Mi-Kyung Song1, Sandra E Ward2, Laura C Hanson3, Maureen Metzger4, SuHyun Kim5. 1. 1 Center for Nursing Excellence in Palliative Care, Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University , Atlanta, Georgia . 2. 2 School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, Wisconsin. 3. 3 School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. 4 School of Nursing, University of Virginia , Charlottesville, Virginia. 5. 5 School of Nursing, Kyungpook National University , Daegu, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care consistent with preferences is the goal of advance care planning (ACP). However, comparing written preferences to actual end-of-life care may not capture consistency of care with preferences. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated four additional types of consistency, using prospective data on written preferences and active clinical decision making by patients and their surrogates. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data was done from a trial of an ACP intervention for patient-surrogate dyads. Forty-five patients died during the trial and comprised the sample for the analysis. Sources of data included patients' preferences in a written goals-of-care tool, medical record reviews, and two-week postbereavement interviews with surrogates to complement medical record reviews. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (53.3%) received care consistent with written preferences and 11 (24.4%) inconsistent with written preferences. The remaining 10 patients (22.2%) died suddenly with no opportunity for treatment decision making. Eleven (24.4%) were able to participate in decision making with their surrogates; of those, 9 (81.8%) received care consistent with their expressed preferences. Twenty-two patients were incapacitated and thus the surrogate made treatment decisions alone; of those, 18 (81.8%) made decisions consistent with the patient's written preference. CONCLUSIONS: Simply comparing documented preferences for end-of-life care and medical records of care delivered does not adequately reflect the process of ACP and treatment decision making at the end of life. To understand consistency between preferences and end-of-life care, investigators need data on written and real-time expressed preferences.
BACKGROUND: Care consistent with preferences is the goal of advance care planning (ACP). However, comparing written preferences to actual end-of-life care may not capture consistency of care with preferences. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated four additional types of consistency, using prospective data on written preferences and active clinical decision making by patients and their surrogates. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data was done from a trial of an ACP intervention for patient-surrogate dyads. Forty-five patients died during the trial and comprised the sample for the analysis. Sources of data included patients' preferences in a written goals-of-care tool, medical record reviews, and two-week postbereavement interviews with surrogates to complement medical record reviews. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (53.3%) received care consistent with written preferences and 11 (24.4%) inconsistent with written preferences. The remaining 10 patients (22.2%) died suddenly with no opportunity for treatment decision making. Eleven (24.4%) were able to participate in decision making with their surrogates; of those, 9 (81.8%) received care consistent with their expressed preferences. Twenty-two patients were incapacitated and thus the surrogate made treatment decisions alone; of those, 18 (81.8%) made decisions consistent with the patient's written preference. CONCLUSIONS: Simply comparing documented preferences for end-of-life care and medical records of care delivered does not adequately reflect the process of ACP and treatment decision making at the end of life. To understand consistency between preferences and end-of-life care, investigators need data on written and real-time expressed preferences.
Authors: Mi-Kyung Song; Sandra E Ward; Jason P Fine; Laura C Hanson; Feng-Chang Lin; Gerald A Hladik; Jill B Hamilton; Jessica C Bridgman Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Karin T Kirchhoff; Bernard J Hammes; Karen A Kehl; Linda A Briggs; Roger L Brown Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: R Sean Morrison; Eileen Chichin; John Carter; Orah Burack; Melinda Lantz; Diane E Meier Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Susan E Hickman; Christine A Nelson; Alvin H Moss; Susan W Tolle; Nancy A Perrin; Bernard J Hammes Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-10-22 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Hamilton Moses; David H M Matheson; E Ray Dorsey; Benjamin P George; David Sadoff; Satoshi Yoshimura Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chetna Malhotra; Meibo Hu; Rahul Malhotra; David Sim; Fazlur Rehman Jaufeerally; Filipinas G Bundoc; Eric A Finkelstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Amber R Comer; Susan E Hickman; James E Slaven; Patrick O Monahan; Greg A Sachs; Lucia D Wocial; Emily S Burke; Alexia M Torke Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-05-01