Navigating Ethical Conflicts Between Advance Directives and Surrogate Decision-Makers' Interpretations of Patient Wishes

A case for preference-sensitive decision timelines to aid shared decision-making in intensive care: need and possible application

In the intensive care unit, it can be challenging to determine which interventions align with the patients' preferences since patients are often incapacitated and other sources, such as advance directives and surrogate input, are integral. Managing treatment decisions in this context requires a process of shared decision-making and a keen awareness of the preference-sensitive instances over the course of treatment. The present paper examines the need for the development of preference-sensitive decision timelines, and, taking aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage as a use case, proposes a model of one such timeline to illustrate their potential form and value. First, the paper draws on an overview of relevant literature to demonstrate the need for better guidance to (a) aid clinicians in determining when to elicit patient preference, (b) support the drafting of advance directives, and (c) prepare surrogates for their role representing the will of an incapacitated patient in clinical decision-making. This first section emphasizes that highlighting when patient (or surrogate) input is necessary can contribute valuably to shared decision-making, especially in the context of intensive care, and can support advance care planning. As an illustration, the paper offers a model preference-sensitive decision timeline-whose generation was informed by existing guidelines and a series of interviews with patients, surrogates, and neuro-intensive care clinicians-for a use case of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. In the last section, the paper offers reflections on how such timelines could be integrated into digital tools to aid shared decision-making.

An Ethics Early Action Protocol to Promote Teamwork and Ethics Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Moral dilemmas and ethical conflicts occur in critical care. Negative consequences include misunderstandings, mistrust, patient and family suffering, clinician moral distress, and patient safety concerns. Providing an opportunity for team-based ethics assessments and planning could improve communication and reduce moral distress.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to explore whether an early action ethics intervention affects intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians' moral distress, ethics self-efficacy, and perceptions of hospital climate and to compare nurses' and physicians' scores on moral distress, ethics self-efficacy, and ethical climate at 3 time points.

METHODS

Intensive care unit nurses and physicians were asked to complete surveys on moral distress, ethics self-efficacy, and ethical climate before implementing the ethics protocol in 6 ICUs. We measured responses to the same 3 surveys at 3 and 6 months after the protocol was used.

RESULTS

At baseline, nurses scored significantly higher than physicians in moral distress and significantly lower in ethics self-efficacy. Plot graphs revealed that nurses' and physicians' outcome scores trended toward one another. At 3 and 6 months post intervention, nurse and physician scores changed differently in moral distress and ethics self-efficacy. When examining nurse and physician scores separately over time, we found nurses' scores in moral distress and moral distress frequency decreased significantly over time and ethics self-efficacy and ethics climate increased significantly over time. Physicians' scores did not change significantly.

DISCUSSION

This study indicates that routine, team-based ethics assessment and planning opens a space for sharing information, which could decrease nurses' moral distress and increase their ethics self-efficacy. This, in turn, can potentially promote teamwork and reduce burnout.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions about the Italian law on advance directives

BACKGROUND

In the variegated legislative framework on advance directives, the first specific regulation in Italy on this issue came into force only in 2018.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study aimed to investigate the implications of the new Italian law on advance directives in clinical practice from the perspective of those who deal with this delicate ethical issue on an everyday basis, that is, Italian healthcare professionals.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A qualitative research design using semi-structured audio-recorded interviews was adopted. The data collection and analysis were performed according to the Grounded Theory approach.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen healthcare professionals (16 nurses, 3 physicians) working in a palliative care unit of a research and clinical institute in Italy.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The study is part of the WeDistress HELL Project (WEllness and DISTRESS in HEalth care professionals dealing with end of Life and bioethicaL issues) approved by the Ethical Committee of ICS Maugeri - Institute of Pavia (Italy).

FINDINGS

The authors identified a main overall category, 'Pros and Cons of the Italian law on advance directives', composed of six constituent categories: Positive welcome, Self-determination and protection, Prompts for future betterment, Uncertainties, Lack of knowledge, and Neutrality and no suggestions.

DISCUSSION

The Italian law n. 219/2017 on advance directives was seen as a legal instrument possessing both strengths and weaknesses, but able to guarantee the patient's self-determination and support healthcare professionals in providing care according to patients' wishes.

CONCLUSION

An understanding of the healthcare providers' perspective may support the discussion on advance directives and bridge the gaps that currently persist in handling ethical issues.

Best interest versus advance decisions to refuse treatment in advance care planning for neurodegenerative illness

This article describes the role of nurses assisting people with degenerative illness in advance care planning (ACP) for a time when they may lose decision-making capacity. It looks at the concept of advance decisions to refuse treatment (ADRT), as defined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 , exploring the legal, ethical and philosophical ramifications of carrying out, or overriding, formerly expressed wishes of someone who has subsequently lost decision-making capacity. It uses an illustrative composite case study of an individual with Huntington's disease whose prognosis includes future deterioration in swallowing, together with consideration of whether to have or refuse a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. The author, who as part of his role cares for people with neurodegenerative conditions, including Huntington's disease, discusses the difficulties and dilemmas that nurses experience with ADRTs, drawing on personal experience. He suggests that, rather than focusing on ADRTs, ACP may be most effective in preparing people and their surrogates to make real-time decisions, based on a shared understanding of the individual's values.

Advance care planning in community dwellers: A constructivist grounded theory study of values, preferences and conflicts

Background:

Most laypeople have not engaged in any advance care planning. Yet they are expected to articulate choices for life-sustaining interventions when they need admission to an acute care hospital in Canada.

Aim:

To describe how laypeople understand and make decisions for life-sustaining interventions when engaging in advance care planning.

Design:

Semi-structured interviews using constructivist grounded theory methodology and purposive sampling.

Setting:

Mid-size Canadian urban community

Participants:

In total, 20 healthy laypeople, 55 years and older, participated in in-depth semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Theoretical sampling was used to explore findings from the first round of interviews. Ten participants were invited for repeat interviews.

Results:

Four major themes were identified. Most participants claimed at the outset that they had engaged in advance care planning, but they were unfamiliar with contemporary life-sustaining interventions and had not factored these into their decisions. Participants’ confidence in their substitute decision makers precluded them from having explicit discussions with these individuals. Participants expressed their values and preferences in terms of unacceptable functional outcomes from serious illness, rather than desired interventions. The process of articulating their preferences within the interviews was subject to decision conflicts, which in turn helped them re-evaluate and refine their decisions.

Conclusion:

Advance care planning for the healthy older adult is challenging. Meaningful engagement may lead to conflicts in decision-making. Efforts to improve engagement must reflect what patients know and understand, their focus on unacceptable negative outcomes rather than interventions, and the need for iterative discussions with health-care providers.

Palliative Care in the Acute Care Setting

This series on palliative care is developed in collaboration with the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA; http://hpna.advancingexpertcare.org). The HPNA aims to guide nurses in preventing and relieving suffering and in giving the best possible care to patients and families, regardless of the stage of disease or the need for other therapies. The HPNA offers education, certification, advocacy, leadership, and research.