scholarly journals Agreement Between Older Persons and Their Surrogate Decision-Makers Regarding Participation in Advance Care Planning

2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1105-1109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri R. Fried ◽  
Colleen A. Redding ◽  
Mark L. Robbins ◽  
John R. O'Leary ◽  
Lynne Iannone
Keyword(s):  
Advance Care Planning ◽  
Older Persons ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Surrogate Decision Makers ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
Surrogate Decision

Implementation of group visits to improve outpatient oncology advance care planning.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11-11
Author(s):  
Sarah Lowry ◽  
Hillary Lum ◽  
Seiko Izumi ◽  
Erik K Fromme
Keyword(s):  
Medical Record ◽  
Advance Care Planning ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Medical Visit ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Surrogate Decision Makers ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
Surrogate Decision ◽  
First Session

11 Background: Oncology patients that participate in advance care planning (ACP) and complete advance directives (AD) are more likely to receive goal-concordant end of life care. The AD documentation rate within our academically-affiliated community outpatient oncology clinic is below national and institutional averages. A group medical visit effectively facilitated ACP in a geriatric primary care setting. This quality improvement project implemented a similar ACP conversation group (ACPCG) in an outpatient oncology setting. Methods: Adult patients in a community oncology clinic were contacted and invited to participate in ACPCG by a nurse practitioner who works in the clinic. Using a facilitation guide, the 2-session intervention included sharing past ACP experiences, identifying surrogate decision makers, starting conversations, and discussing surrogate flexibility. Recruitment, retention, and patient ACP outcomes were measured. Results: Seventy-six patients were successfully contacted and seventeen signed up (22% recruitment rate). Twelve patients participated in the first session, and five attended the second session (42% retention). Recruitment was time intensive, and several patients responded that ACP was not relevant to their situation. Six participants completed an AD prior to attending the first session (50%) but only one had an AD in their medical record. Two had surrogate decision makers documented prior to the intervention (16%). Participants reported the ACPCG as helpful in making the process less overwhelming. There was no increase in AD documentation rates within the medical record four weeks after the intervention, but the rate of surrogate documentation increased to seven (58%). Conclusions: Participants had higher than average rates of AD completion prior to the intervention but had not shared the document with their providers. While the ACPCG was well received by patients, implementation faced multiple challenges. More efficient recruitment methods and strategies to facilitate better patient understanding of ACP are needed.

Prognostication and Ethics

2018 ◽  
pp. 265-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Y. Hwang ◽  
Douglas B. White
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Inappropriate Treatment ◽  
Surrogate Decision Makers ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
Key Topics ◽  
Surrogate Decision

This chapter provides an overview of prognostication and key topics in ethics as they relate to the practice of neurocritical care. Challenges with prognostication are summarized. Outcome prognostication tools for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and traumatic brain injury are outlined along with a discussion of their limitations. Best practices for communicating prognosis are reviewed. Shared decision-making with surrogate decision-makers in intensive care units is discussed in detail, with attention to advance care planning documentation and resolution of situations in which clinicians may have conscientious objections to potentially inappropriate treatment.

scholarly journals Treatment choice when faced with high risk of poor outcome – and response to decisions made by surrogates on their behalf

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie Corke ◽  
Stella-May Gwini ◽  
Sharyn Milnes ◽  
Ben Jong ◽  
Neil Orford
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Treatment Choice ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Poor Outcome ◽  
Advance Care Plan ◽  
Hypothetical Scenario ◽  
Surrogate Decision Makers ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
Surrogate Decision

Faced with a high likelihood of poor outcome treatment choice is difficult and few people are certain about what they would, or would not, want. Recognising this we sought to explore how individuals react to hypothetical choices made on their behalf by surrogate decision-makers. We used an online survey, using a hypothetical scenario involving a 95% chance of poor outcome and 5% chance of good outcome. There were 510 participants. Most (63%) expressed uncertainty regarding preference for treatment. 37% expressed certainty (12% certainly wanting treatment and 25% certainly not wanting treatment). Seventy seven percent indicated they would be understanding or pleased if the surrogate chose to treat, while 92% were understanding or pleased with a decision not to treat by a surrogate decision maker. Patients who had expressed ‘certain’ wishes when presented with the scenario (either certainly wanting or certainly not wanting treatment) were more likely to be angry/upset when surrogates made the opposite decision. Those who had completed an Advance Care Plan (ACP) were more likely to be angry/upset when these wishes were not followed. This finding suggests it may be unrealistic to expect surrogate decision-makers to identify ‘what the patient would want’ as a binary choice between consenting to treatment or refusing treatment when chances are poor and the decision is difficult. Asking surrogates to identify choices that they believe would be likely to make the person angry or upset might be more appropriate and more effective. Most people were understanding of decisions made by surrogates (whether these matched their preference or not). This finding should be used to reassure surrogates who are required to make difficult decisions. Additionally, factors associated with patient upset/anger at surrogate treatment decisions were identified. This most commonly included those patients who had documented wishes in an Advance Care Plan that was not followed.

Decision-Making Toolkit

2021 ◽  
pp. 60-76
Author(s):  
Jeffrey D. Myers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Advance Directives ◽  
Advance Care Planning ◽  
Physician Assistant ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Collaborative Partnership ◽  
Advance Care

Physician assistant (PA) training is rooted in treating the whole patient and developing a trusting and collaborative partnership with patients and their families. This foundation is critical in the advance care planning (ACP) process for patients who are seriously or terminally ill. Understanding the ACP process, the components and reasons behind them, and the tools for successful discussions and decision-making is a key skill set for all healthcare providers, including PAs. This chapter examines the components of ACP, including advance directives, the POLST paradigm, decision-makers, prognostication, documentation, and legacy planning. ACP is key in capturing what is most important to our patients in terms of their health, their life, and their goals related to both.

scholarly journals Is Advance Care Planning Associated With Decreased Hope in Advanced Cancer?

2020 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00039
Author(s):  
Michael G. Cohen ◽  
Andrew D. Althouse ◽  
Robert M. Arnold ◽  
Hailey W. Bulls ◽  
Douglas White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Advance Care Planning ◽  
Advance Directive ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Potential Association ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
P 752 ◽  
Surrogate Decision ◽  
Sectional Analysis

PURPOSE: Providers have cited fear of taking away hope from patients as one of the principal reasons for deferring advance care planning (ACP). However, research is lacking on the relationship between ACP and hope. We sought to investigate the potential association between ACP and hope in advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a primary palliative care intervention trial. All patients had advanced solid cancers. Three domains of ACP were measured using validated questions to assess discussion with oncologists about end-of-life (EOL) planning, selection of a surrogate decision maker, and completion of an advance directive. Hope was measured using the Hearth Hope Index (HHI). Multivariable regression was performed, adjusting for variables associated with hope or ACP. RESULTS: A total of 672 patients were included in this analysis. The mean age was 69.3 ± 10.2 years; 54% were female, and 94% were White. Twenty percent of patients (132 of 661) reported having a discussion about EOL planning, 51% (342 of 668) reported completing an advance directive, and 85% (565 of 666) had chosen a surrogate. There was no difference in hope between patients who had and had not had an EOL discussion (adjusted mean difference in HHI, 0.55; P = .181 for adjusted regression), chosen a surrogate (adjusted HHI difference, 0.31; P = .512), or completed an advance directive (adjusted HHI difference, 0.11; P = .752). CONCLUSION: In this study, hope was equivalent among patients who had or had not completed 3 important domains of ACP. These findings do not support concerns that ACP is associated with decreased hope for patients with advanced cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document