Conflicting Orders in Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Forms

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.

Education, Policy, and Advocacy in Predicting Use of Do-Not-Hospitalize Orders in Skilled Nursing Facilities

Nurses and social workers are uniquely positioned to advocate for patients' wishes for do-not-hospitalize (DNH) directives. The purpose of the current study was to explore the impact of DNH education, policy, and advocacy on the use of DNH orders by nurses (RNs and licensed practical nurses [LPNs]) and social workers employed in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). This multisite secondary analysis used cross-sectional survey data and analyzed responses of RNs, LPNs, and social workers (N = 354) from 29 urban SNFs. Mixed model regression was used to examine possible predictors of frequency of DNH orders within SNFs while adjusting for random effects. Results showed that having a DNH written policy, education on DNH orders, and having an advanced care planning advocate in the facility were strongly associated with a higher reported frequency of DNH discussions with residents and their families (p < 0.01 for each variable). [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48(11), 45-52.].

Care preferences in physician orders for life sustaining treatment in California nursing homes

BACKGROUND

Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) facilitates documentation and transition of patients' life-sustaining treatment orders across care settings. Little is known about patient and facility factors related to care preferences within POLST across a large, diverse nursing home population. We describe the orders within POLST among all nursing home (NH) residents in California from 2011 to 2016.

METHODS

California requires NHs to document in the Minimum Data Set whether residents complete a POLST and orders within POLST. Using a serial cross-sectional design for each year, we describe POLST completion and orders for all California NH residents from 2011 to 2016 (N = 1,112,668). We used logistic mixed-effects regression models to estimate POLST completion and resuscitation orders to understand the relationship with resident and facility characteristics, including Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing Home Compare overall five-star quality rating.

RESULTS

POLST completion significantly increased from 2011 to 2016 with most residents having a POLST in 2016 (short-stay:68%; long-stay:81%). Among those with a POLST in 2016, 54% of long-stay and 41% of short-stay residents had a DNR order. Among residents with DNR, >90% had orders for limited medical interventions or comfort measures. Few residents (<6%) had a POLST with contradictory orders. In regression analyses, POLST completion was greater among residents with more functional dependence, but was lower among those with more cognitive impairment. Greater functional and cognitive impairment were associated with DNR orders. Racial and ethnic minorities indicated more aggressive care preferences. Higher CMS five-star facility quality rating was associated with greater POLST completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Six years after a state mandate to document POLST completion in NHs, most California NH residents have a POLST, and about half of long-stay residents have orders to limit life-sustaining treatment. Future work should focus on determining the quality of care preference decisions documented in POLST.

Advance care planning by proxy in German nursing homes: Descriptive analysis and policy implications

BACKGROUND

Legally recognized advance directives (ADs) have to be signed by the person to whom the decisions apply. In practice, however, there are also ADs written and signed by legal proxies (surrogates) on behalf of patients who lack decision-making capacity. Given their practical relevance and substantial ethical and legal implications, ADs by proxy (AD-Ps) have received surprisingly little scientific attention so far.

OBJECTIVES

To study the form, content, validity, and applicability of AD-Ps among German nursing home residents and develop policy implications.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of two independent cross-sectional studies in three German cities, comprising 21 nursing homes and 1528 residents. The identified AD-Ps were analyzed in parallel by three independent raters. Inter-rater agreement was measured using free-marginal multi-rater kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Altogether, 46 AD-Ps were identified and pooled for analysis. On average (range), AD-Ps were 1 (1-7) year(s) old, 0.5 (0.25-4) pages long, signed by 1 (0-5) person, with evidence of legal proxy involvement in 35%, and signed by a physician in 20% of cases. Almost all the AD-Ps reviewed aimed to limit life-sustaining treatment (LST), but had widely varying content and ethical justifications, including references to earlier statements (30%) or actual behavior (11%). The most frequent explicit directives were: do-not-hospitalize (67%), do-not-tube-feed (37%), do-not-attempt-resuscitation (20%), and the general exclusion of any LST (28%). Inter-rater agreement was mostly moderate (kappa ≥0.6) or strong (kappa ≥0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Although AD-Ps are an empirical reality in German nursing homes, formal standards for such directives are lacking and their ethical justification based on substituted judgment or best interest standard often remains unclear. A qualified advance care planning process and corresponding documentation are required in order to safeguard the appropriate use of this important instrument and ensure adherence to ethico-legal standards.

Reasons for discordance and concordance between POLST orders and current treatment preferences

BACKGROUND

The 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.

DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive including constant comparative analysis within and across cases.

SETTING

Twenty-six nursing facilities in Indiana.

PARTICIPANTS

Residents (n = 36) and surrogate decision-makers of residents without decisional capacity (n = 37).

MEASUREMENTS

A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore the reasons for discordance or concordance between current preferences and existing POLST forms.

FINDINGS

Reasons 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.

CONCLUSION

Participant 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.

Factors associated with concordance between POLST orders and current treatment preferences

BACKGROUND

POLST 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.

OBJECTIVES

To describe POLST preference concordance and identify factors associated with concordance.

DESIGN

Chart reviews to document existing POLST orders and interviews to elicit current treatment preferences.

SETTING

POLST-using nursing facilities (n = 29) in Indiana.

PARTICIPANTS

Nursing facility residents (n = 123) and surrogates of residents without decisional capacity (n = 152).

MEASUREMENTS

Concordance 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.

RESULTS

Overall, 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 < 0.001). In the unadjusted analysis, increasing resident age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p < 0.01), better cognitive functioning (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p < 0.01), surrogate as the decision-maker (OR 2.87, OR 1.73-4.75, p < 0.001), and comfort-focused POLSTs (OR 6.01, 95% CI 3.29-11.00, p < 0.01) were associated with concordance. In the adjusted multivariable model, only having an existing comfort-focused POLST was associated with higher odds of POLST concordance (OR 5.28, 95% CI 2.59-10.73, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of all POLST forms were concordant with current preferences, but POLST was over five times as likely to be concordant when orders reflected preferences for comfort-focused care. Findings suggest a clear need to improve the quality of POLST use in nursing facilities and focus its use among residents with stable, comfort-focused preferences.

The living will: Patients should be informed of the risks

Living wills are designed to ensure that patients' preferences will be respected at the end of life should they lose capacity to make decisions. However, data on living will use suggest there are barriers to achieving this objective. Moreover, there is evidence that completion of a living will creates a risk of an unwanted outcome: the potential for premature withdrawal of interventions. We suggest a multifaceted approach to improve the ability of living wills to achieve their goals. However, acknowledgment of the current reality should oblige providers offering a living will to their patients to present a balanced view of living wills that includes enumeration of the risk, barriers to achieving the purported benefits, and alternatives to completing a living will, in addition to discussion of the potential benefits. This requires a change in current practice that would encourage shared decision making regarding whether completing a living will or other type of advance directive is desired by the patient and discourage the proliferation of living wills completed without providing these important advantages and disadvantages to the patient.