P-43 Capacity assessment for advance care planning in older people with cognitive impairment

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A56.3-A57
Author(s):  
O Kiriaev ◽  
Emme Chacko ◽  
JD Jurgens ◽  
Meagan Ramages ◽  
P Malpas ◽  
...  
Geriatrics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng-Pei Lin ◽  
Shao-Yi Cheng ◽  
Ping-Jen Chen

With dramatically increasing proportions of older people, global ageing has remarkably influenced healthcare services and policy making worldwide. Older people represent the majority of patients with cancer, leading to the increasing demand of healthcare due to more comorbidities and inherent frailty. The preference of older people with cancer are often ignored, and they are considered incapable of making choices for themselves, particularly medical decisions. This might impede the provision of their preferred care and lead to poor healthcare outcomes. Advance care planning (ACP) is considered an effective intervention to assist older people to think ahead and make a choice in accordance with their wishes when they possess capacity to do so. The implementation of ACP can potentially lead to positive impact for patients and families. However, the assessment of mental capacity among older adults with cancer might be a crucial concern when implementing ACP, as loss of mental capacity occurs frequently during disease deterioration and functional decline. This article aims to answer the following questions by exploring the existing evidence. How does ACP develop for older people with cancer? How can we measure mental capacity and what kind of principles for assessment we should apply? What are the facilitators and barriers when implementing an ACP in this population? Furthermore, a discussion about cultural adaptation and relevant legislation in Asia is elucidated for better understanding about its cultural appropriateness and the implications. Finally, recommendations in relation to early intervention with routine monitoring and examination of capacity assessment in clinical practice when delivering ACP, reconciling patient autonomy and family values by applying the concept of relational autonomy, and a corresponding legislation and public education should be in place in Asia. More research on ACP and capacity assessment in different cultural contexts and policy frameworks is highlighted as crucial factors for successful implementation of ACP.


2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1243-1250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleg Kiriaev ◽  
Emme Chacko ◽  
J. D. Jurgens ◽  
Meagan Ramages ◽  
Phillipa Malpas ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackground:People with dementia receive worse end of life care compared to those with cancer. Barriers to undertaking advanced care planning (ACP) in people with dementia include the uncertainty about their capacity to engage in such discussions. The primary aim of this study was to compare the Advance Care Planning–Capacity Assessment Vignette tool (ACP–CAV) with a semi-structured interview adapted from the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Treatment (MacCAT-T). The secondary aim was to identify demographic and cognitive functioning variables that may predict whether a person has capacity to discuss ACP.Methods:32 older people (mean age = 84.1) with a Mini-Mental State Examination of 24 or above were recruited from two retirement villages in Auckland. Participants also completed Trail Making Test Part A & Part B and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) before undertaking the two capacity assessments that were video recorded to enable further analysis by four independent old age psychiatrists.Results:Using the MacCAT-T as the gold standard, over half (53.1%) of the participants were considered as lacking in capacity to engage in ACP. Participants struggled with the “Understanding ACP” domain the most. Capacity was not predictable by any of the demographic or cognitive functioning variables. When compared to the gold standard, ACP–CAV was accurate in assessing capacity in 68.8% of the cases.Conclusion:Clinicians should routinely explain ACP to older people and ensure they fully understand it prior to an ACP discussion. If there is any concern about their understanding, further exploration and documentation of their capacity using the capacity assessment framework would be necessary. However, capacity assessment is a complex iterative process that does not easily lend itself to screening methodology and requires a high level of clinical judgment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 417-418
Author(s):  
Hyo Jung Lee ◽  
Giyeon Kim

Abstract Although there has been growing evidence that Advance care planning (ACP) benefits people with cognitive impairment nearing death, our understanding about this issue is still limited. This study examines whether cognitive impairment is associated with ACP engagement and end-of-life care preferences among older adults in the U.S. Using data from the 2012 National Health and Trends Study (n=1798, aged 65 to 101), we identified four levels of ACP engagement: None (28%), Informal ACP conversation only (12%), Formal ACP only (14%), and Both informal and formal ACP (46%). Older adults with None showed the highest prevalence of having cognitive impairment (17%), followed by those with Formal ACP only (15%) and the other two (6%, 6%). The results of Multinomial Logistic Regression showed that, compared to those without, respondents with cognitive impairment had 143% increased relative risk of having None (RR = 2.43, CI: 1.58-3.73) and 81% increased relative risk of completing Formal ACP only (RR = 1.81, CI: 1.11-2.95) relative to completing Both informal and formal ACP. In addition, respondents with None were more likely to prefer to receive all treatments available nearing death than those with any ACP engagement. Achieving high quality care at the end of life can be more challenging for older adults with cognitive impairment and their family caregivers due to the limited capacity. Although encouraged, informal ACP conversation with loved ones does not necessarily occur before the formal ACP, especially, for those with cognitive impairment. Therefore, they may merit more attention such as early ACP engagement.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenny Cheong ◽  
Paul Fisher ◽  
Jenny Goh ◽  
Lynette Ng ◽  
Hui Mien Koh ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 389-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Yeun-Sim Jeong ◽  
Isabel Higgins ◽  
Margaret McMillan

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i30-i32
Author(s):  
S A Hopkins ◽  
A Bentley ◽  
V Phillips ◽  
S Barclay

Abstract Introduction National guidelines suggest that patients in the last year of life should be identified, their prognosis and future care options discussed, with advance care planning (ACP) recorded. Goals-of-care should be discussed with hospitalised patients at risk of deteriorating or with life-limiting conditions. The stated purpose of ACP and goals-of-care discussions is to increase goal-concordant care (i.e. patients receiving treatments they would wish to receive, and not receiving those they would not want). This literature review investigates the evidence-base for these policies and outcomes. Review question What is the evidence for goals-of-care and ACP discussions with hospitalised frail older people? Methods Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Electronic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, ASSIA, PsycINFO, and Embase databases from January 1990 to September 2017. An updated search until May 2019 is currently underway. Results Of 8077 unique articles identified, 17 met inclusion criteria. There is no evidence that goals-of-care discussions lead to increased goal-concordant care; there is observational evidence that they increase the accuracy of documented preferences. Currently, rates of goals-of-care discussions are variable (38-72%), and there is poor concordance between patients’ actual and documented preferences, with agreement in only 31-33% of cases. Present rates of ACP are very low (0-3%), with mixed evidence for benefits of ACP. One single-centre randomised controlled trial suggests ACP improves outcomes for patients who die within 6 months of discharge, including increased goal-concordant care and reduced family distress. There is very limited evidence concerning patients’ and family members’ experiences of these discussions, their reasons for wishing (or not) to participate in discussions, or their perceptions of the important outcomes. Most (80%) patients would like to be involved in decisions about their care; 48% consider these conversations very important. The views and experiences of healthcare professionals have been little studied. Conclusions The asserted aim of goals-of-care and ACP discussions is to increase goal-concordant care; the extent to which this reflects patients’ priorities is unknown. In younger patient populations, while 40% of patients consider goal-concordant care the most important outcome, one third of patients consider family-related outcomes to be more important. Further research is needed to understand the perspectives of frail older patients, their families and clinicians, in order to make these discussions and subsequent care truly patient-centred.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-524
Author(s):  
Jolien J Glaudemans ◽  
Dick L Willems ◽  
Jan Wind ◽  
Bregje D Onwuteaka Philipsen

Abstract Background Using advance care planning (ACP) to anticipate future decisions can increase compliance with people’s end-of-life wishes, decrease inappropriate life-sustaining treatment and reduce stress, anxiety and depression. Despite this, only a minority of older people engage in ACP, partly because care professionals lack knowledge of approaches towards ACP with older people and their families. Objective To explore older people’s and their families’ experiences with ACP in primary care. Methods We conducted qualitative, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 22 older people (aged >70 years, v/m: 11/11), with experience in ACP, and eight of their family members (aged 40–79 years, f/m: 7/1). Transcripts were inductively analysed using a grounded theory approach. Results We distinguished three main themes. (i) Openness and trust: Respondents were more open to ACP if they wanted to prevent specific future situations and less open if they lacked trust or had negative thoughts regarding general practitioners’ (GPs’) time for and interest in ACP. Engaging in ACP appeared to increase trust. (ii) Timing and topics: ACP was not initiated too early. Quality of ACP seemed to improve if respondents’ views on their current life and future, a few specific future care scenarios and expectations and responsibilities regarding ACP were discussed. (iii) Roles of family: Quality of ACP appeared to improve if family was involved in ACP. Conclusions Quality and accessibility of ACP may improve if GPs and nurses involve family, explain GPs’ interest in ACP and discuss future situations older people may want to prevent, and views on their current life and future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document