Dataset Information

Do surrogates predict patient preferences more accurately after a physician-led discussion about advance directives? A randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT:

Background

Caregivers frequently assume the role of surrogate decision-makers but often are unable to accurately predict patients’ preferences. This trial aims to find if the use of the Advance Directives documents as a communication tool, improves the agreement between patients and caregivers.

Methods

This trial occurred in a palliative care service of a Portuguese hospital center. A prospective, single-blinded, controlled, randomized trial, enrolling patients and caregivers as a dyad was conducted. Participants individually fulfilled an Advance Directive document, in which patients reported their end-of-life preferences and caregivers reported their decisions as patients’ health surrogates. Dyads were randomly assigned to the Intervention or the Control group, in which the physician respectively promoted an open discussion about patients’ Advance Directives or evaluated patients’ clinical condition. Caregivers’ Advance Directives as surrogates were collected one month later. Proportions of agreement and Cohen’s κ were used to access agreement and reliability, respectively, between the dyads.

Results

Results from 58 dyads were analyzed. We observed an improvement in agreement between the caregivers’ answers and the patients’ wishes on two-thirds (8/12) of the answers, in the Intervention group, contrasting to one-quarter (3/12) of the answers, in the Control group, despite statistical significance in differences wasn´t obtained.

Conclusions

Although not reaching statistical significance, the results suggest that discussions of advance directives with physicians may lead to better prepared surrogates.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05090072. Retrospectively registered on 22/10/2021.

SUBMITTER: Martins C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9277787 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:OBJECTIVES:Prior studies suggest that a decreased cardiac catheterization rate for women with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is partially attributed to gender differences in patient preferences for testing. The hypothesis was that these preferences are influenced by physician recommendations for cardiovascular testing. METHODS:This was a cohort study of patients who presented to an emergency department (ED) with chest pain. At the time of ED disposition, patients were surveyed to assess whether or not the doctor discussed the possibility of coronary artery disease (CAD), the physician's recommendations for diagnostic testing, and the patient's preferences for further testing. The survey was repeated at the time of discharge from the hospital if the patient was admitted and again at 30 days for all patients. The main outcome was patient-reported physician recommendation for testing, and the secondary outcome was patient preference for cardiovascular testing. RESULTS:There were 206 patients enrolled (118 women, 88 men). Women were less likely than men to receive cardiac catheterization as inpatients (9.8% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.04). In the ED, women were less likely to be recommended for stress testing (8.5% vs. 19.3%, p = 0.02) or cardiac catheterization (4.2% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.02) or to see a cardiologist (8.5% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.01). As inpatients, women were more likely to be told that no further testing was needed (70.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.03). While there was higher incidence of prior CAD and myocardial infarction among the men in the study, analysis after removal of these patients did not alter results. Physicians were less likely to counsel women about diagnostic testing options in the ED (10.1% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.03), as inpatients (11.5% vs. 40.0%, p < 0.01), and as outpatients (26.1% vs. 48.6%, p = 0.04). No patients in the study refused their doctors' recommendations. Women were less likely to prefer catheterization in the ED (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.01) and were more likely to prefer no further testing as inpatients (60.7% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Women who presented to the ED with symptoms concerning for ACS reported lower rates of physician recommendation for cardiovascular testing, as well as lower rates of counseling regarding cardiac etiologies of their chest pain. These findings suggest sex differences in preference for cardiovascular testing may be partially explained by the discussions between women and their doctors.

Project description:BackgroundSputum eosinophil percentages are a strong predictor of airway inflammation and exacerbations and aid asthma management, whereas sputum neutrophil percentages indicate a different severe asthma phenotype that is potentially less responsive to TH2-targeted therapy. Variables, such as blood eosinophil counts, total IgE levels, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (Feno) levels, or FEV1 percent predicted, might predict airway eosinophil percentages, whereas age, FEV1 percent predicted, or blood neutrophil counts might predict sputum neutrophil percentages. Availability and ease of measurement are useful characteristics, but accuracy in predicting airway eosinophil and neutrophil percentages either individually or combined is not established.ObjectivesWe sought to determine whether blood eosinophil counts, Feno levels, and IgE levels accurately predict sputum eosinophil percentages and whether age, FEV1 percent predicted, and blood neutrophil counts accurately predict sputum neutrophil percentages.MethodsSubjects in the Wake Forest Severe Asthma Research Program (n = 328) were characterized by blood and sputum cell counts, health care use, lung function, Feno levels, and IgE levels. Multiple analytic techniques were used.ResultsDespite significant association with sputum eosinophil percentages, blood eosinophil counts, Feno levels, and total IgE levels did not accurately predict sputum eosinophil percentages, and combinations of these variables did not improve prediction. Age, FEV1 percent predicted, and blood neutrophil counts were similarly unsatisfactory for the prediction of sputum neutrophil percentages. Factor analysis and stepwise selection found Feno levels, IgE levels, and FEV1 percent predicted, but not blood eosinophil counts, correctly predicted 69% of sputum eosinophil percentages of less than 2% or 2% and greater. Likewise, age, asthma duration, and blood neutrophil counts correctly predicted 64% of sputum neutrophil percentages of less than 40% or 40% and greater. A model to predict both sputum eosinophil and neutrophil percentages accurately assigned only 41% of samples.ConclusionDespite statistically significant associations, Feno levels, IgE levels, blood eosinophil and neutrophil counts, FEV1 percent predicted, and age are poor surrogates, both separately and combined, for accurately predicting sputum eosinophil and neutrophil percentages.

Project description:BackgroundIn Mainland China, advance directives (ADs) and end-of-life care for patients with tumours, especially patients with brain tumours who may have lost consciousness or the ability to speak at the early stage of their illness, have been poorly acknowledged. Thus, this study aimed to clarify the knowledge and preferences of ADs and end-of-life care in patients with brain tumours and to investigate predictors of patient preferences.MethodsThis was a population-based cross-sectional survey that was conducted via face-to-face interviews. Information on sociodemographic factors, brain tumour illness, knowledge and preferences of the advanced decisions and end-of-life care of the patients was collected.ResultsA total of 88.61% of participants had never heard of ADs, but 65.18% reported that they would like to make ADs. Knowledge of ADs, receiving surgical treatment or radiotherapy, being younger than 70?years old, being male, having educational qualifications of college or beyond, being childless, having medical insurance for nonworking or working urban residents and self-paying medical expenses were predictors of preference for making ADs. A total of 79.43% of participants wanted to discuss end-of-life arrangements with medical staff, and 63.29% of participants were willing to receive end-of-life care, even though it would not delay death. A total of 65.82% of patients with brain tumours wanted resuscitation, and as many as 45.45% of the patients thought that they did not need life support if they were in a persistent vegetative state. Brain primary tumours, being younger than 70?years old, male sex, educational qualification of junior middle school or below, having children, having new rural cooperative medical insurance and having medical expenses paid by children or spouses were predictors of choosing appropriate palliative care.ConclusionsADs and end-of-life care have been poorly acknowledged among patients with brain tumours in mainland China. Additional efforts should be encouraged amongst patients with primary brain tumours, those who are undergoing surgery and radiotherapy and those who have low socioeconomic status. A longitudinal and comprehensive study is encouraged to promote disease-specific ADs among Chinese patients with brain tumours.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.