BACKGROUND: Advance planning for end-of-life care has gained acceptance, but actual end-of-life care is often incongruent with patients' previously stated goals. We assessed the flow of advance care planning information from patients to medical records in a community sample of older adults to better understand why advance care planning is not more successful. METHODS: Our study used structured interview and medical record data from community-dwelling older patients in two previous studies: Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE)-1 (245 patients age > or = 65 years and screened for high risk of death/functional decline in 1998-1999) and ACOVE-2 (566 patients age > or = 75 who screened positive for falls/mobility disorders, incontinence, and/or dementia in 2002-2003). We compared interview data on patients' preferences, advance directives, and surrogate decision-makers with findings from the medical record. RESULTS: In ACOVE-1, 38% of surveyed patients had thought about limiting the aggressiveness of medical care; 24% of surveyed patients stated that they had spoken to their doctor about this. The vast majority of patients (88%-93%) preferred to die rather than remain permanently in a coma, on a ventilator, or tube fed. Regardless of patients' specific preferences, 15%-22% of patients had preference information in their medical record. Among patients who reported that they had completed an advance directive and had given it to their health-care provider, 15% (ACOVE-1) and 47% (ACOVE-2) had advance directive information in the medical record. Among patients who had not completed an advance directive but had given surrogate decision-maker information to their provider, 0% (ACOVE-1) and 16% (ACOVE-2) had documentation of a surrogate decision-maker in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Community-dwelling elders' preferences for end-of-life care are not consistent with documentation in their medical records. Electronic health records and standardized data collection for end-of-life care could begin to ameliorate this problem.
BACKGROUND: Advance planning for end-of-life care has gained acceptance, but actual end-of-life care is often incongruent with patients' previously stated goals. We assessed the flow of advance care planning information from patients to medical records in a community sample of older adults to better understand why advance care planning is not more successful. METHODS: Our study used structured interview and medical record data from community-dwelling older patients in two previous studies: Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE)-1 (245 patients age > or = 65 years and screened for high risk of death/functional decline in 1998-1999) and ACOVE-2 (566 patients age > or = 75 who screened positive for falls/mobility disorders, incontinence, and/or dementia in 2002-2003). We compared interview data on patients' preferences, advance directives, and surrogate decision-makers with findings from the medical record. RESULTS: In ACOVE-1, 38% of surveyed patients had thought about limiting the aggressiveness of medical care; 24% of surveyed patients stated that they had spoken to their doctor about this. The vast majority of patients (88%-93%) preferred to die rather than remain permanently in a coma, on a ventilator, or tube fed. Regardless of patients' specific preferences, 15%-22% of patients had preference information in their medical record. Among patients who reported that they had completed an advance directive and had given it to their health-care provider, 15% (ACOVE-1) and 47% (ACOVE-2) had advance directive information in the medical record. Among patients who had not completed an advance directive but had given surrogate decision-maker information to their provider, 0% (ACOVE-1) and 16% (ACOVE-2) had documentation of a surrogate decision-maker in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Community-dwelling elders' preferences for end-of-life care are not consistent with documentation in their medical records. Electronic health records and standardized data collection for end-of-life care could begin to ameliorate this problem.
Authors: D Saliba; M Elliott; L Z Rubenstein; D H Solomon; R T Young; C J Kamberg; C Roth; C H MacLean; P G Shekelle; E M Sloss; N S Wenger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: J M Teno; S Licks; J Lynn; N Wenger; A F Connors; R S Phillips; M A O'Connor; D P Murphy; W J Fulkerson; N Desbiens; W A Knaus Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Neil S Wenger; David H Solomon; Carol P Roth; Catherine H MacLean; Debra Saliba; Caren J Kamberg; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Roy T Young; Elizabeth M Sloss; Rachel Louie; John Adams; John T Chang; Patricia J Venus; John F Schnelle; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-11-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Fukai L Chuang; Anna Liza M Antonio; Jennifer L Malin; Karl A Lorenz; Anne M Walling Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Bahman Sadeghi; Anne M Walling; Patrick S Romano; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Michael K Ong Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Rachelle Bernacki; Joanna Paladino; Bridget A Neville; Mathilde Hutchings; Jane Kavanagh; Olaf P Geerse; Joshua Lakin; Justin J Sanders; Kate Miller; Stuart Lipsitz; Atul A Gawande; Susan D Block Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Katherine R Waite; Alex D Federman; Danielle M McCarthy; Rebecca Sudore; Laura M Curtis; David W Baker; Elizabeth A H Wilson; Romana Hasnain-Wynia; Michael S Wolf; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 5.562