Behandlung im Voraus Planen – Weiterentwicklung der Patientenverfügung

Patient-physician conversations about life-sustaining treatment: Treatment preferences and participant assessments

OBJECTIVE

In 2019, the Danish parliament issued legislation requiring Danish physicians to clarify and honor seriously ill patients' treatment preferences. The American POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) document could be a valuable model for this process. The aim of the study was to examine patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment and participant assessment of a Danish POLST form.

METHODS

The study is a prospective intervention based on a pilot-tested Danish POLST form. Participant assessments were examined using questionnaire surveys. Patients with serious illness and/or frailty from seven hospital wards, two general practitioners, and four nursing homes were included. The patients and their physicians completed the POLST form based on a process of shared decision-making.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients (aged 41-95) participated. Hereof, 88% declined cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 83% preferred limited medical interventions or comfort care, and 74% did not require artificial nutrition. The preferences were similar within age groups, genders, and locations, but with a tendency toward younger patients being more in favor of full treatment and nursing home residents being more in favor of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Questionnaire response rates were 69% (66/95) for patients, 79% (22/28) for physicians, and 31% (9/29) for nurses. Hereof, the majority of patients, physicians, and nurses found that the POLST form was usable for conversations and decision-making about life-sustaining treatment to either a high or very high degree.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The majority of seriously ill patients did not want a resuscitation attempt and opted for selected treatments. The majority of participants found that the Danish POLST was usable for conversations and decisions about life-sustaining treatment to either a high or a very high degree, and that the POLST form facilitated an opportunity to openly discuss life-sustaining treatment.

"SpezPat"- common advance directives versus disease-centred advance directives: a randomised controlled pilot study on the impact on physicians' understanding of non-small cell lung cancer patients' end-of-life decisions

BACKGROUND

The advance directive represents patients' health care choices and fosters patients' autonomy. Nevertheless, understanding patients' wishes based on the information provided in advance directives remains a challenge for health care providers. Based on the ethical premises of positive obligation to autonomy, an advanced directive that is disease-centred and details potential problems and complications of the disease should help health care providers correctly understand patients' wishes. To test this hypothesis, a pilot-study was conducted to investigate whether physicians could make the correct end-of-life decision for their patients when patients used a disease-centred advance directive compared to a common advance directive.  MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomised, controlled, prospective pilot study was designed that included patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stage VI from the Department of Haematology and Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre, Goettingen. Patients were randomised into intervention and control groups. The control group received a common advance directive, and the intervention group received a disease-centred advance directive. Both groups filled out their advance directives and returned them. Subsequently, patients were asked to complete nine medical scenarios with different treatment decisions. For each scenario the patients had to decide whether they wanted to receive treatment on a 5-point Likert scale. Four physicians were given the same scenarios and asked to decide on the treatment according to the patients' wishes as stated in their advance directives. The answers by patients and physicians were then compared to establish whether physicians had made the correct assumptions.

RESULTS

Recruitment was stopped prior to reaching anticipated sample target. 15 patients with stage IV NSCLC completed the study, 9 patients were randomised into the control group and 6 patients in the intervention group. A total of 135 decisions were evaluated. The concordance between physicians' and patients' answers, was 0.83 (95%-CI 0.71-0.91) in the intervention group, compared to 0.60 (95%-CI 0.48-0.70) in the control group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study shows that disease-centred advance directives help physicians understand their NSCLC patients' wishes more precisely and make treatment choices according to these wishes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (no. DRKS00017580, registration date 27/08/2019).

[Indications, consent and treatment limitation in emergency medicine]

Physicians in acute and emergency medicine are increasingly confronted by geriatric, multimorbid or oncology patients with advanced stages of disease. Lacking further information or specification about the patient's will may result in overtreatment. An increasing part of the German population has advance directives; however, there is still uncertainty among physicians when dealing with advance directives and health care proxies. Misinterpretation may entail civil and criminal consequences or may lead to a withdrawal of the license to practice. Advance directives for instance are not equivalent to a general waiving of treatment and therapy. Besides life support, terminal care and its legal aspects must also be considered in acute medicine.

Advance Care Planning — eine Chance für ambulant tätige Ärzte

Die COVID-19-Pandemie geht mit schweren Atemwegserkrankungen einher, die insbesondere bei älteren Menschen oft Entscheidungen über eine Krankenhauseinweisung mit möglicher Intensivtherapie erfordern. Hierbei besteht die Gefahr, dass Behandlungsentscheidungen getroffen werden, die medizinisch nicht angemessen oder vom Patienten nicht (mehr) gewünscht sind. Mit welchen Maßnahmen Sie dies vermeiden können, lesen Sie in diesem Beitrag.