Search

Completion of an advance care planning (ACP) process and/or an advance directive should result in patients receiving the care they desire at the end of life. However, three decades of research have shown that is just not the case. ACP has been a front runner in developing the science within palliative care. Some positive outcomes such as lowering levels of surrogate grief may be associated with ACP. Yet, it does not appear that further ACP research will ensure that seriously ill patients will get goal-concordant care. An unfortunate consequence of palliative care research and advocacy so far is the misguided notion of many hospital systems trying to solve their palliative care problems by only implementing an ACP initiative. At best, ACP is but one tool in the collective palliative care toolbox. New tools are needed. Given that we have finite resources, future research should focus more on tools to improve symptom management, better models of care, and systems that will ensure goal-concordant care that meet the needs of the population that the health care system is designed to meet.

BackgroundPhysician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms are used to document patient treatment preferences as medical orders. Prior research demonstrates that use of POLST alters medical treatments in a way that is consistent with the POLST orders. However, there are minimal data about the quality of POLST decisions, including whether they reflect the current preferences of well-informed patients.ObjectiveEvaluate the quality of POLST decisions.DesignChart abstraction; interviews.SubjectsNursing home residents and healthcare agents of incapacitated nursing home residents (n = 28).MeasurementsCharacteristics of the POLST conversation were assessed. Brief vignettes were used to assess knowledge about how POLST orders guide medical treatment. Current treatment preferences were elicited and compared with the patient's POLST orders to assess discordance.ResultsA majority (59%) of participants recognized the POLST form. Participants were generally accurate in their knowledge of how POLST orders guide treatment concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (68%), antibiotics (74%), and artificial nutrition (79%), but less so for medical interventions (50%). Current treatment preferences were initially discordant with one or more POLST orders for 64% (18/28) of participants, but half of these discordances were resolved with further discussion (e.g., participant agreed with the existing order). Discordance by treatment decision was as follows: CPR (7%), level of medical intervention (18%), antibiotics (21%), and artificial nutrition (11%).ConclusionsDiscordance between current preferences and POLST orders is complex. Interventions are needed to support high-quality POLST decisions that are informed and concordant with current preferences.