The Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Paradigm is designed to improve end-of-life care by converting patients’ treatment preferences into medical orders that are transferable throughout the health care system. It was initially developed in Oregon, but is now implemented in multiple states with many others considering its use. Accordingly, an observational study was conducted in order to identify potential legal barriers to the implementation of a POLST Paradigm. Information was obtained from experts at state emergency medical services and long-term care (...) organizations/agencies in combination with a review of relevant state law. Legal analysis of survey responses and existing laws identified several potential state legal barriers to a POLST Paradigm implementation. The most potentially problematic barriers are detailed statutory specifications for out-of-hospital DNR protocols. Other potential barriers include limitations on the authority to consent to forgo life-sustaining treatments, medical preconditions, and witnessing requirements for out-of-hospital DNR protocols. (shrink)

Objective: To measure the stability of life-sustaining treatment preferences amongst older people and analyse the factors that influence stability. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Primary care centres, Granada (Spain). Eighty-five persons age 65 years or older. Participants filled out a questionnaire with six contexts of illness (LSPQ-e). They had to decide whether or not to receive treatment. Participants completed the questionnaire at baseline and 18 months later. Results: 86 percent of the patients did not change preferences. Sex, age, marital status, (...) hospitalisation, and self-perception of health and pain did not affect preferences. Morbidity and the death of a relative did. Conclusion: Stability of preferences of older persons in relation to end-of-life decisions seems to be more probable than instability. Some factors, such as the death of a relative or the increase in morbidity, can change preferences. These findings have implications for advance directives (ADs) and advance care planning. (shrink)

Spain is one of the most advanced European countries in terms of the legislative and administrative development of ADs. Article 11 of Law 41/2002, concerning Patient Autonomy, regulates ‘advance directives’ and has prompted various Autonomous Regions to develop legislation in this area. Nevertheless, whilst the variety of legislations in different territories presents advantages, the disparity of criteria also presents problems.Despite significant legislative development, only 23,000 Spanish citizens have filled in an AD. Clearly, AD use is confined to a minority. Several (...) surveys, however, show that the Spanish population views these documents in a positive light. Thus, we must analyse this discrepancy between attitude and practice. A similar situation exists amongst health professionals. Whilst they generally feel that the use of ADs is positive and necessary, they are frequently unwilling to employ them.Bioethical literature and research on ADs has significantly increased in Spain over the last six years. It is likely that this trend will continue in the foreseeable future; but more resources and effort are required if ADs are to become consolidated. (shrink)

BackgroundMedia have increasingly reported on the difficulties associated with end-of-life decision-making in patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DOC), contextualizing such dilemma in detailed accounts of the patient’s life. Two of the first stories debated in the scientific community were those related to the cases of two women, one American, the other Italian, who captured attention of millions of people in the first years of this third millennium.MethodsMuch has been written about the challenges of surrogate decision-making for patients in DOC, but (...) less has been written comparing these challenges across legal systems and cultures. In our paper, we propose a systematic analysis of the final legal documents written by the American and Italian Courts in relation to the two cases, developing our discussion around three areas: the level of certainty/reliability of diagnosis and prognosis, the reconstruction of self-expression, time of illness and time of care. They are examples of the typical issues discussed by legal authors and allow us to understand the link and the difference between the legal and ethical perspectives.ResultsThe legal approach to the two cases has some common elements: the need to be certain about the diagnosis and prognosis and the fact that the clinical criteria are necessary in determining the most appropriate treatments, although these criteria are not sufficient unless they are supplemented by the patient’s will. The issue of relations takes on importance both from a legal and an ethical point of view, but from two different perspectives. While ethics safeguards relationships by guaranteeing their differences and makes them reconcilable, law safeguards relationships by guaranteeing the cold forms of respect, equality, impartiality, symmetry, reciprocity, and irreversibility. In this perspective, the link between the time of care and the decision of the family members assumes importance.ConclusionsThe most interesting point that emerges from our analysis is the issue of relationships and how they affect decisions, both from a legal and ethical point of view. For this reason, during the patients’ hospitalization, it is necessary to identify ways in which they might give their opinion about the moral issues underlying their choices. (shrink)

If engaging in end of life conversations and advance care planning not only is desired by many Americans but also might significantly improve patient care at the end of life, then why was a provision that provided reimbursement for physicians to engage in end of life planning through Medicare removed from legislation? If, as some researchers have suggested, reimbursements under Medicare “would have been a start” for encouraging these conversations, then why was the Advance Care Planning Consultation provision in the (...) 2008 health reform effort so vehemently opposed by politicians and citizens alike? The heated and misleading rhetoric employed against the ACPC undoubtedly contributed to intractable polarization surrounding this portion of the health reform bill and assured its failure. But the ACPC's emphasis on “checklists” and regulation may also have served as fodder for these fiery critiques. If that's right, legislation that focuses squarely on the broader and more fundamental goals of end of life consultations and deemphasizes administrative and documentary concerns may have a greater chance for success in years to come, as health reform is implemented and the battle over the ACPC fades from memory. (shrink)

The accuracy of proxies when they interpret advance directives or apply substituted decision-making criteria has been called into question. It therefore became important to know if the Andalusian Advance Directive Form (AADF) can help to increase the accuracy of proxies' predictions. The aim of this research was to compare the effect of the AADF on the accuracy of proxies' predictions about patients' preferences with that gained from informative and deliberative sessions about end-of-life decision making. A total of 171 pairs of (...) patients and their proxies were randomized to three groups. The control group's answers to the Life Sustaining Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ) were compared with their proxies' answers to the same questionnaire. In one intervention group, the patients had already completed the AADF and given it to their proxies, who used it to guide their own answers to the LSPQ. In the second intervention (discussion) group, both patients and proxies attended two educative sessions guided by trained nurses and later filled in the LSPQ. Comparisons of accuracy and other variables showed a strong association with the discussion group. The findings show that promoting communication between patients and their proxies improves the accuracy of proxies' predictions much more than isolated use of the AADF form. (shrink)

The accuracy of proxies when they interpret advance directives or apply substituted decision-making criteria has been called into question. It therefore became important to know if the Andalusian Advance Directive Form (AADF) can help to increase the accuracy of proxies' predictions. The aim of this research was to compare the effect of the AADF on the accuracy of proxies' predictions about patients' preferences with that gained from informative and deliberative sessions about end-of-life decision making. A total of 171 pairs of (...) patients and their proxies were randomized to three groups. The control group's answers to the Life Sustaining Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ) were compared with their proxies' answers to the same questionnaire. In one intervention group, the patients had already completed the AADF and given it to their proxies, who used it to guide their own answers to the LSPQ. In the second intervention (discussion) group, both patients and proxies attended two educative sessions guided by trained nurses and later filled in the LSPQ. Comparisons of accuracy and other variables showed a strong association with the discussion group. The findings show that promoting communication between patients and their proxies improves the accuracy of proxies' predictions much more than isolated use of the AADF form. (shrink)

Since the concept of the living wills emerged nearly 50 years ago, there have been practical challenges in translating the concept of an advance directive into documents that are clinically useful across various healthcare settings and among different patient populations and cultures. Especially, challenging has been the reliance in most ADs on pre-selected “choices” about specific interventions which either revolve around broad themes or whether or not to utilize particular interventions, both of which about most laypersons know little and, more (...) importantly, lacking context, prove to be of limited meaningfulness. Moreover, whether by foundational frame, decade-long misunderstanding in medicine and bioethics, or different societal customs, these ADs present decision-making responsibility for initiating, continuing, or withdrawing medical interventions as a patient responsibility—creating a burden for which most patients are unprepared—and hence reducing healthcare providers’ responsibility to mere technical application or customer service. At our institution, significant efforts have focused on embracing the unique and complementary responsibilities of patients and physicians for enabling appropriate plans of care. This includes re-structuring our AD form to more accurately represent patient’s values as the frame within which physicians are responsible for determining appropriate care. Rather than specifying interventions, the AD makes patients responsible for specifying what matters to them as well as what they value in terms of function, interaction, and level of acceptable burden, thus providing clear goals for clinicians to pursue—or when goals are not reachable by available medical interventions, to acknowledge and allow for logical shifts to what may be achieved, including, in end of life contexts, care focused on respect and dignity. (shrink)