Advanced directives and treatment decisions in the intensive care unit

Advance Directives and Communication Skills of Prehospital Physicians Involved in the Care of Cardiovascular Patients

Advance directives (AD) were developed to respect patient autonomy. However, very few patients have AD, even in cases when major cardiovascular surgery is to follow. To understand the reasons behind the low prevalence of AD and to help decision making when patients are incompetent, it is necessary to focus on the impact of prehospital practitioners, who may contribute to an increase in AD by discussing them with patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate self-rated communication skills and the attitudes of physicians potentially involved in the care of cardiovascular patients toward AD.Self-administered questionnaires were sent to general practitioners, cardiologists, internists, and intensivists, including the Quality of Communication Score, divided into a General Communication score (QOCgen 6 items) and an End-of-life Communication score (QOCeol 7 items), as well as questions regarding opinions and practices in terms of AD.One hundred sixty-four responses were received. QOCgen (mean (±SD)): 9.0/10 (1.0); QOCeol: 7.2/10 (1.7). General practitioners most frequently start discussions about AD (74/149 [47%]) and are more prone to designate their own specialty (30/49 [61%], P < 0.0001). Overall, only 57/159 (36%) physicians designated their own specialty; 130/158 (82%) physicians ask potential cardiovascular patients if they have AD and 61/118 (52%) physicians who care for cardiovascular patients talk about AD with some of them.The characteristics of physicians who do not talk about AD with patients were those who did not personally have AD and those who work in private practices.One hundred thirty-three (83%) physicians rated the systematic mention of patients' AD in the correspondence between physicians as good, while 114 (71%) at the patients' first registration in the private practice.Prehospital physicians rated their communication skills as good, whereas end-of-life communication was rated much lower. Only half of those surveyed speak about AD with cardiovascular patients. The majority would prefer that physicians of another specialty, most frequently general practitioners, initiate conversation about AD. In order to increase prehospital AD incidence, efforts must be centered on improving practitioners' communication skills regarding death, by providing trainings to allow physicians to feel more at ease when speaking about end-of-life issues.

The United States Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (2006): new challenges to balancing patient rights and physician responsibilities

Advance health care directives and informed consent remain the cornerstones of patients' right to self-determination regarding medical care and preferences at the end-of-life. However, the effectiveness and clinical applicability of advance health care directives to decision-making on the use of life support systems at the end-of-life is questionable. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) has been revised in 2006 to permit the use of life support systems at or near death for the purpose of maximizing procurement opportunities of organs medically suitable for transplantation. Some states have enacted the Revised UAGA (2006) and a few of those have included amendments while attempting to preserve the uniformity of the revised Act. Other states have introduced the Revised UAGA (2006) for legislation and remaining states are likely to follow soon. The Revised UAGA (2006) poses challenges to the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) embodied in advance health care directives and individual expression about the use of life support systems at the end-of-life. The challenges are predicated on the UAGA revising the default choice to presumption of donation intent and the use of life support systems to ensure medical suitability of organs for transplantation. The default choice trumps the expressed intent in an individual's advance health care directive to withhold and/or withdraw life support systems at the end-of-life. The Revised UAGA (2006) overrides advance directives on utilitarian grounds, which is a serious ethical challenge to society. The subtle progression of the Revised UAGA (2006) towards the presumption about how to dispose of one's organs at death can pave the way for an affirmative "duty to donate". There are at least two steps required to resolve these challenges. First, physicians and hospitals must fulfill their responsibilities to educate patients on the new legislations and document their preferences about the use of life support systems for organ donation at the end-of-life. Second, a broad based societal discussion must be initiated to decide if the Revised UAGA (2006) infringes on the PSDA and the individual's right of autonomy. The discussion should also address other ethical concerns raised by the Revised UAGA (2006), including the moral stance on 1) the interpretation of the refusal of life support systems as not applicable to organ donation and 2) the disregarding of the diversity of cultural beliefs about end-of-life in a pluralistic society.