Preferences For Life-sustaining Treatments Research Articles

Life-sustaining treatment decisions and family evaluations of end-of-life care for Veteran decedents in Department of Veterans Affairs nursing homes.

Modeled after the Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment program, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented the Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Initiative to improve end-of-life outcomes by standardizing LST preference documentation for seriously ill Veterans. This study examined the associations between LST documentation and family evaluation of care in the final month of life for Veterans in VA nursing homes. Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data for decedents in VA nursing homes between July 1, 2018 and January 31, 2020 (N = 14,575). Regression modeling generated odds for key end-of-life outcomes and family ratings of care quality. LST preferences were documented for 12,928 (89%) of VA nursing home decedents. Contrary to our hypothesis, neither receipt of wanted medications and medical treatment (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63, 1.16) nor ratings of overall care in the last month of life (adjusted OR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.76, 1.22) differed significantly between those with and without completed LST templates in adjusted analyses. Among Community Living Center (CLC) decedents, 89% had documented LST preferences. No significant differences were observed in family ratings of care between Veterans with and without documentation of LST preferences. Interventions aimed at improving family ratings of end-of-life care quality in CLCs should not target LST documentation in isolation of other factors associated with higher family ratings of end-of-life care quality.

Urban people’s preferences for life-sustaining treatment or artificial nutrition and hydration in advance decisions

BackgroundThe Patient Right to Autonomy Act (PRAA), implemented in Taiwan in 2019, enables the creation of advance decisions (AD) through advance care planning (ACP). This legal framework allows for the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST) or artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in situations like irreversible coma, vegetative state, severe dementia, or unbearable pain. This study aims to investigate preferences for LST or ANH across various clinical conditions, variations in participant preferences, and factors influencing these preferences among urban residents.MethodsEmploying a survey of legally structured AD documents and convenience sampling for data collection, individuals were enlisted from Taipei City Hospital, serving as the primary trial and demonstration facility for ACP in Taiwan since the commencement of the PRAA in its inaugural year. The study examined ADs and ACP consultation records, documenting gender, age, welfare entitlement, disease conditions, family caregiving experience, location of ACP consultation, participation of second-degree relatives, and the intention to participate in ACP.ResultsData from 2337 participants were extracted from electronic records. There was high consistency in the willingness to refuse LST and ANH, with significant differences noted between terminal diseases and extremely severe dementia. Additionally, ANH was widely accepted as a time-limited treatment, and there was a prevalent trend of authorizing a health care agent (HCA) to make decisions on behalf of participants. Gender differences were observed, with females more inclined to decline LST and ANH, while males tended towards accepting full or time-limited treatment. Age also played a role, with younger participants more open to treatment and authorizing HCA, and older participants more prone to refusal.ConclusionDiverse preferences in LST and ANH were shaped by the public’s current understanding of different clinical states, gender, age, and cultural factors. Our study reveals nuanced end-of-life preferences, evolving ADs, and socio-demographic influences. Further research could explore evolving preferences over time and healthcare professionals’ perspectives on LST and ANH decisions for neurological patients..

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Serious Illness Conversation Quality during the COVID-19 Pandemic

ContextThe COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients. However, little is known about the quality of serious illness communication in these communities during this time. ObjectiveWe aimed to determine whether racial and ethnic disparities manifested in serious illness conversations during the pandemic. MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational, cohort study of adult patients with a documented serious illness conversation from March 2020 to April 2021. Serious illness conversation documentation quality was assessed by counting the median number (IQR) of conversation domains and their elements included in the documentation. Domains included (1) values and goals, (2) prognosis and illness understanding, (3) end-of-life care planning, and (4) life-sustaining treatment preferences. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between differences in serious illness documentation quality with patient race and ethnicity. ResultsAmong 291 patients, 149 (51.2%) were non-Hispanic White; 81 (27.8%) were non-Hispanic Black; and 61 (21.0%) were Hispanic patients. Non-Hispanic Black patients were associated with fewer domains (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.25, 0.84]; P=.01) included in their serious illness conversation documentation compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Both non-Hispanic Black (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.20, 0.62]; P<.001) and Hispanic patients (OR 0.29 [95% CI 0.14, 0.58]; P<.001) were associated with fewer elements in the values and goals domain compared to non-Hispanic White patients in their serious illness documentation. ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, serious illness conversation documentation among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients was less comprehensive compared to non-Hispanic White patients.

Measuring patients’ medical treatment preferences in advance care planning: development and validation of the Treat-Me-ACP instrument – a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

BackgroundAdvance Care Planning interventions should be evaluated as broadly as possible to gain a holistic understanding of the Advance Care Planning process. However, validated early stage outcome instruments are lacking. Therefore, the Treatment-Preference-Measure-Advance Care Planning (Treat-Me-ACP) instrument was developed and validated as part of the cluster-randomized controlled trial STADPLAN (Study on Advance Care Planning in care-dependent community-dwelling older persons) to assess the effects of Advance Care Planning interventions on patients’ medical treatment preferences.MethodsThe design of Treat-Me-ACP is based on the Emanuel Medical Directive and the Life Support Preferences Questionnaires. Using a multi-stage team approach a preliminary version of the Treat-Me-ACP was developed and pre-tested. The pre-tested instrument consists of one global medical care goal-item, five hypothetical scenarios with five hypothetical treatments, and one how would you feel-item within each scenario. A total of five scenario preference scores and five treatment preference scores can be formed. This version was subsequently applied to a subsample of the STADPLAN project (n = 80) to assess patient’s preferences at baseline (T0) and at 12-month follow-up (T2). The further validation steps were based on this subsample and included: (1) acceptance by using completion rate and frequencies of missing data, (2) internal consistency by using Cronbach’s α to test whether it was possible to create preference scores by scenario and treatment, (3) concurrent validation examining the association between the global medical care goal-item and the preference scores and the association between the how would you feel-items and the scenario preference scores, and (4) responsiveness of the instrument to changes in preferences for life-sustaining treatments by comparing preference scores from T0 to T2 between study groups.ResultsAcceptance of the instrument was high. Results of concurrent validation indicate that the five scenarios represent the global medical care goal well. The preference scores showed an average tendency for decreasing preferences for life-sustaining treatments across all scales for the intervention group during study follow-up.ConclusionsThe Treat-Me-ACP can be used to evaluate the dynamics of patients’ medical treatment preferences in Advance Care Planning. It has been validated for care-dependent community-dwelling older persons and can be used as an additional outcome measure in evaluating the effectiveness of ACP interventions.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016886 on 04/06/2019.

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Documentation of Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment in Hospitalized Adults

Portable Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms allow patients to codify their preferences for life-sustaining treatments across inpatient and outpatient settings. In 2019 only 29.5% of our hospitalized internal medicine patients with an inpatient do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order and no DNR POLST at admission discharged with a DNR POLST. This presented an opportunity to improve POLST completion and avoid undesired or inappropriate care after discharge. Using electronic health record (EHR) data, the authors identified hospitalized adults (age ≥ 50 years) admitted to an internal medicine service with a DNR order and discharged alive. Patient records were cross-referenced with the state's POLST registry for an active POLST form. Among patients with a missing or full-code POLST form at admission, the authors calculated the proportion with a DNR POLST form completed by discharge. These data were tracked over time with control charts to detect performance shifts following three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles over 34 months, which included a single educational training on electronic POLST navigation, an EHR discharge navigator notification, and quarterly e-mailed individualized performance reports. The study population (N = 387) was 55.0% male and predominately non-Hispanic white (80.9%). Patients discharging to a skilled nursing facility or hospice were three times more likely to discharge with a DNR POLST compared to patients discharging home. Overall, the proportion of DNR POLST forms completed by discharge increased from 0.36 to 0.60 after three PDSA cycles (p < 0.001). This quality improvement initiative demonstrated improved POLST form completion rates in a target population of adults at elevated risk for readmission and death.

The Use of Templates for Documenting Advance Care Planning Conversations: A Descriptive Analysis.

While professional societies and expert panels have recommended quality indicators related to advance care planning (ACP) documentation, including using structured documentation templates, it is unclear how clinicians document these conversations. To explore how clinicians document ACP, specifically, which components of these conversations are documented. A codebook was developed based on existing frameworks for ACP conversations and documentation. ACP documentation from a hospital medicine quality improvement project conducted from November 2019 to April 2021 were included and assessed. Documentation was examined for the presence or absence of each component within the coding schema. Clinician documented ACP using three different note types: template (only template prompts were used), template plus (authors added additional text to the template), and free text only. ACP note components were analyzed by note type and author department. A total of 182 ACP notes were identified and reviewed. The most common note type was template plus (58%), followed by free text (28%) and template (14%). The most frequent components across all note types were: important relationships to patient (92%), and discussion of life-sustaining treatment preferences (87%). There was considerable heterogeneity in the components across note types. The presence of components focused on treatment decisions and legal paperwork differed significantly between note types (P < 0.05). Components on preference for medical information, emotional state, or spiritual support were rarely included across all note types. This study provides a preliminary exploration of ACP documentation and found that templates may influence what information is documented after an ACP conversation.

Barriers and facilitators to goals of care conversations with Veteran residents of community nursing homes.

Despite evidence that structured goals of care conversations (GoCCs) and documentation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) preferences improve the delivery of goal-concordant care for seriously ill patients, rates of completion remain low among nursing home residents. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) program aims to improve the consistent documentation of LST preferences among Veterans receiving care in veterans affairs (VA)-paid community nursing homes (CNH); however, the barriers and facilitators of completing and documenting GoCCs in this unique context of care have not been described. We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders of the VA CNH programs located at six VA Medical Centers between July 2021 and July 2022. With a rapid approach to analysis, interview transcripts were reduced into memo templates using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease Checklist and coded and analyzed using qualitative data analysis software. The 40 participants consisted of nurses (n = 13), social workers (n = 25), and VA physicians (n = 2). Most participants felt confident about conducting GoCC; however, several barriers were identified. At the staff level, our results indicated inconsistent completion of GoCC and documentation due to a lack of training, confusion about roles and responsibilities, and challenging communication within the VA as well as with CNH. At the organizational level, there was a lack of standardization across sites for how LST preferences were documented. At the patient level, we found key barriers related to patient and family readiness and issues finding surrogate decision makers. While COVID-19 brought end-of-life issues to the forefront, lockdowns hindered communication about the goals of care. Findings from this pre-implementation evaluation revealed multi-level barriers in conducting and documenting GoCCs with Veterans receiving VA-paid CNH care, as well as several facilitators that can be used to inform strategies for improvement.

The effect of an integrated palliative care intervention on quality of life and acute healthcare use in patients with COPD: Results of the COMPASSION cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. Setting: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. Participants: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. Results: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: −5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.03). Conclusions: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings.

Preferences and Attitudes Towards Life-Sustaining Treatments of Older Chinese Patients and Their Family Caregivers.

The family plays a major role in medical decision-making in China. Little is known about whether family caregivers understand patients' preference for receiving life-sustaining treatments and are able to make decisions consistent with them when patients are incapable of making medical decisions. We aimed to compare preferences and attitudes concerning life-sustaining treatments of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers. We conducted a cross-sectional study among 150 dyads of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers from four communities in Zhengzhou. We measured preferences for life-sustaining treatments (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, tube feeding, hemodialysis, chemotherapy), who should decide, the timing of making decisions, and their most important consideration. The consistency of preferences for life-sustaining treatments between patients and family caregivers was poor to fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.071 for mechanical ventilation to 0.241 for chemotherapy. Family caregivers more frequently preferred each life-sustaining treatment for the patients than the patients themselves. More family caregivers than patients preferred the patient to make their own decisions about life-sustaining treatments (29% of patients and 44% of family caregivers). The most important considerations when deciding on life-sustaining treatments are family burden and the patient's comfort and state of consciousness. There is a poor to fair consistency between community-dwelling older patients and their family caregivers in their preferences and attitudes towards life-sustaining treatments. A minority of patients and family caregivers preferred that patients make their own medical decisions. We recommend healthcare professionals to encourage discussions between patients and their families on future care to improve the mutual understanding within the family about medical decision-making.

The care planning umbrella: The evolution of advance care planning.

The care planning umbrella: The evolution of advance care planning.

DO DIFFERENT ADVANCE DIRECTIVES CREATE CONFUSION ON A PATIENT'S WISHES? (MOLST VERSUS FIVE WISHES)

Abstract Introduction. The objective of this study is to compare perspectives of young adults toward advance directives (ADs) and their preferences for life-sustaining treatment and care options. Methods. Participants include graduate students (n=30) attending a New York State university. Data were collected using a structured survey questionnaire, the Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form and the Five Wishes form. Summary statistics were performed to address the study aim. Results. Of the participants, the average age was 24 years (60% were female, 60% White, and 27% Black). In Five Wishes, participants who are close to death, 70% wanted all or some forms of life support; when in a coma (47%), or with permanent and severe brain damage (36.6%) chose similar options. In MOLST, without pulse and/or breathing, 87% want CPR; while with pulse and breathing, 96% want artificially administered fluids and nutrition, 90% want mechanical ventilation, 67% want to be hospitalized, 67% want antibiotics, and 53% want unlimited interventions. Conclusion. (1) The majority of participants had not previously completed an AD; however, they were capable of making decisions about their life-sustaining treatments. (2) The discrepancies in treatment preferences may be due to the language of advance directives. Further studies in this respect are warranted.

Abstract 14629: Predictive Model Testing for Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions at the End-of-Life: Applying Machine Learning Methods

Introduction: Predictive models of factors affecting decisions about life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) have been frequently examined, but the accuracy and precision of those models remain elusive. Machine learning algorithms (MLAs) may help identify the best model in terms of its performance measures. Objectives: To determine the best MLA to predict LST preferences (cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], ventilation support, and hemodialysis, and hospice care). Methods: In this secondary analysis, three MLA-based prediction models of LST preferences, including seven known predictors, were developed based on random forest (RF), logistics regression (LR), and linear support vector machine (SVM), and were evaluated by a five-fold validation set comprising accuracy, precision, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, recall, and F1 score. Results: Among 375 adults with malignancy or non-malignancy diseases or healthy adults, 23.2% preferred CPR, 17.9% ventilation support, 19.2% hemodialysis, and 60.8% hospice care. Compared to RF and LR, SVM was the most accurate and precise model to predict each preference of CPR (0.78 vs. 0.85; 0.15-0.44 vs. 0.75, respectively), ventilation support (0.84 vs. 0.88; 0.00-0.10 vs. 0.89, respectively), hemodialysis (0.82 vs. 0.84; 0.33-0.54 vs. 0.69, respectively), and hospice care (0.64-0.68 vs. 0.85; 0.65-0.70 vs. 0.84, respectively). In the models, age, attitudes toward advance directives, and susceptibility to end-of-life care were reported as common predictors with relatively high importance on LST preferences (Table 1). Conclusions: SVM was the best model in identifying predictors of LST preferences in people with or without chronic diseases. In addition, the findings suggest important targets of interventions, including attitudes toward advance directives, and susceptibility to end-of-life care, to assist people to make the best decisions for their future medical care.

Advance Care Directive Preferences in Women Veterans: A Snapshot.

Prior research characterizes mainly male veteran preferences at end of life using the Veterans Administration Advance Directive (VA AD), there has been no specific studies focusing on women veteran's preferences concerning whether the AD is to be strictly (S) followed or to serve as a general guide (G). The purpose of this study was to describe women veteran preferences for life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in various illness situations to assist providers in discussing end-of-life decisions. Additionally, we compared previously published LST preferences of male veterans with the study's sample. Using a descriptive retrospective approach, data was collected from 484 women veterans ADs between January 2010 and December 2019. Findings revealed that women tended to trend in the same direction as men, preferring to have advance directives serve as general guidance over being strictly followed. Unconscious/Coma/Vegetative was the only factor that was statistically significant for affecting the choice of following the AD.

Reasons for Discordance Between Life-Sustaining Treatment Preferences and Medical Orders in Nursing Facilities Without POLST.

Life-sustaining treatment (LST) orders are important communication tools used to ensure preference-concordant care at the end of life. Recent studies reveal concerning rates of discordance between current preferences and documented LST orders, especially in nursing facilities without POLST. Reasons for discordance in facilities using POLST have been explored, however the majority of nursing facilities in the United States do not yet use the POLST form. Qualitative descriptive study using constant comparative analysis. Nursing facilities in Indiana (n = 6) not using POLST. Residents (n = 15) and surrogate decision-makers of residents without decisional capacity (n = 15) with discordance between current preferences and documented LST orders. Do not resuscitate, do not hospitalize (DNH), and do not intubate (DNI) orders were extracted from medical charts. Current preferences were elicited using the Respecting Choices Advanced Steps model. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore reasons for discordance between current preferences and LST orders. Reasons for discordance included: (1) inadequate information about the range of available LST options, what each involves, and how to formally communicate preferences; (2) no previous discussion with facility staff; (3) no documentation of previously expressed preferences; and (4) family involvement. Reasons for discordance between expressed preferences and LST orders suggest that in facilities without a uniform and systematic LST order documentation strategy like POLST, these conversations may not occur and/or be documented. Staff should be aware that residents and surrogates may have preferences about LSTs that require strategic solicitation and documentation.

Applying the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework to inform implementation of the Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through enhanced decision-making program in the United States Veterans Health Administration.

In 2017, the National Center for Ethics in Health Care for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) commenced national roll-out of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative. This national VA initiative aimed to promote personalized, proactive, patient-driven care for seriously ill Veterans by documenting Veterans' goals and preferences for life-sustaining treatments in a durable electronic health record note template known as the life-sustaining treatment template. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) quality improvement program was created to address the high variation in life-sustaining treatment template completion in VA Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and Community Nursing Home programs. This manuscript describes the program that focuses on improving life sustaining treatment template completion rates amongst HBPC programs. To increase life-sustaining treatment template completion for Veterans receiving care from HBPC programs, the PERSIVED team applies two implementation strategies: audit with feedback and implementation facilitation. The PERSIVED team conducts semi-structured interviews, needs assessments, and process mapping with HBPC programs in order to identify barriers and facilitators to life-sustaining treatment template completion to inform tailored facilitation. Our interview data is analyzed using the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework, which identifies 57 determinants that might influence practice or implementation of interventions. To quickly synthesize and use baseline data to inform the tailored implementation plan, we adapted a rapid analysis process for our purposes. This paper describes a six-step process for conducting and analyzing baseline interviews through applying the TICD that can be applied and adapted by implementation scientists to rapidly inform tailoring of implementation facilitation.

Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED): a protocol for an implementation study in the Veterans Health Administration

BackgroundEmpirical evidence supports the use of structured goals of care conversations and documentation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) preferences in durable, accessible, and actionable orders to improve the care for people living with serious illness. As the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides an excellent environment to test implementation strategies that promote this evidence-based practice. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) program seeks to improve care outcomes for seriously ill Veterans by supporting efforts to conduct goals of care conversations, systematically document LST preferences, and ensure timely and accurate communication about preferences across VA and non-VA settings.MethodsPERSIVED encompasses two separate but related implementation projects that support the same evidence-based practice. Project 1 will enroll 12 VA Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) programs and Project 2 will enroll six VA Community Nursing Home (CNH) programs. Both projects begin with a pre-implementation phase during which data from diverse stakeholders are gathered to identify barriers and facilitators to adoption of the LST evidence-based practice. This baseline assessment is used to tailor quality improvement activities using audit with feedback and implementation facilitation during the implementation phase. Site champions serve as the lynchpin between the PERSIVED project team and site personnel. PERSIVED teams support site champions through monthly coaching sessions. At the end of implementation, baseline site process maps are updated to reflect new steps and procedures to ensure timely conversations and documentation of treatment preferences. During the sustainability phase, intense engagement with champions ends, at which point champions work independently to maintain and improve processes and outcomes. Ongoing process evaluation, guided by the RE-AIM framework, is used to monitor Reach, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance outcomes. Effectiveness will be assessed using several endorsed clinical metrics for seriously ill populations.DiscussionThe PERSIVED program aims to prevent potentially burdensome LSTs by consistently eliciting and documenting values, goals, and treatment preferences of seriously ill Veterans. Working with clinical operational partners, we will apply our findings to HBPC and CNH programs throughout the national VA healthcare system during a future scale-out period.

Socio-Demographic Factors Affecting the Elderly's Preference for Life-Sustaining Treatment: Based on the 2017 National Survey of Older Koreans

Socio-Demographic Factors Affecting the Elderly's Preference for Life-Sustaining Treatment: Based on the 2017 National Survey of Older Koreans

Surgeon-reported Factors Influencing Adoption of Quality Standards for Goal-concordant Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

This study explored surgical oncologists' perspectives on factors influencing adoption of quality standards in patients with advanced cancer. The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program includes communication standards designed to facilitate goal-concordant care, yet little is known about how surgeons believe these standards align with clinical practice. Semistructured video-based interviews were conducted from November 2020 to January 2021 with academic surgical oncologists purposively sampled based on demographics, region, palliative care certification, and years in practice. Interviews addressed: (1) adherence to standards documenting care preferences for life-sustaining treatment, surrogate decision-maker, and goals of surgery; and (2) factors influencing their adoption into practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, qualitatively analyzed, and conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Twenty-six surgeons participated (57.7% male, 8.5 mean years in practice, 19.2% palliative care board-certified). Surgeons reported low adherence to documenting care preferences and surrogate decision-maker and high adherence to discussing, but not documenting, goals of surgery. Participants held conflicting views about the relevance of care preferences to preoperative conversations and surrogate decision-maker documentation by the surgeon and questioned the direct connection between documentation of quality standards and higher value patient care. Key themes regarding factors influencing adoption of quality standards included organizational culture, workflow, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Although surgeons routinely discuss goals of surgery, documentation is inconsistent; care preferences and surrogate decision-makers are rarely discussed or documented. Adherence to these standards would be facilitated by multidisciplinary collaboration, institutional standardization, and evidence linking standards to higher value care.

Heart to Heart Discussions: Characterizing Goals of Care Conversations for Advanced Heart Failure Patients Initiating Palliative Inotropes

BackgroundGuidelines recommend goals of care conversations (GOCC) and specialty palliative care at the time of initiation of palliative inotropes for patients with advanced heart failure. The extent to which GOCC are occurring, the content of the GOCC, and the frequency of palliative care involvement is unknown. Methods and ResultsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients discharged from a tertiary medical center between October 2015 and April 2020 initiated on continuous palliative inotropes. We identified 53 patients who were discharged on continuous palliative inotropes. Most patients (46/53 [87%]) had a documented GOCC, including discussions around preferences for life-sustaining treatments, hospice, and/or prognosis. However, just more than one-half of the patients (55% [15/27]) with an ICD had a documented discussion regarding preferences for ICD deactivation. Patients seen by palliative care were more likely to have a documented discussion about ICD deactivation (68% vs 0%, P = .0098). The frequency of palliative care consultation and documented GOCC conversations increased over time. ConclusionsAlthough we observed overall high rates of documented GOCC, there is room for improving the rate of discussions with patients about whether they wish to have their ICD deactivated. Future research should test interventions to improve the frequency of ICD discussions.

Advance Care Planning-further development of the patient advance directive : What the specialist in internal medicine must know

Trotz der zur Verfügung stehenden Vorsorgeinstrumente Patientenverfügung, Vorsorgevollmacht und Betreuungsverfügung ist der Behandlungswille des Patienten in der konkreten Situation oft nicht in handlungsleitender Weise bekannt. Ziele des systemisch angelegten Konzepts „Behandlung im Voraus Planen“ – advance care planning, sind die Ermittlung, Dokumentation und Umsetzung des Behandlungswillens des Patienten für den Fall, dass er selbst nicht (mehr) rechtsverbindlich über seine Behandlung entscheiden kann. Auf der individuellen Ebene unterstützt ein speziell geschulter Gesprächsbegleiter zunächst bei der Formulierung der Einstellungen zu Leben, schwerer Erkrankung und Sterben. Darauf aufbauend können die Behandlungswünsche für verschiedene medizinische Situationen besprochen und z. B. in einer Patientenverfügung dokumentiert werden. Hierzu gehören der Notfall, die Situation im Krankenhaus bei unklarer Dauer der Einwilligungsunfähigkeit und die Situation bei dauerhaftem Verlust der Einwilligungsfähigkeit. Durch achtsame, nichtdirektive Gesprächsführung im Sinne einer gemeinsamen Entscheidungsfindung („shared decision making“) wird der Vorausplanende befähigt, gut informiert und reflektiert zu entscheiden („informed consent“). Die an den zukünftigen Behandlungsentscheidungen beteiligten Personen, insbesondere der zukünftige Vertreter, werden möglichst frühzeitig einbezogen. Die institutionelle und regionale Implementierung des Konzepts fördert die Umsetzung des auf diese Weise ermittelten und wirksam dokumentierten Patientenwillens in der gesamten Versorgungskette. Durch den neuen § 132 g SGB V, der den Einrichtungen der stationären Altenhilfe und der Eingliederungshilfe ermöglicht, Behandlung im Voraus Planen zulasten der GKV anzubieten, ist eine zunehmende Verbreitung des Konzepts zu erwarten.Zusatzmaterial onlineDie Online-Version dieses Beitrags (10.1007/s00108-022-01333-9) enthält die Muster-Patientenverfügungen der DiV-BVP „Einstellung zu Leben, schwere Krankheit und Sterben“ und „Ärztliche Anordnung für den Notfall“ (© Deutsche interprofessionelle Vereinigung Behandlung im Voraus Planen e.V. (DiV-BVP), Frankfurt am Main, www.div-bvp.de).