Directives Limiting Care in the Perianesthesia Setting: A Foucauldian Case Study Report

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this inquiry is to explore how adult patients with limiting directives, their families, and clinicians make decisions about resuscitative status during anesthesia. Although current practice guidelines recommend mandatory reconsideration of do not resuscitate and other limiting directives before anesthesia, the automatic suspension of directives limiting care continues in the adult perianesthesia setting. How patients and clinicians talk about these limiting directives is underexplored in the literature. DesignThis qualitative inquiry used the Foucauldian Poststructural Case Study Design. MethodsData were collected through interviews and observation of patients with existing advance directives who underwent surgery, family members, and perianesthesia clinicians who participated in their care. Contextualizing analysis, a qualitative methodology that fits well with Foucauldian Poststructural Case Study Design, was used to rigorously examine the data. FindingsTwenty-seven participants completed the observation and interview components of the study. Observation data were collected from an additional 18 participants. Four authoritative discourses that constructed choices available to patients and clinicians were identified. The “We’ll just suspend” discourse permeates perianesthesia culture and produces a will to suspend the limiting directive among clinicians. Discourses about lack of time, a desire not to talk about advance directives unless it is essential to care, and confusion about who is responsible for addressing the limiting directive were also identified in the case. In addition, patients had difficulty translating advance directive choices into the perianesthesia context, and this difficulty may be misunderstood by clinicians as agreement with the plan of care. Finally, power networks may sequester knowledge about patients' choices, leading to tension among clinicians and creating barriers to honoring patients’ advance directive choices. ConclusionsResults suggest that even where policies of mandatory advance directive reconsideration exist, patients may experience environments that constrain their choices and decision-making agency.