End-of-Life Decision-Making in Intensive Care Ten Years after a Law on Advance Directives in Germany

Recent Trends in the Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment in Patients with Acute Cerebrovascular Disease : 2017-2021

OBJECTIVE

The Act on Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) decisions for end-of-life patients has been effective since February 2018. An increasing number of patients and their families want to withhold or withdraw from LST when medical futility is expected. This study aimed to investigate the status of the Act on LST decisions for patients with acute cerebrovascular disease at a single hospital.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and December 2021, 227 patients with acute cerebrovascular diseases, including hemorrhagic stroke (n=184) and ischemic stroke (n=43), died at the hospital. The study period was divided into the periods before and after the Act.

RESULTS

The duration of hospitalization decreased after the Act was implemented compared to before (15.9±16.1 vs. 11.2±18.6 days, p=0.127). The rate of obtaining consent for the LST plan tended to increase after the Act (139/183 [76.0%] vs. 27/44 [61.4%], p=0.077). Notably, none of the patients made an LST decision independently. Ventilator withdrawal was more frequently performed after the Act than before (52/183 [28.4%] vs. 0/44 [0%], p<0.001). Conversely, the rate of organ donation decreased after the Act was implemented (5/183 [2.7%] vs. 6/44 [13.6%], p=0.008). Refusal to undergo surgery was more common after the Act was implemented than before (87/149 [58.4%] vs. 15/41 [36.6%], p=0.021) among the 190 patients who required surgery.

CONCLUSION

After the Act on LST decisions was implemented, the rate of LST withdrawal increased in patients with acute cerebrovascular disease. However, the decision to withdraw LST was made by the patient's family rather than the patient themselves. After the execution of the Act, we also observed an increased rate of refusal to undergo surgery and a decreased rate of organ donation. The Act on LST decisions may reduce unnecessary treatments that prolong end-of-life processes without a curative effect. However, the widespread application of this law may also reduce beneficial treatments and contribute to a decline in organ donation.

Translation of patients' advance directives in intensive care units: are we there yet?

OBJECTIVES

This review examined studies regarding the implementation and translation of patients' advance directives (AD) in intensive care units (ICUs), focusing on practical difficulties and obstacles.

METHODS

The digital PubMed and Medline databases were screened using predefined keywords to identify relevant prospective and retrospective studies published until 2022.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies from the United States, Europe, and South Africa (including 149,413 patients and 1210 healthcare professionals) were identified. The highest prevalence of ADs was described in a prospective study in North America (49%), followed by Central Europe (13%), Asia (4%), Australia and New Zealand (4%), Latin America (3%), and Northern and Southern Europe (2.6%). While four retrospective studies reported limited effects of ADs, four retrospective studies, one survey and one systematic review indicated significant effects on provision of intensive care, higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders, and care withholding in patients with ADs. Four of these studies showed shorter ICU stays, and lower treatment costs in patients with ADs. One prospective and two retrospective studies reported issues with loss, delayed or no transmission of ADs. One survey revealed that 91% of healthcare workers did not regularly check for ADs. Two retrospective studies and two survey revealed that the implementation of directives is further challenged by issues with their applicability, phrasing, and compliance by the critical care team and family members.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ADs may improve intensive- and end-of-life care, insufficient knowledge, lack of awareness, poor communication between healthcare providers and patients or surrogates, lack of standardization of directives, as well as ethical and legal concerns challenge their implementation.

[Knowledge and misconceptions on advance directives-results of a citizen survey]

BACKGROUND

Advance directives (ADs) such as living wills or healthcare powers of attorney are important tools to anticipate medical treatment decisions when decision-making capacity is lost in the future. Although a rising number of citizens in Germany are creating such documents, little is known about their knowledge of the purpose, types, and use of ADs. After more than 10 years since legislation on ADs came into force, this study intends to measure the objective knowledge of citizens and detect deficits in knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative survey of citizens aged 18+ in the city and county of Wuerzburg. The questionnaire included, among other things, possession, experience, and knowledge of ADs. Sampling was conducted via advertising and local networking.

RESULTS

Of the 282 participants who took part in the survey (Mage = 50 years, 2/3 female), 43.4% reported having created a minimum of one document. In the knowledge test, an average of 22/34 points was achieved. While questions about the specific application of ADs based on a case study were often answered correctly, we found deficits about the single document types. The results in the knowledge test and the variables on the subjective level of knowledge correlate positively.

DISCUSSION

The relatively high rate of ADs in this sample indicates their rapid dissemination during the past few years in Germany. Overall, the level of knowledge ADs appears to be low, revealing misconceptions about the creator's and involved people's rights and obligations. The measured knowledge level contradicts with the frequently expressed desire of citizens to preserve their autonomy by creating ADs for themselves.

[What do health care professionals know about advance directives?]

BACKGROUND

Advance directives are important to preserve the autonomy of patients for future situations in which they are uncapable of expressing their will. They are considered helpful by many healthcare professionals in their professional practice. However, their knowledge on these documents is not well known. Misconceptions can adversely affect decisions at the end of life. This study examines healthcare professionals' knowledge of advance directives and relevant correlates.

METHODS

In 2021 healthcare professionals from various professions and institutions in Wuerzburg were surveyed using a standardized questionnaire on previous experiences with, advice on and use of advance directives, as well as an objective knowledge test containing 30 questions. Apart from the descriptive analysis of single questions out of the knowledge test, various parameters were screened for their influence on knowledge level.

RESULTS

363 healthcare professionals from different care settings participated in the study, including physicians, social workers, nurses and emergency services personnel. 77.5% work in patient care, of which 39.8% make decisions based on living wills daily to several times a month. High rates of incorrect answers in the knowledge test show lack in knowledge about decisions concerning patients who are unable to give consent; an average of 18 out of 30 points was achieved. Physicians, male healthcare professionals and respondents with more personal experience regarding advance directives had significantly better results in the knowledge test.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals have ethically and practically relevant knowledge deficits and a high need for further training on advance directives. Advance directives play an important role in maintaining patient autonomy and should receive more attention in training and further education equally involving non-medical professional groups.

Standardized High-Quality Processes for End-of-Life-Decision Making in the Intensive Care Unit Remain Robust during an Unprecedented New Pandemic-A Single-Center Experience

Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, a concomitant increase in awareness for end-of-life decisions (EOLDs) and advance care planning has been noted. Whether the dynamic pandemic situation impacted EOLD-processes on the intensive care unit (ICU) and patient-sided advance care planning in Germany is unknown. This is a retrospective analysis of all deceased patients of surgical ICUs of a university medical center from March 2020 to July 2021. All included ICUs had established standardized protocols and documentation for EOLD-related aspects of ICU therapy. The frequency of EOLDs and advance directives and the process of EOLDs were analyzed (No. of ethical approval EA2/308/20). A total number of 319 (85.5%) of all deceased patients received an EOLD. Advance directives were possessed by 83 (22.3%) of the patients and a precautionary power of attorney by 92 (24.7%) of the patients. There was no difference in the frequency of EOLDs and patient-sided advance care planning between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. In addition, no differences in frequencies of do-not-resuscitate orders, withholding or withdrawing of intensive care medicine therapeutic approaches, timing of EOLDs, and participation of senior ICU attendings in EOLDs were noted between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Documentation of family conferences occurred more often in deceased patients with COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 patients (COVID-19: 80.0% vs. non-COVID-19: 56.8, p = 0.001). Frequency of EOLDs and completion rates of advance directives remained unchanged during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic years. The EOLD process did not differ between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Institutional standard procedures might contribute to support the robustness of EOLD-making processes during unprecedented medical emergencies, such as new pandemic diseases.