Dataset Information

A National Study of Life-Sustaining Treatments in South Korea: What Factors Affect Decision-Making?

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This cross-sectional study investigated the status of life-sustaining treatment (LST) practices and identified characteristics and factors influencing decision-making practices.

Materials and methods

The National Agency for Management of Life-sustaining Treatment retains records provided by doctors regarding patients subject to LST implementation. A total of 71,327 patients receiving LST were identified. We analyzed all nationally reported data between February 2018 and October 2019. Indicators such as the proportion of deaths, records for decision to terminate LST, implementation of LST records, and registration of Advance Statements on LST were analyzed.

Results

A total of 67,252 (94.3%) end-of life decisions were implemented in South Korea. The proportion of deaths preceded by a LST plan, non-self-determination LST decision, and any advance statements was 33.5% (23,891/71,327), 66.5% (47,436/71,327), and 1.2% (890/71,327), respectively. The logistic regression model revealed that self-determination to terminate LST was more frequent for men than for women and higher for those aged 30-69. Disability (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.61), living in non-metropolitan areas (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.86), and disease comorbidity was independently associated with a low level of self-determination.

Conclusion

After the implementation of the new LST Act, about a third of patients in end-of-life process made decisions regarding their medical LST. However, family members still play a major role in LST decisions where the patient's intention cannot be verified. Decisions related to LST are predominantly made when death is imminent. Thus, it is necessary to increase awareness of end-of-life LST decision-making among medical staff and the public.

SUBMITTER: Park SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8053857 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith paediatric patients, deciding whether to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments (LST) at the end of life is difficult and ethically sensitive. Little is understood about how and why physicians decide on withholding/withdrawing LST at the end of life in paediatric patients. In this study, we aimed to synthesise results from the literature on physicians' perceptions about decision-making when dealing with withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in paediatric patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of empirical qualitative studies. Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Cinahl®, Embase®, Scopus®, Web of Science™) were exhaustively searched in order to identify articles published in English from inception through March 17, 2021. Analysis and synthesis were guided by the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.ResultsThirty publications met our criteria and were included for analysis. Overall, we found that physicians agreed to involve parents, and to a lesser extent, children in the decision-making process about withholding/withdrawing LST. Our analysis to identify conceptual schemes revealed that physicians divided their decision-making into three stages: (1) early preparation via advance care planning, (2) information giving and receiving, and (3) arriving at the final decision. Physicians considered advocating for the best interests of the child and of the parents as their major focus. We also identified moderating factors of decision-making, such as facilitators and barriers, specifically those related to physicians and parents that influenced physicians' decision-making.ConclusionsBy focusing on stakeholders, structure of the decision-making process, ethical values, and influencing factors, our analysis showed that physicians generally agreed to share the decision-making with parents and the child, especially for adolescents. Further research is required to better understand how to minimise the negative impact of barriers on the decision-making process (e.g., difficult involvement of children, lack of paediatric palliative care expertise, conflict with parents).

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a consensus framework that can guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in ICU patients, using evidence-based items, supported by caregivers, patients, and surrogate decision makers from multiple countries.DesignA three-round web-based international Delphi consensus study with a priori consensus definition was conducted with experts from 13 countries. Participants reviewed items of the decision-making process on a seven-point Likert scale or with open-ended questions. Questions concerned terminology, content, and timing of decision-making steps. The summarized results (including mean scores) and expert suggestions were presented in the subsequent round for review.SettingWeb-based surveys of international participants representing ICU physicians, nurses, former ICU patients, and surrogate decision makers.PatientsNot applicable.InterventionsNot applicable.Measurements and main resultsIn three rounds, respectively, 28, 28, and 27 (of 33 invited) physicians together with 12, 10, and seven (of 19 invited) nurses participated. Patients and surrogates were involved in round one and 12 of 27 responded. Caregivers were mostly working in university affiliated hospitals in Northern Europe. During the Delphi process, most items were modified in order to reach consensus. Seven items lacked consensus after three rounds. The final consensus framework comprises the content and timing of four elements; three elements focused on caregiver-surrogate communication (admission meeting, follow-up meeting, goals-of-care meeting); and one element (weekly time-out meeting) focused on assessing preferences, prognosis, and proportionality of ICU treatment among professionals.ConclusionsPhysicians, nurses, patients, and surrogates generated a consensus-based framework to guide the process of decision-making on continuing or limiting life-sustaining treatments in the ICU. Early, frequent, and scheduled family meetings combined with a repeated multidisciplinary time-out meeting may support decisions in relation to patient preferences, prognosis, and proportionality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Decisions of withholding or withdrawing life sustaining-treatments in emergency department are part of current practice but the decision-making process remains poorly described in the literature. STUDY OBJECTIVE:We conducted a study in two phases, the first comprising a retrospective chart review study of patients dying in the ED and the second comprising survey study of health care workers at 10 urban emergency departments in France. METHOD:In a first step, we analyzed medical records based on fifteen criteria of the decision-making process grouped into four categories: the collegiality, the traceability, the management and the communication as recommended by the international guidelines. In a second step, we conducted an auto-administrated survey to assess how the staff members (medical, paramedical) feel with the decision-making process. RESULTS:There were 273 deaths which occurred in the ED over the study period and we included 145 (53.1%) patients. The first-step analysis revealed that the traceability of the decision and the information given to patient or the relatives were the most reported points according to the recommendations. Three of the ten emergency departments had developed a written procedure. The collegial discussion and the traceability of the prognosis assessment were significantly increased in emergency department with a written procedure as well as management of pain, comfort care, and the communication with the patient or the relatives. In the second-step analysis, among the 735 staff members asked to take part in the survey, 287 (39.0%) answered. The medical and paramedical staff expressed difficult experience regarding the announcement and the communication with the patient and the relatives. CONCLUSION:The management of the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments must be improved in emergency departments according to the guidelines. A standard written procedure could be useful in clinical practice despite the lack of experienced difference between centers with and without procedures.