Susan E Hickman1,2,3,4, Alexia M Torke2,3,4, Greg A Sachs2,3,4, Rebecca L Sudore5, Qing Tang6,7, Giorgos Bakoyannis6,7, Nicholette Heim Smith1, Anne L Myers1, Bernard J Hammes8. 1. Department of Community & Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 2. Research in Palliative and End-of-Life Communication & Training (RESPECT) Signature Center, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 4. Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 5. Division of Geriatrics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 7. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 8. A Division of C-TAC Innovations, Respecting Choices, La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: POLST is widely used to document the treatment preferences of nursing facility residents as orders, but it is unknown how well previously completed POLST orders reflect current preferences (concordance) and what factors are associated with concordance. OBJECTIVES: To describe POLST preference concordance and identify factors associated with concordance. DESIGN: Chart reviews to document existing POLST orders and interviews to elicit current treatment preferences. SETTING: POLST-using nursing facilities (n = 29) in Indiana. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing facility residents (n = 123) and surrogates of residents without decisional capacity (n = 152). MEASUREMENTS: Concordance was determined by comparing existing POLST orders for resuscitation, medical interventions, and artificial nutrition with current treatment preferences. Comfort-focused POLSTs contained orders for do not resuscitate, comfort measures, and no artificial nutrition. RESULTS: Overall, 55.7% (123/221) of residents and 44.7% (152/340) of surrogates participated (total n = 275). POLST concordance was 44%, but concordance was higher for comfort-focused POLSTs (68%) than for non-comfort-focused POLSTs (27%) (p < 0.001). In the unadjusted analysis, increasing resident age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p < 0.01), better cognitive functioning (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p < 0.01), surrogate as the decision-maker (OR 2.87, OR 1.73-4.75, p < 0.001), and comfort-focused POLSTs (OR 6.01, 95% CI 3.29-11.00, p < 0.01) were associated with concordance. In the adjusted multivariable model, only having an existing comfort-focused POLST was associated with higher odds of POLST concordance (OR 5.28, 95% CI 2.59-10.73, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of all POLST forms were concordant with current preferences, but POLST was over five times as likely to be concordant when orders reflected preferences for comfort-focused care. Findings suggest a clear need to improve the quality of POLST use in nursing facilities and focus its use among residents with stable, comfort-focused preferences.
BACKGROUND: POLST is widely used to document the treatment preferences of nursing facility residents as orders, but it is unknown how well previously completed POLST orders reflect current preferences (concordance) and what factors are associated with concordance. OBJECTIVES: To describe POLST preference concordance and identify factors associated with concordance. DESIGN: Chart reviews to document existing POLST orders and interviews to elicit current treatment preferences. SETTING: POLST-using nursing facilities (n = 29) in Indiana. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing facility residents (n = 123) and surrogates of residents without decisional capacity (n = 152). MEASUREMENTS: Concordance was determined by comparing existing POLST orders for resuscitation, medical interventions, and artificial nutrition with current treatment preferences. Comfort-focused POLSTs contained orders for do not resuscitate, comfort measures, and no artificial nutrition. RESULTS: Overall, 55.7% (123/221) of residents and 44.7% (152/340) of surrogates participated (total n = 275). POLST concordance was 44%, but concordance was higher for comfort-focused POLSTs (68%) than for non-comfort-focused POLSTs (27%) (p < 0.001). In the unadjusted analysis, increasing resident age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p < 0.01), better cognitive functioning (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p < 0.01), surrogate as the decision-maker (OR 2.87, OR 1.73-4.75, p < 0.001), and comfort-focused POLSTs (OR 6.01, 95% CI 3.29-11.00, p < 0.01) were associated with concordance. In the adjusted multivariable model, only having an existing comfort-focused POLST was associated with higher odds of POLST concordance (OR 5.28, 95% CI 2.59-10.73, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of all POLST forms were concordant with current preferences, but POLST was over five times as likely to be concordant when orders reflected preferences for comfort-focused care. Findings suggest a clear need to improve the quality of POLST use in nursing facilities and focus its use among residents with stable, comfort-focused preferences.
Authors: Kathleen T Unroe; Erin O'Kelly Phillips; Shannon Effler; Mary T Ersek; Susan E Hickman Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Rebecca L Sudore; C Seth Landefeld; Brie A Williams; Deborah E Barnes; Karla Lindquist; Dean Schillinger Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Bernard J Hammes; Brenda L Rooney; Jacob D Gundrum; Susan E Hickman; Nickijo Hager Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Susan E Hickman; Bernard J Hammes; Alexia M Torke; Rebecca L Sudore; Greg A Sachs Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 2.947
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: Neil S Wenger; Judy Citko; Kate O'Malley; Allison Diamant; Karl Lorenz; Victor Gonzalez; Derjung M Tarn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Susan E Hickman; Alexia M Torke; Greg A Sachs; Rebecca L Sudore; Qing Tang; Giorgos Bakoyannis; Nicholette Heim Smith; Anne L Myers; Bernard J Hammes Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kelly C Vranas; Wesley Plinke; Donald Bourne; Devan Kansagara; Robert Y Lee; Erin K Kross; Christopher G Slatore; Donald R Sullivan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Lee A Jennings; Neil S Wenger; Li-Jung Liang; Punam Parikh; David Powell; Jose J Escarce; David Zingmond Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 7.538