Operationalizing legal rights in end-of- life decision-making: A qualitative study

Background: For a patient’s legal right to make end-of-life treatment decisions to be respected, health care practitioners, patients and their substitute decision-makers must know what rights exist and how to assert them (or support others to assert them). Yet very little is known about what enhances or obstructs the operationalization of legal rights from the perspective of patients, family members and substitute decision-makers. Aim: To explore barriers and facilitators to the operationalization of rights in end-of-life decision-making from the perspectives of terminally-ill patients and family members and substitute decision-makers of terminally ill patients in Australia. Design: Semi-structured interviews (face to face and telephone) with patients, family or substitute decision-makers experienced in end-of-life decision-making completed between November 2016 and October 2017. A thematic content analysis of interview transcripts. Setting/participants: Purposive sampling across three Australian states provided 16 terminally-ill patients and 33 family and/or substitute decision-makers. Results: Barriers and facilitators emerged across three overlapping domains: systemic factors; individual factors, influenced by personal characteristics and decision-making approach; and communication and information. Health care practitioners play a key role in either supporting or excluding patients, family and substitute decision-makers in decision-making. Conclusion: In addition to enhancing legal literacy of community members and health practitioners about end-of-life decision-making, support such as open communication, advocacy and help with engaging with advanced care planning is needed to facilitate people operationalizing their legal rights, powers and duties. Palliative care and other support services should be more widely available to people both within and outside health systems.

Randomised trial of a serious illness decision aid (Plan Well Guide) for patients and their substitute decision-makers to improve engagement in advance care planning

ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a serious illness decision aid (Plan Well Guide) in increasing the engagement of substitute decision-makers (SDM) in advance care planning (ACP).MethodsThis trial was conducted (2017–2019) in outpatient settings in Ontario, Canada, aiming to recruit 90 dyads of patients aged 65 years and older at high risk of needing future medical decisions and their SDM. Participants were randomised to receive the intervention immediately or to a 3-month wait period. The Plan Well Guide was administered to the patient and SDM by a facilitator. Outcomes were change on the validated 17-item SDM ACP Engagement Survey (primary) and 15-item patient ACP Engagement Survey (secondary).ResultsOf 136 dyads approached, 58 consented and were randomised and 45 completed the study (28 immediate intervention, 17 delayed intervention). The trial was stopped early because of difficulties with enrolling and following up participants. The mean changes on the SDM ACP Engagement Survey and the patient ACP Engagement Survey favoured the first group but were not statistically significant (mean difference (MD)=+0.2 (95% CI: −0.3 to 0.6) and MD=+0.4 (95% CI: −0.1 to 0.8), respectively). In a post-hoc subgroup analysis, significant treatment effects were seen in SDMs with a lower-than-median baseline score compared with those at or above the median.ConclusionsIn this statistically underpowered randomised trial, differences in SDM ACP engagement between groups were small. Further information is needed to overcome recruitment challenges and to identify people most likely to benefit from the Plan Well Guide.Trial registration number NCT03239639

Consent in Critical Care Research

Informed consent plays an important role in critical care medicine (CCM) because patients are vulnerable so their rights must be carefully protected, and research in CCM may be associated with high risks of morbidity and mortality. However, the process of obtaining consent may be a significant barrier to CCM research. There is often limited time in which to make decisions, patients or substitute decision makers may not be able to make those decisions, and complex consent documents may be an additional barrier. This is an important issue, both because vulnerable patients should not be denied access to the benefits of research and because the loss of eligible patients from CCM clinical trials due to lack of consent could introduce bias and limit the generalizability of research. This article will explore why getting consent is challenging in CCM research, and how this can process could be improved.

Applying futility in psychiatry: a concept whose time has come

Since its introduction in the 1980s, futility as a concept has held contested meaning and applications throughout medicine. There has been little discussion within the psychiatric literature about the use of futility in the care of individuals experiencing severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI), despite some tacit acceptance that futility may apply in certain cases of psychiatric illness. In this paper, we explore the literature surrounding futility and argue that its connotation within medicine is to describe situations where patients (or their substitute decision-makers) believe that interventions will almost certainly provide no meaningful benefit. We then provide two arguments in support of the use of futility within the care of individuals experiencing SPMI: that some SPMI can be considered a terminal illness, and that the risk-benefit ratio is a dynamic entity such that futility can help describe what Gillett calls the ‘risk of unacceptable badness’ when it comes to considering how an intervention might impact a patient’s quality of life. We posit that capacity should not pose an obstacle to declaring futility when caring for individuals experiencing SPMI and explain how futility is not antithetical to recovery in mental health. Finally, we describe how using futility within psychiatric practice can allow for a reorientation of care by signalling the need to shift to a palliative approach.

Role Incongruence and Psychological Stress Symptoms in Substitute Decision Makers of Intensive Care Patients

Background Most intensive care patients require substitute decision makers (SDMs) to make decisions. The SDMs may prefer an active, shared, or passive decision-making role. Role incongruence is when preferred and actual roles differ. Objective To evaluate the impact of decision-making role preferences and role incongruence on psychological distress symptoms in SDMs. Methods A multicenter, interviewer-administered survey was conducted among SDMs of critically ill adults. The Control Preferences Scale was used to evaluate role preferences. Psychological distress was defined as anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress symptoms with predefined cut points on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (score > 10 on the anxiety or the depression subscale) and Impact of Events Scale (score > 30). Results One hundred eighty SDMs were recruited; 64% responded. Most were white (71%) and female (65%); 46% were spouses. Role preferences varied: active, 24%; shared, 44%; and passive, 31%. Almost half (49%) reported incongruence. Symptom prevalence was 50% for posttraumatic stress, 32% for anxiety, and 16% for depression. Most (56%) reported some psychological distress. In multivariable logistic regression, the composite outcome of psychological distress was independently associated with patient death (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.08-8.02; P = .03), female sex of SDM (odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.49-5.89; P = .002), and incongruence (odds ratio, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.67-6.36; P < .001). Conclusions Adverse psychological symptoms are prevalent in SDMs of critically ill patients and are related to role incongruence.