Search

BackgroundPOLST is widely used to document the treatment preferences of nursing facility residents as orders, but it is unknown how well previously completed POLST orders reflect current preferences (concordance) and what factors are associated with concordance.ObjectivesTo describe POLST preference concordance and identify factors associated with concordance.DesignChart reviews to document existing POLST orders and interviews to elicit current treatment preferences.SettingPOLST-using nursing facilities (n = 29) in Indiana.ParticipantsNursing facility residents (n = 123) and surrogates of residents without decisional capacity (n = 152).MeasurementsConcordance was determined by comparing existing POLST orders for resuscitation, medical interventions, and artificial nutrition with current treatment preferences. Comfort-focused POLSTs contained orders for do not resuscitate, comfort measures, and no artificial nutrition.ResultsOverall, 55.7% (123/221) of residents and 44.7% (152/340) of surrogates participated (total n = 275). POLST concordance was 44%, but concordance was higher for comfort-focused POLSTs (68%) than for non-comfort-focused POLSTs (27%) (p

BackgroundThe reasons for discordance between advance care planning (ACP) documentation and current preferences are not well understood. The POLST form offers a unique opportunity to learn about the reasons for discordance and concordance that has relevance for POLST as well as ACP generally.DesignQualitative descriptive including constant comparative analysis within and across cases.SettingTwenty-six nursing facilities in Indiana.ParticipantsResidents (n = 36) and surrogate decision-makers of residents without decisional capacity (n = 37).MeasurementsA semi-structured interview guide was used to explore the reasons for discordance or concordance between current preferences and existing POLST forms.FindingsReasons for discordance include: (1) problematic nursing facility practices related to POLST completion; (2) missing key information about POLST treatment decisions; (3) deferring to others; and (4) changes over time. Some participants were unable to explain the discordance due to a lack of insight or inability to remember details of the original POLST conversation. Explanations for concordance include: (1) no change in the resident's medical condition and/or the resident is unlikely to improve; (2) use of the substituted judgment standard for surrogate decision-making; and (3) fixed opinion about what is "right" with little to no insight.ConclusionParticipant explanations for discordance between existing POLST orders and current preferences highlight the importance of adequate structures and processes to support high quality ACP in nursing facilities. Residents with stable or poor health may be more appropriate candidates for POLST than residents with a less clear prognosis, though preferences should be revisited periodically as well as when there is a change in condition to help ensure existing documentation is concordant with current treatment preferences.

BackgroundFailure to deliver care near the end of life that reflects the needs, values and preferences of patients with advanced cancer remains a major shortcoming of our cancer care delivery system.MethodsA mixed-methods comparative effectiveness trial of in-person advance care planning (ACP) discussions versus web-based ACP is currently underway at oncology practices in Western Pennsylvania. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers are invited to enroll. Participants are randomized to either (1) in-person ACP discussions via face-to-face visits with a nurse facilitator following the Respecting Choices® Conversation Guide or (2) web-based ACP using the PREPARE for your care™ web-based ACP tool. The trial compares the effect of these two interventions on patient and family caregiver outcomes (engagement in ACP, primary outcome; ACP discussions; advance directive (AD) completion; quality of end-of-life (EOL) care; EOL goal attainment; caregiver psychological symptoms; healthcare utilization at EOL) and assesses implementation costs. Factors influencing ACP effectiveness are assessed via in-depth interviews with patients, caregivers and clinicians.DiscussionThis trial will provide new and much-needed empirical evidence about two patient-facing ACP approaches that successfully overcome limitations of traditional written advance directives but entail very different investments of time and resources. It is innovative in using mixed methods to evaluate not only the comparative effectiveness of these approaches, but also the contexts and mechanisms influencing effectiveness. Data from this study will inform clinicians, payers and health systems seeking to adopt and scale the most effective and efficient ACP strategy in real-world oncology settings.

ContextIt is especially important that patients are well informed when making high-stakes, preference-sensitive decisions like those on the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. However, there is currently no way to easily evaluate whether patients understand key concepts when making these important decisions.ObjectivesTo develop a POLST knowledge survey.MethodsExpert (n = 62) ratings of key POLST facts were used to select items for a POLST knowledge survey. The survey was administered to nursing facility residents (n = 97) and surrogate decision-makers (n = 112). A subset (n = 135) were re-administered the survey after a standardized advance care planning discussion to assess the scale's responsiveness to change.ResultsThe 19-item survey demonstrated adequate reliability (α = 0.72.). Residents' scores (x = 11.4, standard deviation 3.3) were significantly lower than surrogate scores (x = 14.7, standard deviation 2.5) (P

ObjectivesTo assess the use of the Indiana Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form to record nursing home (NH) resident treatment preferences and associated practices.DesignSurvey.SettingIndiana NHs.ParticipantsStaff responsible for advance care planning in 535 NHs.MeasurementsSurvey about use of the Indiana POST, related policies, and educational activities.MethodsNHs were contacted by telephone or email. Nonresponders were sent a brief postcard survey.ResultsNinety-one percent (n=486) of Indiana NHs participated, and 79% had experience with POST. Of the 65% of NHs that complete POST with residents, 46% reported that half or more residents had a POST form. POST was most often completed at the time of admission (68%). Only 52% of participants were aware of an existing facility policy regarding use of POST; 80% reported general staff education on POST. In the 172 NHs not using POST, reasons for not using it included unfamiliarity with the tool (23%) and lack of facility policies (21%).ConclusionAlmost 3 years after a grassroots campaign to introduce the voluntary Indiana POST program, a majority of NHs were using POST to support resident care. Areas for improvement include creating policies on POST for all NHs, training staff on POST conversations, and considering processes that may enhance the POST conversation, such as finding an optimal time to engage in conversations about treatment preferences other than a potentially rushed admission process.

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.

This study examines the potential social diffusion effects of the Respecting Choices advance care planning program administered in La Crosse, Wisconsin, since 1991. The program produces educational materials for patients, trains facilitators to help patients prepare for end of life, and ensures that advance directives are connected to patients' medical records. Using data from a survey of more than 5,000 White Wisconsin high school graduates in their mid-60s, we found that participants who were living in the La Crosse area were significantly less likely than their peers living elsewhere to have executed a living will or appointed a health care power of attorney. This pattern may reflect psychological reactance, where individuals reject a message or lesson when they perceive compliance as a threat to their autonomy. There was no evidence of social diffusion effects; participants who lived in the La Crosse region themselves or who had social network members residing in the area were no more likely than those with no known ties to the region to have engaged in advance care planning. Future studies should explore the processes through which individuals learn and share with others their knowledge of advance care planning. (Contains 2 tables.)

Background: 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. Design: Qualitative descriptive study using constant comparative analysis. Setting: Nursing facilities in Indiana (n = 6) not using POLST. Participants: Residents (n = 15) and surrogate decision-makers of residents without decisional capacity (n = 15) with discordance between current preferences and documented LST orders. Measurements: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Advance Care Planning (ACP) is an emerging strategy to ensure that well-reflected, meaningful and clearly documented treatment preferences are available and respected when critical decisions about life-sustaining treatment need to be made for patients unable to consent. In Germany, recent legislation confirms that advance directives (AD) have to be followed if they apply to the medical situation, but implementation of ACP has not yet been described. Methods/Design In a longitudinal controlled study, we compare 1 intervention region (4 nursing homes [n/hs], altogether 421 residents) with 2 control regions (10 n/hs, altogether 985 residents). Inclusion went from 01.02.09 to 30.06.09, observation lasted until 30.06.10. Primary endpoint is the prevalence of ADs at follow-up, 17 (12) months after the first (last) possible inclusion. Secondary endpoints compare relevance and validity of ADs, process quality, the rate of life-sustaining interventions and, in deceased residents, location of death and intensity of treatment before death. The regional multifaceted intervention on the basis of the US program Respecting Choices® comprises training of n/h staff as facilitators, training of General Practitioners, education of hospital and ambulance staff, and development of eligible tools, including Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment in case of Emergency (POLST-E). Participation data: Of 1406 residents reported to live in the 14 n/hs plus an estimated turnover of 176 residents until the last possible inclusion date, 645 (41%) were willing to participate. Response rates were 38% in the intervention region and 42% in the control region. Non-responder analysis shows an equal distribution of sex and age but a bias towards dependency on nursing care in the responder group. Outcome analysis of this study will become available in the course of 2011. Discussion Implementing an ACP program for the n/hs and related health care providers of a region requires a complex community intervention with the effect of nothing less than a cultural shift in this health care sector. This study is to our knowledge the first to develop a strategy for regional implementation of ACP, and to evaluate its feasibility in a controlled design. Trial Registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN99887420

Background: Advance Care Planning aims at improving alignment of care with patients' preferences. This may affect costs of medical care. Aim: To determine the costs of an Advance Care Planning programme and its effects on the costs of medical care and on concordance of care with patients' preferences. Design/settings/participants: In a cluster randomised trial, 16 residential care homes were randomly allocated to the intervention group, where frail, older participants were offered facilitated Advance Care Planning conversations or to the control group. We calculated variable costs of Advance Care Planning per participant including personnel and travel costs of facilitators. Furthermore, we assessed participants' healthcare use during 12 months applying a broad perspective (including medical care, inpatient days in residential care homes, home care) and calculated costs of care per participant. Finally, we investigated whether treatment goals were in accordance with preferences. Analyses were conducted for 97 participants per group. Trial registration number: NTR4454. Results: Average variable Advance Care Planning costs were €76 per participant. The average costs of medical care were not significantly different between the intervention and control group (€2360 vs €2235, respectively, p = 0.36). Costs of inpatient days in residential care homes (€41,551 vs €46,533) and of home care (€14,091 vs €17,361) were not significantly different either. Concordance of care with preferences could not be assessed since treatment goals were often not recorded. Conclusion: The costs of an Advance Care Planning programme were limited. Advance Care Planning did not significantly affect the costs of medical care for frail older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Respecting Choices® is a program designed and verified to improve advance care planning, yet it has not been tested in racially/ethnically diverse communities. Research has shown racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have advance directives (ADs). Objective: To determine whether Respecting Choices® would improve AD prevalence and utilization in a racially and ethnically diverse community. Methods: The study design was that of a retrospective chart review. Subjects were all decedents from 2005 to 2010 ( n=732) in a 300-bed Midwestern metropolitan hospital. Prevalence was assessed by the presence of an AD in the chart. Utilization was measured by the consistency of wishes expressed in an AD and treatment received ('No CPR,' 'No Feeding Tube,' 'No Antibiotics,' 'No Ventilator,' 'Comfort Care,' and 'Terminal Extubation'). Average treatment effect using regression analysis and matching on covariates was used for analysis of Respecting Choices® on AD prevalence. Proportional difference tests were used to compare consistency of wishes by race/ethnicity before and after Respecting Choices®. Results: The prevalence of ADs increased significantly for racial and ethnic minorities after the implementation of Respecting Choices®: from 25.8% to 38.4% ( p=0.011). The increase in AD prevalence for whites following Respecting Choices® was only marginal (46.7% to 47.3%; p=0.648), and the overall prevalence of ADs did not significantly change (35.9% to 42.9%; p=0.069). Consistency was high (74% to 96%) for all orders, and there were no significant differences following implementation of Respecting Choices® or between whites and racial and ethnic minorities. Conclusions: The prevalence of ADs increased after Respecting Choices® was initiated in a racially and ethnically diverse community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]