Discussing patient preferences for levels of life-sustaining treatment: development and pilot testing of a Danish POLST form

"Gives peace of mind" - Relatives' perspectives of end-of-life conversations

OBJECTIVES

Planning for end-of-life (EOL) and future treatment and care through advance care planning (ACP) is being increasingly implemented in different healthcare settings, and interest in ACP is growing. Several studies have emphasized the importance of relatives participating in conversations about wishes for EOL and being included in the process. Likewise, research has highlighted how relatives can be a valuable resource in an emergency setting. Although relatives have a significant role, few studies have investigated their perspectives of ACP and EOL conversations. This study explores relatives' experiences of the benefits and disadvantages of having conversations about wishes for EOL treatment.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were held with 29 relatives who had participated in a conversation about EOL wishes with a patient and physician 2 years prior in a variety of Danish healthcare settings. The relatives were interviewed between September 2020 and June 2022. Content analysis was performed on the qualitative data.

RESULTS

The interviews revealed two themes: "gives peace of mind" and "enables more openness and common understanding of EOL." Relatives found that conversations about EOL could help assure that patients were heard and enhance their autonomy. These conversations relieved the relatives of responsibility by clarifying or confirming the patients' wishes, and they also made the relatives reflect on their own wishes for EOL. Moreover, they helped patients and relatives address other issues regarding EOL and made wishes more visible across settings.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The results indicate that conducting conversations about wishes for EOL treatment and having relatives participate in those conversations were perceived as beneficial for both relatives and patients. Involving relatives in ACP should be prioritized by physicians and healthcare personnel when holding conversations about EOL.

Shared decision-making with older people on TReatment Escalation planning for Acute deterioration in the emergency Medical Setting: a qualitative study of Clinicians' perspectives (STREAMS-C)

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly expected in healthcare systems prioritising patient autonomy. Treatment escalation plans (TEPs) outline contingency for medical intervention in the event of patient deterioration. This study aimed to understand clinicians' perspectives on SDM in TEP for older patients in the acute medical setting.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study following a constructivist approach. Semistructured interviews with vignettes were conducted with 26 consultant and registrar doctors working in emergency medicine, general internal medicine, intensive care medicine and palliative care medicine. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

There were three themes: 'An unequal partnership', 'Options without equipoise' and 'Decisions with shared understanding'. Clinicians' expertise in synthesising complex, uncertain clinical information was contrasted with perceived patient unfamiliarity with future health planning and medical intervention. There was a strong sense of morality underpinning decision-making and little equipoise about appropriate TEP decisions. Communication around the TEP was important, and clinicians sought control over the high-stakes decision whilst avoiding conflict and achieving shared understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians take responsibility for securing a 'good' TEP decision for older patients in the acute medical setting. They synthesise clinical data with implicit ethical reasoning according to their professional predictions of qualitative and quantitative success following medical intervention. SDM is seldom considered a priority for this context. Nonetheless, avoidance of conflict, preserving the clinical relationship and shared understanding with the patient and family are important.

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.

Perspectives of healthcare professionals and older patients on shared decision-making for treatment escalation planning in the acute hospital setting: a systematic review and qualitative thematic synthesis

Background

Shared Decision-Making (SDM) between patients and clinicians is increasingly considered important. Treament Escalation Plans (TEP) are individualised documents outlining life-saving interventions to be considered in the event of clinical deterioration. SDM can inform subjective goals of care in TEP but it remains unclear how much it is considered beneficial by patients and clinicians. We aimed to synthesise the existing knowledge of clinician and older patient (generally aged ≥65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting.

Methods

Systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases as well as grey literature from database inception to June 8, 2023, using the Sample (older patients, clinicians, acute setting; studies relating to patients whose main diagnosis was cancer or single organ failure were excluded as these conditions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) tool. Primary data (published participant quotations, field notes, survey results) and descriptive author comments were extracted and qualitative thematic synthesis was performed to generate analytic themes. Quality assessment was made using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess overall confidence in each thematic finding according to methodology, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the contributing studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022361593.

Findings

Following duplicate exclusion there were 1916 studies screened and ultimately 13 studies were included, all from European and North American settings. Clinician-orientated themes were: treatment escalation is a medical decision (high confidence); clinicians want the best for their patients amidst uncertainty (high confidence); involving patients and families in decisions is not always meaningful and can involve conflict (high confidence); treatment escalation planning exists within the clinical environment, organisation and society (moderate confidence). Patient-orientated themes were: patients' relationships with Treatment Escalation Planning are complex (low confidence); interactions with doctors are important but communication is not always easy (moderate confidence); patients are highly aware of their families when considering TEP (moderate confidence).

Interpretation

Based on current evidence, TEP decisions appear dominated by clinicians' perspectives, motivated by achieving the best for patients and challenged by complex decisions, communication and environmental factors; older patients' perspectives have seldom been explored, but their input on decisions may be modest. Presenting the context and challenge of SDM during professional education may allow reflection and a more nuanced approach. Future research should seek to understand what approach to TEP decision-making patients and clinicians consider to be optimum in the acute setting so that a mutually acceptable standard can be defined in policy.

Funding

HCA International and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.