Dataset Information

Discussing patient preferences for levels of life-sustaining treatment: development and pilot testing of a Danish POLST form.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medically frail and/or chronically ill patients are often admitted to Danish hospitals without documentation of patient preferences. This may lead to inappropriate care. Modelled on the American Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form, the purpose of the study was to develop and pilot test a Danish POLST form to ensure that patients' preferences for levels of life-sustaining treatment are known and documented.

Methods

The study was a mixed methods study. In the initial phase, a Danish POLST form was developed on the basis of literature and recommendations from the National POLST organisation in the US. A pilot test of the Danish POLST form was conducted in hospital wards, general practitioners' clinics, and nursing homes. Patients were eligible for inclusion if death was assessed as likely within 12 months. The patient and his/her physician engaged in a conversation where patient values, beliefs, goals for care, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment alternatives were discussed. The POLST form was completed based on the patient's values and preferences. Family members and/or nursing staff could participate. Participants' assessments of the POLST form were evaluated using questionnaires, and in-depth interviews were conducted to explore experiences with the POLST form and the conversation.

Results

In total, 25 patients participated, 45 questionnaires were completed and 14 interviews were conducted. Most participants found the POLST form readable and understandable, and 93% found the POLST form usable to a high or very high degree for discussing preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (a) an understandable document is essential for the conversation, (b) handling and discussing wishes, and (c) significance for the future.

Conclusion

The Danish version of the POLST form is assessed by patients, families, physicians, and nurses as a useful model for obtaining and documenting Danish patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment. However, this needs to be confirmed in a larger-scale study.

SUBMITTER: Tuesen LD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8749111 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is essential to high-quality medical care that life-sustaining treatment orders match the current, values-based preferences of patients or their surrogate decision-makers. It is unknown whether concordance between orders and current preferences is higher when a POLST form is used compared to standard documentation practices.ObjectiveTo assess concordance between existing orders and current preferences for nursing facility residents with and without POLST forms.DesignChart review and interviews.SettingForty Indiana nursing facilities (29 where POLST is used and 11 where POLST is not in use).ParticipantsOne hundred sixty-one residents able to provide consent and 197 surrogate decision-makers of incapacitated residents with and without POLST forms.Main measurementsConcordance was measured by comparing life-sustaining treatment orders in the medical record (e.g., orders about resuscitation, intubation, and hospitalization) with current preferences. Concordance was analyzed using population-averaged binary logistic regression. Inverse probability weighting techniques were used to account for non-response. We hypothesized that concordance would be higher in residents with POLST (n = 275) in comparison to residents without POLST (n = 83).Key resultsConcordance was higher for residents with POLST than without POLST (59.3% versus 34.9%). In a model adjusted for resident, surrogate, and facility characteristics, the odds were 3.05 times higher that residents with POLST had orders for life-sustaining treatment match current preferences in comparison to residents without POLST (OR 3.05 95% CI 1.67-5.58, p < 0.001). No other variables were significantly associated with concordance.ConclusionsNursing facility residents with POLST are significantly more likely than residents without POLST to have concordance between orders in their medical records and current preferences for life-sustaining treatments, increasing the likelihood that their treatment preferences will be known and honored. However, findings indicate further systems change and clinical training are needed to improve POLST concordance.

Project description:BackgroundOn-line tutorials are being increasingly used in medical education, including in teaching housestaff skills regarding end of life care. Recently an on-line tutorial incorporating interactive clinical vignettes and communication skills was used to prepare housestaff at Johns Hopkins Hospital to use the Maryland Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form, which documents patient preferences regarding end of life care. 40% of housestaff who viewed the module felt less than comfortable discussing choices on the MOLST with patients. We sought to understand factors beyond knowledge that contributed to housestaff discomfort in MOLST discussions despite successfully completing an on-line tutorial.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 18 housestaff who completed the on-line MOLST training module. Housestaff participants demonstrated good knowledge of legal and regulatory issues related to the MOLST compared to their peers, but reported feeling less than comfortable discussing the MOLST with patients. Transcripts of interviews were coded using thematic analysis to describe barriers to using the MOLST and suggestions for improving housestaff education about end of life care discussions.ResultsQualitative analysis showed three major factors contributing to lack of housestaff comfort completing the MOLST form: [1] physician barriers to completion of the MOLST, [2] perceived patient barriers to completion of the MOLST, and [3] design characteristics of the MOLST form. Housestaff recommended a number of adaptations for improvement, including in-person training to improve their skills conducting conversations regarding end of life preferences with patients.ConclusionsSome housestaff who scored highly on knowledge tests after completing a formal on-line curriculum on the MOLST form reported barriers to using a mandated form despite receiving training. On-line modules may be insufficient for teaching communication skills to housestaff. Additional training opportunities including in-person training mechanisms should be incorporated into housestaff communication skills training related to end of life care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore patients' and physicians' perspectives on a decision-making conversation for life-sustaining treatment, based on the Danish model of the American Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form.DesignSemi-structured interviews following a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.SettingDanish hospitals, nursing homes, and general practitioners' clinics.SubjectsPatients and physicians.Main outcome measuresQualitative analyses of interview data.FindingsAfter participating in a conversation about life-sustaining treatment using the Danish POLST form, a total of six patients and five physicians representing different settings and age groups participated in an interview about their experience of the process. Within the main research questions, six subthemes were identified: Timing, relatives are key persons, clarifying treatment preferences, documentation across settings, strengthening patient autonomy, and structure influences conversations. Most patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable but also complicated due to the different levels of knowledge and attending to individual patient needs and medical necessities. Relatives were considered as key persons to ensure the understanding of the treatment trajectory and the ability to advocate for the patient in case of a medical crisis. The majority of participants found that the conversation strengthened patient autonomy.ConclusionPatients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable, especially for strengthening patient autonomy. Relatives were considered key persons. The timing of the conversation and securing sufficient knowledge for shared decision-making were the main perceived challenges.KEY POINTSConversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment are important, but not performed systematically.When planning a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment, the timing of the conversation and the inclusion of relatives are key elements.Decision-making conversations can help patients feel in charge and less alone, and make it easier for health professionals to provide goal-concordant care.Using a model like the Danish POLST form may help to initiate, conduct and structure conversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment forms (POLST) exist in some format in all 50 states. The objective of this study is to determine paramedic interpretation and application of the California POLST for medical intervention and transportation decisions.MethodsThis study used a prospective, convenience sample of California Bay Area paramedics who reviewed six fictional scenarios of patients and accompanying mock POLST forms. Based on the clinical case and POLST, paramedics identified medical interventions that were appropriate (i.e. non-invasive positive pressure airway) as well as transportation decisions (i.e. non-transport to the hospital against medical advice). EMS provider confidence in their POLST interpretation was also assessed.ResultsThere were 118 paramedic participants with a mean of 13.3 years of EMS experience that completed the survey. Paramedics routinely identified the selected medical intervention on a patients POLST correctly as either comfort focused, selective or full treatment (113-118;96%-100%). For many clinical scenarios, particularly when a patient's POLST indicated comfort focused treatment, paramedics chose to use online medical oversight through base physician contact (68-73;58%-62%). In one case, a POLST indicated "transport to hospital only if comfort needs cannot be met in current location", 13 (14%) paramedics elected to transport the patient anyway and 51 (43%) chose "Non-transport, Against Medical Advice". The majority of paramedics agreed or strongly agreed that they knew how to use a POLST to decide which medical interventions to provide (106;90%) and how to transport a patient (74;67%). However, after completing the cases, similar proportions of paramedics agreed (42;36%), disagreed (43;36%) or were neutral (30;25%) when asked if they find the POLST confusing.ConclusionThe POLST is a powerful tool for paramedics when caring patients with serious illness. Although paramedics are confident in their ability to use a POLST to decide appropriate medical interventions, many still find the POLST confusing particularly when making transportation decisions. Some paramedics rely on online medical oversight to provide guidance in challenging situations. Authors recommend further research of EMS POLST utilization and goal concordant care, dedicated paramedic POLST education, specific EMS hospice and palliative care protocols and better nomenclature for non-transport in order to improve care for patients with serious illness.

Project description:ObjectivesLife-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical conditions, and includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, haemodialysis and left ventricular assist devices. This study aimed to investigate the thoughts on life-sustaining treatment of Koreans and to assess the factors associated with deciding to not receive life-sustaining treatment if they develop a terminal disease.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingGuro-gu centre for dementia from 1 May 2018 to 31 December 2019.ParticipantsIn total, 150 individuals participated in this study.Outcome measuresThe questionnaire consisted of self-report items with some instructions, demographic characteristics, thoughts on life-sustaining treatment and psychosocial scales. The preferences of the participants were investigated on the assumption that they develop terminal cancer. The psychosocial scales included the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).ResultsWe classified our participants into two groups: individuals who wanted to receive life-sustaining treatment (IRLT) and individuals who wanted to not receive life-sustaining treatment (INLT). There were twice as many participants in the INLT group than there were in the IRLT. In making this decision, the INLT group focused more on physical and mental distress. Additionally, 32.7% of participants responded that terminal status was an optimal time for this decision, but more participants want to decide it earlier. The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were significantly higher in the INLT group than in the IRLT group. However, the INLT group had significantly lower MSPSS family scores.ConclusionOur findings can help assess issues regarding advance directives and life-sustaining treatment, and will be a reference for designing future studies on this issue.