom of this web page, giving people's experience with CPR. ​

The Heart Association has training videos. The PulsePoint app lets 911 call citizens near a cardiac arrest who've been trained in CPR.

52-year-old Tony Gilliard from South Carolina narrates a video of his heart stoppage while playing basketball in 2013. CPR and AED brought him back. 2 minutes. youtu.be/v=YrBq_sFV3LA

62-year-old John Ellsworth's heart stopped in a British street. He needed 3 AED shocks to revive, then was taken to a hospital where they treated him, and eventually placed a defibrillator in his chest. 10 minute video narrated by the BBC series Real Rescues. youtu.be/nxpYuVr53zQ

71-year-old Nebraska lobbyist Tom Vickers collapsed in 2008 from a heart attack at the state Capitol. CPR and AED administered by a doctor on duty revived him. He was taken to a hospital, where they found 99% blockage in an artery. Video from security camera. no sound. 3 minutes.
News article: journalstar.com/news/local/quick-action-by-many-helps-lobbyist-survive-heart-attack/article_c64eb533-d5bb-5eae-99ee-54a7b12a414e.html
Video: youtube.com/watch?v=fNdDzmcwA0w

51-year-old Chris Solomons in Britain had a heart attack and felt his hands shake and his limbs tingle. He worked at a site which dispatched helicopter medics, and he was still not feeling well when he got there. The medics there took an EKG, which did not look right so they were getting ready to get him to a hospital, but he collapsed. They used CPR and 2 AED shocks to revive him, and flew him to a hospital where doctors found a blocked artery and opened it with a stent. 13 minutes. He says,

• "I’ve been able to experience so much and if it wasn't for the guys doing CPR on me and the AED they used I wouldn't be here.
• "I cannot say strongly enough how important it is that AEDs are in communities. Not in locked cupboards, but out there, placed where they are needed."

Text: heartrhythmcharity.org.uk/www/media/files/130213-sh-1-Chris_Solomons_case_study.pdf
Video: youtube.com/watch?v=w32PUDL2lb8

A man collapsed in a car, and police arrived to pull him from the car. They and a passing nurse gave CPR and AED. The wife panicked, swore, prayed, and yelled at her husband not to leave her. An ambulance arrived and took over. The man lived and left the hospital in a few days. The nurse and police were given awards for their fast action. It seems to be filmed from a camera mounted on the first police car. 4 minutes.
youtube.com/watch?v=HxlIAQj4IWY

An Augusta Georgia video shows two patients in the emergency room at the same time. Many of the comments heard on the video use abbreviated medical language. 11 minutes.

45-year-old runner who collapsed at a race got CPR immediately from other runners, and AED after 12 minutes. He was taken to the hospital and revived with cooling treatment. Revival required a breathing tube, which was removed 2 days later. 

65-year-old woman collapsed at home with husband, went several minutes without CPR. An ambulance crew got some response from her heart, using sodium bicarbonate and another medicine, but she died in the emergency room. youtube.com/watch?v=NWKyXYnvlpM

Ken is a Utah firefighter who has saved lives himself. He had a cardiac arrest in 2006 after practicing soccer with his wife and 5 children. His wife gave him CPR for 14 minutes, after telling the only bystander to call 911. Ken revived, and they are interviewed in this video. ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb4sU-Zt7CA

CPR saved the life of reporter Steve Lopez, and he wrote how it saved an ex-judge who collapsed while driving alone.

August 2018 guidelines say about patients in vegetative states or unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, even after 3 or 12 months:

"a substantial minority ... will recover consciousness... While most of these patients will be left with severe disability... some will regain the ability to communicate reliably, perform self-care activities, and interact socially" (p.6)

They say doctors should stop talking about permanent states and tell people the "prognosis is not universally poor," though after 3 months for non-traumatic injuries (loss of oxygen to the brain) and 12 months for accident injuries (trauma), they should emphasize "the likelihood of permanent severe disability and the need for long-term assistive care" (p.4).

The guidelines also recommend transfer to a specialized center.

In 2018 a  man was about to have his life support removed after 3 weeks in a diabetic coma, when his doctor father arranged to have him air-lifted to a specialized hospital, where he woke up in 4 days. In 2019 a father found a drug for a comatose child whom LA Children's Hospital had discussed taking off life support. She went on to be captain of her high school basketball team.

Videos include the following, and you can find many more. Several of these people were aware of what was happening when they were in comas. Most were not treated in specialized centers. A wise commenter said, "I hope they read to the patient." Talking books and music can fill a thirsty mind. Knowing the patient may be conscious makes everyone more helpful, considerate and respectful.

• 47 minutes: After 20 years in a nursing home in a coma caused by a car accident, Sarah Scantlin began to speak and interact. She stayed in the nursing home another 12 years until her death in 2016. After 23 days in a coma caused by a different car accident, another woman in the same video recovered much of her functions, but sees that her brain is not as smart as before. Terry Wallis, not in the video, awoke after 19 years; researchers found that his brain rewired its connections while he was minimally conscious.
• 12 minutes: After 4 years in coma caused by diseases in brain and spinal cord, Victoria Arlen recovered, dances even though unable to feel her legs, and became an ESPN presenter.
• 10 minutes: After 4 years at home in a coma caused by lack of oxygen after a heart attack, TJ Quinnell is still in a coma, while his parents move his limbs to maintain muscle tone.
• 6 minutes: After a month in a hospital in a coma caused by lack of oxygen, and even fMRI testing found his brain non-responsive, Juan Torres recovered speech and abilities, though slower and still in a wheelchair. More details are in Chapter 13, pp.207-225 of Into the Gray Zone ($2).
• 14 minutes: After a month in a hospital in a coma caused by Guillain Barre Syndrome, Terry Newbury  gradually can control his eyes, then his voice and body. Jenny Bone, with GBS, heard the hospital ask her husband about removing her ventilator. She'd always said she didn't want to be on a ventilator, but he kept her on it for more time, and she woke up in 10 days. 80% of GBS patients recover in 3 years.
• 5 minutes: After 2 weeks in a hospital in a medically induced coma, Claire Wineland describes what it was like to be in the coma.

This page gives a very brief summary of the 2018 guidelines. Families with someone in a coma need to read the guidelines, the studies they cite, and any newer studies, to find what is relevant to their situation. Most doctors and hospitals are not experts in this area, which is why the guidelines recommend transfer to a specialized setting, and why the doctor above did so for his son.

• Half of one sample achieved daytime independence at home, and 22% returned to work or school. In another sample 20% returned to work after 1 to 5 years (p.5).
• Among the few patients in one study who could not respond at all to commands by the end of rehabilitation and who had 5 years of follow-up, half could respond a year later (p.6), and three quarters could by 5 years later (p.62).
• 14% of patients with any type of coma caused by trauma, took over a year to recover consciousness; some took 3 years.
• 17% of patients whose vegetative state was not caused by trauma, and lasted at least 3 months, recover consciousness at 6 months. For those still in vegetative state at 6 months, another 7.5% to 17% recovered consciousness in different studies.
• Recovery is more likely from strokes and loss of oxygen to the brain, than from neurodegenerative disease (p.6).

People with a severe disability are usually happy in their life, and say they have a good quality of life, so they want to continue. Their unhappiness, if any, comes from pain, fatigue, lack of control or purpose, and isolation. These can usually, not always, be helped by pain specialists, good care, assistive technologies which even respond to eye movement or breaths, and social connections. People who cannot move and are locked in their bodies without motion, can still spell or speak through assistive devices, use social media, listen to books, magazines, podcasts, radio, and maybe select music from a service like Pandora or Slacker, which adjusts itself to their choices.

The "disability paradox" is that people without a disability cannot imagine how life with a disability can be fun. Family members rate quality of life much lower than a disabled person herself does.  Geriatricians say, "it is vanishingly rare that a patient reports to us a preference to be dead," no matter how badly disabled the patient is.