Rohit Devnani1,2, James E Slaven3, Gabriel T Bosslet4,5, Kianna Montz6, Lev Inger6, Emily S Burke6, Alexia M Torke5,6,7. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Occupational Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. devnanir@gmail.com. 2. Fairbanks Center for Medical Ethics, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. devnanir@gmail.com. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep, and Occupational Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. 5. Fairbanks Center for Medical Ethics, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 6. Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many hospitalized adults do not have the capacity to make their own health care decisions and thus require a surrogate decision-maker. While the ethical standard suggests that decisions should focus on a patient's preferences, our study explores the principles that surrogates consider most important when making decisions for older hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine how frequently surrogate decision-makers prioritized patient preferences in decision-making and what factors may predict their doing so. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a secondary data analysis of a study conducted at three local hospitals that surveyed surrogate decision-makers for hospitalized patients 65 years of age and older. MAIN MEASURES: Surrogates rated the importance of 16 decision-making principles and selected the one that was most important. We divided the surrogates into two groups: those who prioritized patient preferences and those who prioritized patient well-being. We analyzed the two groups for differences in knowledge of patient preferences, presence of advance directives, and psychological outcomes. KEY RESULTS: A total of 362 surrogates rated an average of six principles as being extremely important in decision-making; 77.8% of surrogates selected a patient well-being principle as the most important, whereas only 21.1% selected a patient preferences principle. Advance directives were more common to the patient preferences group than the patient well-being group (61.3% vs. 44.9%; 95% CI: 1.01-3.18; p = 0.04), whereas having conversations with the patient about their health care preferences was not a significant predictor of surrogate group identity (81.3% vs. 67.4%; 95% CI: 0.39-1.14; p = 0.14). We found no differences between the two groups regarding surrogate anxiety, depression, or decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: While surrogates considered many factors, they focused more often on patient well-being than on patient preferences, in contravention of our current ethical framework. Surrogates more commonly prioritized patient preferences if they had advance directives available to them.
BACKGROUND: Many hospitalized adults do not have the capacity to make their own health care decisions and thus require a surrogate decision-maker. While the ethical standard suggests that decisions should focus on a patient's preferences, our study explores the principles that surrogates consider most important when making decisions for older hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine how frequently surrogate decision-makers prioritized patient preferences in decision-making and what factors may predict their doing so. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a secondary data analysis of a study conducted at three local hospitals that surveyed surrogate decision-makers for hospitalized patients 65 years of age and older. MAIN MEASURES: Surrogates rated the importance of 16 decision-making principles and selected the one that was most important. We divided the surrogates into two groups: those who prioritized patient preferences and those who prioritized patient well-being. We analyzed the two groups for differences in knowledge of patient preferences, presence of advance directives, and psychological outcomes. KEY RESULTS: A total of 362 surrogates rated an average of six principles as being extremely important in decision-making; 77.8% of surrogates selected a patient well-being principle as the most important, whereas only 21.1% selected a patient preferences principle. Advance directives were more common to the patient preferences group than the patient well-being group (61.3% vs. 44.9%; 95% CI: 1.01-3.18; p = 0.04), whereas having conversations with the patient about their health care preferences was not a significant predictor of surrogate group identity (81.3% vs. 67.4%; 95% CI: 0.39-1.14; p = 0.14). We found no differences between the two groups regarding surrogate anxiety, depression, or decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: While surrogates considered many factors, they focused more often on patient well-being than on patient preferences, in contravention of our current ethical framework. Surrogates more commonly prioritized patient preferences if they had advance directives available to them.
Entities:
Keywords:
aging; doctor–patient relationships; ethics; medical decision-making; patient preferences
Authors: Alexia M Torke; Greg A Sachs; Paul R Helft; Kianna Montz; Siu L Hui; James E Slaven; Christopher M Callahan Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Alexia M Torke; Patrick Monahan; Christopher M Callahan; Paul R Helft; Greg A Sachs; Lucia D Wocial; James E Slaven; Kianna Montz; Lev Inger; Emily S Burke Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer L Carnahan; Lev Inger; Robert S Young; James E Slaven; Alexia M Torke Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Douglas B White; Catherine L Hough; Derek M Jones; Jeremy M Kahn; Maren K Olsen; Carmen L Lewis; Laura C Hanson; Shannon S Carson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kristen E Pecanac; Roger L Brown; Jay Steingrub; Wendy Anderson; Michael A Matthay; Douglas B White Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-07-07
Authors: Brian M Bakke; Mariko A Feuz; Ryan D McMahan; Deborah E Barnes; Brookelle Li; Aiesha M Volow; Jana Powell; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Muhammad M Hammami; Kafa Abuhdeeb; Muhammad B Hammami; Sophia J S De Padua; Areej Al-Balkhi Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 2.652