Literature DB >> 23228726

Best interests at end of life: an updated review of decisions made by the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario.

Paula Chidwick1, Robert Sibbald, Laura Hawryluck.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To increase our understanding of the notion of "best interests" in end of life disagreements through an updated review of decisions made by the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario. There was a significant increase (235%) in decisions from this tribunal between 2009 and 2011. "Best interests" test is used when no prior expressed wishes are known to the surrogate decision-makers.
METHODS: Purposively sampled written decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario between 2003 and 2011 that focused on the "best interests" of patients at the end of life. Interpretive content analysis was performed independently by 3 reviewers, and themes were identified by consensus.
RESULTS: We found substitute decision makers (SDMs) rely on an appeal to their own values or religion in their interpretation of best interests; physicians rely on clinical conditions; board emphasizes alignment with Health Care Consent Act. In the more recent cases, we found that SDMs report that patients value suffering; that SDMs have unrealistic hope for recovery and can communicate and get direction from the incapable patient; that SDMs need education on their role and responsibility as SDM; and that SDMs need time to provide consent, and that most proposed treatment plans that were sources of conflict included "palliative care."
INTERPRETATION: Several lessons are drawn for the benefit of health care teams engaged in disagreements at end of life with SDMs over the best interests of patients.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23228726     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.09.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Crit Care        ISSN: 0883-9441            Impact factor:   3.425


  2 in total

1.  Standard of care and resource implications of the Cuthbertson v. Rasouli ruling.

Authors:  Robert Sibbald; Paula Chidwick; Laura Hawryluck
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  "Everything has been tried and his heart can't recover…": A Descriptive Review of "Do Everything!" in the Archive of Ontario Consent and Capacity Board.

Authors:  Holly Yim; Syeda Shanza Hashmi; Brian Dewar; Claire Dyason; Kwadwo Kyeremanteng; Susan Lamb; Michel Shamy
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 2.834

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.