Evaluation of the Interrater Reliability of End-of-Life Medical Orders in the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Form

An Integrative Review of the State of POLST Science: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?

OBJECTIVES

POLST is widely used in the care of seriously ill patients to document decisions made during advance care planning (ACP) conversations as actionable medical orders. We conducted an integrative review of existing research to better understand associations between POLST use and key ACP outcomes as well as to identify directions for future research.

DESIGN

Integrative review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

METHODS

We queried PubMed and CINAHL databases using names of POLST programs to identify research on POLST. We abstracted study information and assessed study design quality. Study outcomes were categorized using the international ACP Outcomes Framework: Process, Action, Quality of Care, Health Status, and Healthcare Utilization.

RESULTS

Of 94 POLST studies identified, 38 (40%) had at least a moderate level of study design quality and 15 (16%) included comparisons between POLST vs non-POLST patient groups. There was a significant difference between groups for 40 of 70 (57%) ACP outcomes. The highest proportion of significant outcomes was in Quality of Care (15 of 19 or 79%). In subdomain analyses of Quality of Care, POLST use was significantly associated with concordance between treatment and documentation (14 of 18 or 78%) and preferences concordant with documentation (1 of 1 or 100%). The Action outcome domain had the second highest positive rate among outcome domains; 9 of 12 (75%) Action outcomes were significant. Healthcare Utilization outcomes were the most frequently assessed and approximately half (16 of 35 or 46%) were significant. Health Status outcomes were not significant (0 of 4 or 0%), and no Process outcomes were identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Findings of this review indicate that POLST use is significantly associated with a Quality of Care and Action outcomes, albeit in nonrandomized studies. Future research on POLST should focus on prospective mixed methods studies and high-quality pragmatic trials that assess a broad range of person and health system-level outcomes.

Advance Care Planning in Brazil

Brazil is a country of continental size marked by extreme social inequalities. Its regulation of Advance Directives (AD) was not enacted by law but within the scope of the norms that govern the relationships between patients and physicians, as a resolution of the Federal Medical Council without any specific requirement for notarization. Despite this innovative starting point, most of the debate regarding Advance Care Planning (ACP) in Brazil has been dominated by a legal transactional approach focused on making decisions in advance and the creation of AD. Yet, other novel ACP models have recently emerged in the country with a focus on the creation of a specific quality of relationship between patients, families, and physicians aiming at the facilitating future decision-making. Most of the education on ACP in Brazil happens in the context of palliative care courses. As such, most ACP conversations are performed within palliative care services or by healthcare professionals with training in that area. Hence, the scarce access to palliative care services in the country means that ACP is still rare and that those conversations usually happen late in the course of disease. The authors posit that the existing paternalistic healthcare culture is one of the most important barriers to ACP in Brazil and envision with great concern the risk that its combination with extreme health inequalities and the lack of healthcare professionals' education on shared decision-making could lead to the misuse of ACP as a form of coercive practice to reduce healthcare use by vulnerable populations.

The influence of POLST on treatment intensity at the end of life: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite its widespread implementation, it is unclear whether Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) are safe and improve the delivery of care that patients desire. We sought to systematically review the influence of POLST on treatment intensity among patients with serious illness and/or frailty.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of POLST and similar programs using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO, from inception through February 28, 2020. We included adults with serious illness and/or frailty with life expectancy <1 year. Primary outcomes included place of death and receipt of high-intensity treatment (i.e., hospitalization in the last 30- and 90-days of life, ICU admission in the last 30-days of life, and number of care setting transitions in last week of life).

RESULTS

Among 104,554 patients across 20 observational studies, 27,090 had POLST. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The mean age of POLST users was 78.7 years, 55.3% were female, and 93.0% were white. The majority of POLST users (55.3%) had orders for comfort measures only. Most studies showed that, compared to full treatment orders on POLST, treatment limitations were associated with decreased in-hospital death and receipt of high-intensity treatment, particularly in pre-hospital settings. However, in the acute care setting, a sizable number of patients likely received POLST-discordant care. The overall strength of evidence was moderate based on eight retrospective cohort studies of good quality that showed a consistent, similar direction of outcomes with moderate-to-large effect sizes.

CONCLUSION

We found moderate strength of evidence that treatment limitations on POLST may reduce treatment intensity among patients with serious illness. However, the evidence base is limited and demonstrates potential unintended consequences of POLST. We identify several important knowledge gaps that should be addressed to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of POLST.

Impact of advance directives on the variability between intensivists in the decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment

BACKGROUND

There is wide variability between intensivists in the decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment (DFLST). Advance directives (ADs) allow patients to communicate their end-of-life wishes to physicians. We assessed whether ADs reduced variability in DFLSTs between intensivists.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, simulation study. Eight patients expressed their wishes in ADs after being informed about DFLSTs by an intensivist-investigator. The participating intensivists answered ten questions about the DFLSTs of each patient in two scenarios, referring to patients' characteristics without ADs (round 1) and then with (round 2). DFLST score ranged from 0 (no-DFLST) to 10 (DFLST for all questions). The main outcome was variability in DFLSTs between intensivists, expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD).

RESULTS

A total of 19,680 decisions made by 123 intensivists from 27 ICUs were analyzed. The DFLST score was higher with ADs than without (6.02 95% CI [5.85; 6.19] vs 4.92 95% CI [4.75; 5.10], p < 0.001). High inter-intensivist variability did not change with ADs (RSD: 0.56 (round 1) vs 0.46 (round 2), p = 0.84). Inter-intensivist agreement on DFLSTs was weak with ADs (intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.28). No factor associated with DFLSTs was identified. A qualitative analysis of ADs showed focus on end-of-life wills, unwanted things and fear of pain.

CONCLUSIONS

ADs increased the DFLST rate but did not reduce variability between the intensivists. In the decision-making process using ADs, the intensivist's decision took priority. Further research is needed to improve the matching of the physicians' decision with the patient's wishes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03013530. Registered 6 January 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03013530 .

To What Extent Do Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Reflect Patients' Preferences for Care at the End of Life?

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether medical orders within Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms reflect patients' preferences for care at the end of life.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study assessed the agreement between medical orders in POLST forms and the free-form text documentation of an advance care planning conversation performed by an independent researcher during a single episode of hospitalization.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Inpatients at a single public university hospital, aged 21 years or older, and for whom one of their attending physicians provided a negative answer to the following question: "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year?" Data collection occurred between October 2016 and September 2017.

MEASURES

Agreement between medical orders in POLST forms and the free-form text documentation of an advance care planning conversation was measured by kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were interviewed. Patients' median (interquartile range) age was 62 (56-70) years, and 21 patients (34%) were women. Overall, in 7 (11%) cases, disagreement in at least 1 medical order for life-sustaining treatment was found between POLST forms and the content of the independent advance care planning conversation. The kappa statistic for cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-1.00]; for level of medical intervention, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-0.99); and for artificially administered nutrition, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.75-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The high level of agreement between medical orders in POLST forms and the documentation in an independent advance care planning conversation offers further support for the POLST paradigm. In addition, the finding that the agreement was not 100% underscores the need to confirm frequently that POLST medical orders accurately reflect patients' current values and preferences of care.

Advance Care Planning (ACP) vs. Advance Serious Illness Preparations and Planning (ASIPP)

COVID-19 has highlighted the reality of an impending serious illness for many, particularly for older persons. Those faced with severe COVID-19 infection or other serious illness will be faced with decisions regarding admission to intensive care and use of mechanical ventilation. Past research has documented substantial medical errors regarding the use or non-use of life-sustaining treatments in older persons. While some experts advocate that advance care planning may be a solution to the problem, I argue that the prevailing understanding and current practice of advance care planning perpetuates the problem and results in patients not receiving optimal patient-centered care. Much of the problem centers on the framing of advance care planning around end of life care, the lack of use of decision support tools, and inadequate language that does not support shared decision-making. I posit that a new approach and new terminology is needed. Advance Serious Illness Preparations and Planning (ASIPP) consists of discrete steps using evidence-based tools to prepare people for future clinical decision-making in the context of shared decision-making and informed consent. Existing tools to support this approach have been developed and validated. Further dissemination of these tools is warranted.