Dataset Information

Doctors' perspectives on adhering to advance care directives when making medical decisions for patients: an Australian interview study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Advance care planning (ACP) assists people to identify their goals, values and treatment preferences for future care. Ideally, preferences are documented in an advance care directive (ACD) and used by doctors to guide medical decision-making should the patient subsequently lose their decision-making capacity. However, studies demonstrate that ACDs are not always adhered to by doctors in clinical practice. We aim to describe the attitudes and perspectives of doctors regarding ACD adherence and the utility of ACDs in clinical practice.

Design

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted using three case-based vignettes to explore doctors' decision-making and attitudes towards ACDs. Transcripts were analysed using a thematic analysis.

Setting

Doctors from a variety of medical specialties and with varying experience levels were recruited from a large tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

Participants

A total of 21 doctors were interviewed, 48% female (10/21). Most (19/21) reported having experience using ACDs.

Results

Four themes were identified: aligning with patient preferences (avoiding unwanted care, prioritising autonomy and anticipating family opposition), advocating best interests (defining futile care, relying on clinical judgement, rejecting unreasonable decisions and disregarding legal consequences), establishing validity (doubting rigour of the decision-making process, questioning patients' ability to understand treatment decisions, distrusting outdated preferences and seeking confirmation) and translating written preferences into practice (contextualising patient preferences, applying subjective terminology and prioritising emergency medical treatment).

Conclusions

ACDs provide doctors with opportunities to align patient preferences with treatment and uphold patient autonomy. However, doctors experience decisional conflict when attempting to adhere to ACDs in practice, especially when they believe that adhering to the ACD is not in the patients' best interests, or if they doubt the validity of the ACD. Future ACP programmes should consider approaches to improve the validity and applicability of ACDs. In addition, there is a need for ethical and legal education to support doctors' knowledge and confidence in ACP and enacting ACDs.

SUBMITTER: Moore N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6830700 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Doctors' perspectives on adhering to advance care directives when making medical decisions for patients: an Australian interview study.

Moore Nadia N Detering Karen M KM Low Tessa T Nolte Linda L Fraser Scott S Sellars Marcus M

BMJ open 20191031 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Advance care planning (ACP) assists people to identify their goals, values and treatment preferences for future care. Ideally, preferences are documented in an advance care directive (ACD) and used by doctors to guide medical decision-making should the patient subsequently lose their decision-making capacity. However, studies demonstrate that ACDs are not always adhered to by doctors in clinical practice. We aim to describe the attitudes and perspectives of doctors regarding AC ...[more]

PMID: 31676659

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFollowing passage of the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990, health care institutions that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding are required to inform patients of their right to make their health care preferences known through execution of a living will and/or to appoint a surrogate-decision maker. We evaluated the impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physicians' decisions to honor or forgo previously established advance directives (ADs). In addition, physician views regarding legal risk, patients' ability to comprehend complexities involved with their care, and impact of medical costs related to end-of-life care decisions were explored.MethodsAttendees of two Mayo Clinic continuing medical education courses were surveyed. Three scenarios based in part on previously court-litigated matters assessed impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physician compliance with patient-articulated wishes regarding resuscitation. General questions measured respondents' perception of legal risk, concerns over patient knowledge of idiosyncrasies involved with their care, and impact medical costs may have on compliance with patient preferences. Responses indicating strength of agreement or disagreement with statements were treated as ordinal data and analyzed using the Cochran Armitage trend test.ResultsThree hundred eighty-eight of 951 surveys were completed (41% response rate). Eighty percent reported they were likely to honor a patient's AD despite its 5 year age. Fewer than half (41%) would honor the AD of a patient in ventricular fibrillation who had expressed a desire to "pass away in peace." Few (17%) would forgo an AD following a family's request for continued resuscitative treatment. A majority (52%) considered risk of liability to be lower when maintaining someone alive against their wishes than mistakenly failing to provide resuscitative efforts. A large percentage (74%) disagreed that patients could not appreciate complexities surrounding their care while 69% agreed that costs should never impact a physician's decision as to whether to comply with a patient's AD.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the impact, albeit small, external factors have on physician AD compliance. Most respondents based their decision on the clinical situation at hand and interpretation of the patient's initial wishes and preferences expressed by the AD.

Project description:BackgroundRecent discussions about health care reform have raised questions regarding the value of advance directives.MethodsWe used data from survey proxies in the Health and Retirement Study involving adults 60 years of age or older who had died between 2000 and 2006 to determine the prevalence of the need for decision making and lost decision-making capacity and to test the association between preferences documented in advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making.ResultsOf 3746 subjects, 42.5% required decision making, of whom 70.3% lacked decision-making capacity and 67.6% of those subjects, in turn, had advance directives. Subjects who had living wills were more likely to want limited care (92.7%) or comfort care (96.2%) than all care possible (1.9%); 83.2% of subjects who requested limited care and 97.1% of subjects who requested comfort care received care consistent with their preferences. Among the 10 subjects who requested all care possible, only 5 received it; however, subjects who requested all care possible were far more likely to receive aggressive care as compared with those who did not request it (adjusted odds ratio, 22.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.45 to 115.00). Subjects with living wills were less likely to receive all care possible (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.56) than were subjects without living wills. Subjects who had assigned a durable power of attorney for health care were less likely to die in a hospital (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.93) or receive all care possible (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.86) than were subjects who had not assigned a durable power of attorney for health care.ConclusionsBetween 2000 and 2006, many elderly Americans needed decision making near the end of life at a time when most lacked the capacity to make decisions. Patients who had prepared advance directives received care that was strongly associated with their preferences. These findings support the continued use of advance directives.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In Japan, discussion concerning advance directives (ADs) has been on the rise during the past decade. ADs are one method proposed to facilitate the process of communication among patients, families and health care providers regarding the plan of care of a patient who is no longer capable of communicating. In this paper, we report the results of the first in-depth survey on the general population concerning the preferences and use of ADs in Japan. METHOD: A self-administered questionnaire was sent via mail to a stratified random sampling of 560 residents listed in the residential registry of one district of Tokyo, Japan (n = 165,567). Association between correlating factors and specific preferences toward ADs was assessed using contingency table bivariate analysis and multivariate regression model to estimate independent contribution. RESULTS: Of the 560 questionnaires sent out, a total of 425 participants took part in the survey yielding a response rate of 75.9 %. The results of the present study indicate that: 1) the most important components to be addressed are the specifics of medical treatment at the end of life stage and disclosure of diagnosis and prognosis; 2) the majority of participants found it suitable to express their directives by word to family and/or physician and not by written documentation; 3) there is no strong need for legal measures in setting up an AD; 4) it is permissible for family and physician to loosely interpret one's directives; 5) the most suitable proxy is considered to be a family member, relative, or spouse. Multivariate analysis found the following five factors as significantly associated with preferences: 1) awareness regarding living wills, 2) experience with the use of ADs, 3) preferences for end-of-life treatment, 4) preferences for information disclosure, and 5) intentions of creating a will. CONCLUSIONS: Written ADs might be useful in the Japanese setting when the individual either wishes: 1) to not provide a lot of leeway to surrogates and/or caregivers, and/or 2) to ensure his or her directives in the cases of terminal illness, brain death, and pain treatment, as well as regarding information disclosure.

Project description:To identify the relationships between advance directive status, demographic characteristics and decisional burden (role stress and depressive symptoms) of surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) of patients with chronic critical illness.Although the prevalence of advance directives among Americans has increased, SDMs are ultimately responsible for complex medical decisions of the chronically critically ill patient. Decisional burden has lasting psychological effects on SDMs. There is insufficient evidence on the influence of advance directives on the decisional burden of surrogate decision-makers of patients with chronic critical illness.The study was a secondary data analysis of cross-sectional data. Data were obtained from 489 surrogate decision-makers of chronically critically ill patients at two academic medical centres in Northeast Ohio, United States, between September 2005-May 2008.Data were collected using demographic forms and questionnaires. A single-item measure of role stress and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) scale were used to capture the SDM's decisional burden. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square and path analyses were performed.Surrogate decision-makers who were nonwhite, with low socioeconomic status and low education level were less likely to have advance directive documentation for their chronically critically ill patient. The presence of an advance directive mitigates the decisional burden by directly reducing the SDM's role stress and indirectly lessening the severity of depressive symptoms.Most SDMs of chronically critically ill patients will not have the benefit of knowing the patient's preferences for life-sustaining therapies and consequently be at risk of increased decisional burden.Study results are clinically useful for patient education on the influence of advance directives. Patients may be informed that SDMs without advance directives are at risk of increased decisional burden and will require decisional support to facilitate patient-centred decision-making.

Project description:BACKGROUNDLaw purports to regulate end-of-life care but its role in decision-making by doctors is not clear. This paper, which is part of a three-year study into the role of law in medical practice at the end of life, investigates whether law affects doctors' decision-making. In particular, it considers whether the fact that the law differs across Australia's three largest states - New South Wales (NSW), Victoria and Queensland - leads to doctors making different decisions about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity.METHODSA cross-sectional postal survey of the seven specialties most likely to be involved in end-of-life care in the acute setting was conducted between 18 July 2012 and 31 January 2013. The sample comprised all medical specialists in emergency medicine, geriatric medicine, intensive care, medical oncology, palliative medicine, renal medicine and respiratory medicine on the AMPCo Direct database in those three Australian states. The survey measured medical specialists' level of legal compliance, and reasons for their decisions, concerning the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine predictors of legal compliance. Linear regression was used to examine associations between the decision about life-sustaining treatment and the relevance of factors involved in making these decisions, as well as state differences in these associations.RESULTSResponse rate was 32% (867/2702). A majority of respondents in each state said that they would provide treatment in a hypothetical scenario, despite an advance directive refusing it: 72% in NSW and Queensland; 63% in Victoria. After applying differences in state law, 72% of Queensland doctors answered in accordance with local law, compared with 37% in Victoria and 28% in NSW (p?<?0.001). Doctors reported broadly the same decision-making approach despite differences in local law.CONCLUSIONSLaw appears to play a limited role in medical decision-making at the end of life with doctors prioritising patient-related clinical and ethical considerations. Different legal frameworks in the three states examined did not lead to different decisions about providing treatment. More education is needed about law and its role in this area, particularly where law is inconsistent with traditional practice.

Dataset Information

Doctors' perspectives on adhering to advance care directives when making medical decisions for patients: an Australian interview study.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Doctors' perspectives on adhering to advance care directives when making medical decisions for patients: an Australian interview study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets