Kelly C Vranas1,2,3,4, Wesley Plinke5, Donald Bourne6, Devan Kansagara1,7, Robert Y Lee8,9, Erin K Kross8,9, Christopher G Slatore1,2,4, Donald R Sullivan1,2,10. 1. Health Services Research & Development, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 3. Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA. 5. Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Portland, Oregon, USA. 6. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 8. Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 9. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 10. Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its widespread implementation, it is unclear whether Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) are safe and improve the delivery of care that patients desire. We sought to systematically review the influence of POLST on treatment intensity among patients with serious illness and/or frailty. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of POLST and similar programs using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO, from inception through February 28, 2020. We included adults with serious illness and/or frailty with life expectancy <1 year. Primary outcomes included place of death and receipt of high-intensity treatment (i.e., hospitalization in the last 30- and 90-days of life, ICU admission in the last 30-days of life, and number of care setting transitions in last week of life). RESULTS: Among 104,554 patients across 20 observational studies, 27,090 had POLST. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The mean age of POLST users was 78.7 years, 55.3% were female, and 93.0% were white. The majority of POLST users (55.3%) had orders for comfort measures only. Most studies showed that, compared to full treatment orders on POLST, treatment limitations were associated with decreased in-hospital death and receipt of high-intensity treatment, particularly in pre-hospital settings. However, in the acute care setting, a sizable number of patients likely received POLST-discordant care. The overall strength of evidence was moderate based on eight retrospective cohort studies of good quality that showed a consistent, similar direction of outcomes with moderate-to-large effect sizes. CONCLUSION: We found moderate strength of evidence that treatment limitations on POLST may reduce treatment intensity among patients with serious illness. However, the evidence base is limited and demonstrates potential unintended consequences of POLST. We identify several important knowledge gaps that should be addressed to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of POLST.
BACKGROUND: Despite its widespread implementation, it is unclear whether Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) are safe and improve the delivery of care that patients desire. We sought to systematically review the influence of POLST on treatment intensity among patients with serious illness and/or frailty. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of POLST and similar programs using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO, from inception through February 28, 2020. We included adults with serious illness and/or frailty with life expectancy <1 year. Primary outcomes included place of death and receipt of high-intensity treatment (i.e., hospitalization in the last 30- and 90-days of life, ICU admission in the last 30-days of life, and number of care setting transitions in last week of life). RESULTS: Among 104,554 patients across 20 observational studies, 27,090 had POLST. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The mean age of POLST users was 78.7 years, 55.3% were female, and 93.0% were white. The majority of POLST users (55.3%) had orders for comfort measures only. Most studies showed that, compared to full treatment orders on POLST, treatment limitations were associated with decreased in-hospital death and receipt of high-intensity treatment, particularly in pre-hospital settings. However, in the acute care setting, a sizable number of patients likely received POLST-discordant care. The overall strength of evidence was moderate based on eight retrospective cohort studies of good quality that showed a consistent, similar direction of outcomes with moderate-to-large effect sizes. CONCLUSION: We found moderate strength of evidence that treatment limitations on POLST may reduce treatment intensity among patients with serious illness. However, the evidence base is limited and demonstrates potential unintended consequences of POLST. We identify several important knowledge gaps that should be addressed to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of POLST.
Authors: Alexander K Smith; Ellen McCarthy; Ellen Weber; Irena Stijacic Cenzer; John Boscardin; Jonathan Fisher; Kenneth Covinsky Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Kelly C Vranas; Amber L Lin; Dana Zive; Susan W Tolle; Scott D Halpern; Christopher G Slatore; Craig Newgard; Robert Y Lee; Erin K Kross; Donald R Sullivan Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Robert Y Lee; Lyndia C Brumback; Seelwan Sathitratanacheewin; William B Lober; Matthew E Modes; Ylinne T Lynch; Corey I Ambrose; James Sibley; Kelly C Vranas; Donald R Sullivan; Ruth A Engelberg; J Randall Curtis; Erin K Kross Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kuldeep N Yadav; Nicole B Gabler; Elizabeth Cooney; Saida Kent; Jennifer Kim; Nicole Herbst; Adjoa Mante; Scott D Halpern; Katherine R Courtright Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 6.301
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 Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Mary Ersek; Anne Sales; Shimrit Keddem; Roman Ayele; Leah M Haverhals; Kate H Magid; Jennifer Kononowech; Andrew Murray; Joan G Carpenter; Mary Beth Foglia; Lucinda Potter; Jennifer McKenzie; Darlene Davis; Cari Levy Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2022-07-20
Authors: David S Zingmond; David Powell; Lee A Jennings; Jose J Escarce; Li-Jung Liang; Punam Parikh; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Amelia M Breyre; Haley Vertelney; Karl A Sporer; Glen Davenport; Eric D Issacs; Nicolaus W Glomb Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2022-03-17