Dataset Information

Paramedic use of the Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) for medical intervention and transportation decisions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Physician 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

There 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Breyre AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9367154 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Paramedic use of the Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) for medical intervention and transportation decisions.

Breyre Amelia M AM Sporer Karl A KA Davenport Glen G Isaacs Eric E Glomb Nicolaus W NW

BMC emergency medicine 20220811 1

<h4>Background</h4>Physician 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.<h4>Methods</h4>This 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 POLS ...[more]

PMID: 35948964

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:ObjectiveSurrogate decision makers for critically ill patients experience strong negative emotional states. Emotions influence risk perception, risk preferences, and decision making. We sought to explore the effect of emotional state and physician communication behaviors on surrogates' life-sustaining treatment decisions.Design5 × 2 between-subject randomized factorial experiment.SettingWeb-based simulated interactive video meeting with an intensivist to discuss code status.SubjectsCommunity-based participants 35 and older who self-identified as the surrogate for a parent or spouse recruited from eight U.S. cities through public advertisements.InterventionsBlock random assignment to emotion arousal manipulation and each of the four physician communication behaviors.Measurements and main resultsSurrogate's code status decision (cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs do not resuscitate/allow natural death). Two hundred fifty-six of 373 respondents (69%) logged-in and were randomized: average age was 50; 70% were surrogates for a parent; 63.5% were women; 76% were white, 11% black, and 9% Asian; and 81% were college educated. When asked about code status, 56% chose cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The emotion arousal manipulation increased the score on depression-dejection scale (β = 1.76 [0.58 - 2.94]) but did not influence cardiopulmonary resuscitation choice. Physician attending to emotion and framing the decision as the patient's rather than the surrogate's did not influence cardiopulmonary resuscitation choice. Framing no cardiopulmonary resuscitation as the norm rather than cardiopulmonary resuscitation resulted in fewer surrogates choosing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (48% vs 64%, odds ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32-0.87]), as did framing the alternative to cardiopulmonary resuscitation as "allow natural death" rather than do not resuscitate (49% vs 61%, odds ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.35-0.96]).ConclusionsExperimentally induced emotional state did not influence code status decisions, although small changes in physician communication behaviors substantially influenced this decision.

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:ImportanceDespite its spread in much of the United States and increased international interest, the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) paradigm still lacks supporting evidence. The interrater reliability of the POLST form to translate patients' values and preferences into medical orders for care at the end of life remains to be studied.ObjectiveTo assess the interrater reliability of the medical orders documented in POLST forms.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in a public university hospital in southeastern Brazil. Two independent researchers interviewed the same patients or decision-making surrogates (n = 64) during a single episode of hospitalization within a time frame of 1 to 7 days. Eligible participants were hospitalized adults aged 21 years or older who were expected to remain hospitalized for at least 4 days and whose attending physician responded no to the question, Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year? Data collection occurred between November 1, 2015, and September 20, 2016, and first data analyses were performed on October 3, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresInterrater reliability as measured by κ statistics.ResultsOf the 64 participants interviewed in the study, 53 (83%) were patients and 11 (17%) were surrogates. Patients' mean (SD) age was 64 (14) years, and 35 patients (55%) and 8 surrogates (73%) were women. Overall, in 5 cases (8%), disagreement in at least 1 medical order for life-sustaining treatment was found in the POLST form, changing from the first interview to the second interview. The κ statistic for cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80-1.00); for level of medical intervention, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.76-1.00); and for artificially administered nutrition, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.00).Conclusions and relevanceThe high interrater reliability of the medical orders in POLST forms appears to offer further support for this advance care planning paradigm; in addition, the finding that this interrater reliability was not 100% underscores the need to ensure that patients or their surrogates have decision-making capacity and to confirm that the content of POLST forms accurately reflects patients' current treatment preferences.

Dataset Information

Paramedic use of the Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) for medical intervention and transportation decisions.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Paramedic use of the Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) for medical intervention and transportation decisions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets