Implementing Advance Directives in Office Practice
Am Fam Physician. 2012 Mar 1;85(5):461-466.
Patient information: See related handout on advance directives, written by the authors of this article.
Patients prepare advance directives in an effort to maintain autonomy during periods of incapacity or at the end of life. Advance directive documents are specific to the state in which the patient lives, but an effective strategy in the family physician's office involves more than filling out a form. Physician barriers to completing an advance directive include lack of time and discomfort with the topic. On the patient's part, lack of knowledge, fear of burdening family, and a desire to have the physician initiate the discussion are common barriers. Once the advance directive is complete, barriers to implementation include vague language, issues with the proxy decision maker, and accessibility of the advance directive. Overcoming these barriers depends on effective communication at multiple visits, including allowing the patient the opportunity to ask questions. Involving the family or a proxy early and over time can help the process. It may be helpful to integrate advance directive discussions at selected stages of the patient's life and as health status changes.
The concept of advance directives is rooted in the ethical principle of patient autonomy. By formally specifying care preferences (living will) and/or naming a proxy for making health care decisions (durable power of attorney for health care), patients can maintain more autonomy during periods of incapacity and at the end of life. Oral statements are recognized ethically, and in some states legally, if properly documented. The documents associated with an advance directive are state-specific, and physicians need to be familiar with the applicable laws in their area.1–3 In many cases, care preferences and appointment of a proxy are included in the same document. Table 1 provides links to example documents and other resources related to advance directives.
SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE
SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE
|Clinical recommendation||Evidence rating||References||Comments|
The most effective advance directive interventions involve interactive discussions between the patient and physician over multiple visits.
Repeated advance directive discussions relevant to the patient's life stage may help improve advance directive completion and appropriate implementation.
Advance directive discussions with the patient and family that emphasize goals of care improve end-of-life care, patient satisfaction, and family stress.
Prospective, randomized controlled trial
Systematic use of specific physician orders regarding life-sustaining procedures is associated with a reduction in undesired medical interventions in nursing home patients.
Retrospective observational cohort study
A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, go to http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.
Table 1. Resources for Advance Directive Completion
Resources for Advance Directive Completion
State-specific advance directive documents and other patient-centered, end-of-life care resources
Durable power of attorney for health care
Form accompanies the patient to different care settings and stipulates appropriate medical interventions; state-specific POLST forms are available through individual medical society Web sites
Useful for clarifying values, may be appended to the advance directive
POLST = Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment.
The federal Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 requires hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities to provide information about advance directives to patients and to keep a record of any completed documents. Regardless of the implementation of these regulations, the rate of advance directive completion has been disappointing, and their value has been questioned.3–6 A report to Congress highlighted several problems with the customary advance directive process and made recommendations for improvement, most centering on improved communication between the physician and patients and their families.7
Barriers to Completion
Studies focusing on methods to improve rates of advance directive completion have identified several potential barriers (Table 2).5,8 Physician barriers are often related to lack of time and reimbursement.5,8 Reviewing advance directives in the office setting may require 30 minutes, or more if the physician meets with the proxy and family members.3 Billing for this service may also be problematic. Some physicians are uncomfortable with the topic and prefer to wait for the patient to raise the issue.8
Table 2. Barriers to Completing Advance Directives
Barriers to Completing Advance Directives
Discomfort with the topic
Lack of institutional support
Lack of reimbursement
Lack of time
Waiting for the patient to initiate the discussion
Fear of burdening family or friends
Lack of interest or knowledge: “I don't want to think about it”
Social isolation, lack of reliable proxy
Spiritual, cultural, and racial traditions
Waiting for the physician to initiate the discussion
Patient barriers are more varied. Studies show that lack of interest or knowledge is common,8–10 whereas current health status does not correlate with advance directive completion.9 Some patients fear burdening family or friends, even though an advance directive can relieve uncertainty about care preferences.10 In some cases, social isolation or lack of an available proxy is an issue. Most patients expect the physician to bring up the topic.8
Cultural, racial, and ethnic factors also play a role in advance directive completion. Black patients are less likely to complete advance directives and are more likely to prefer aggressive care until the end of life. They are also more likely to cite communication problems with their physicians. Hispanic and Asian patients more often rely on family members for decisions rooted in tradition and spiritual beliefs and thus may not believe that an advance directive is needed.11–15 However, there is considerable overlap in attitudes among ethnic and racial groups, and it is important not to stereotype patients.
Barriers to Implementation
Although recent studies affirm the benefits of advance directives in terms of receiving care congruent with patient preferences,16–18 several problems with implementation have been identified (Table 3). The language used in the documents can be a major barrier to implementation. In designating when to implement the advance directive, patients often use terms such as “terminal” and “no hope of recovery,” leaving questions regarding what specific situations would apply. Treatment preferences are also sometimes expressed in unclear terms, such as “no heroics.”19 A useful advance directive describes specific clinical situations in which the document should apply (e.g., stroke with disability, cancer with metastasis, cardiac arrest) and the types of care desired or declined (e.g., cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], enteral feedings, intubation and mechanical ventilation). It is important to note that ill patients may change preferences for or against life-sustaining treatments as their condition worsens.20
Table 3. Barriers and Solutions to Implementing Advance Directives
Barriers and Solutions to Implementing Advance Directives
End-of-life terminology: When do care preferences apply?
Clarify vague terms, such as “terminal” and “no hope of recovery”
Clinical relevance of care requests: What types of procedures are requested and declined?
Clarify vague terms, such as “life support” and “no heroics,” and indicate wishes regarding specific scenarios and interventions; have ongoing conversations with the patient
Proxy issues: Is the proxy aware of the advance directive contents and patient wishes?
Include proxy in discussions regarding advance directive
Advance directive accessibility: Is the advance directive part of the medical record and readily accessible to physicians, proxy, and family members?
Include advance directive in the medical record at the office and hospital and be sure it transfers with the patient to other levels of care
Proxy decision makers are expected to use substituted judgment that relies on the patient's expressed wishes. When the proxy is unaware of the patient's wishes, decisions should be based on the patient's best interests. However, many patients give the proxy considerable latitude in making decisions because it is difficult to predict future clinical situations and treatment options.21 It has been shown that proxies are more accurate in predicting a patient's wishes than physicians are, although proxies could misinterpret the patient's wishes and substitute their own values.22 A recent meta-analysis shows that proxy decision makers often experience considerable stress, which is mitigated by the presence of advance directives.23
Because treatment decisions may be made in an urgent situation, immediate access to the advance directive is essential to its implementation. However, many patients fail to distribute copies to their physician, proxy, or family members. Additionally, the document may not accompany the patient when he or she is transferred to different care settings, such as the hospital or nursing home. In the absence of an advance directive, the health care team may feel pressured to provide care based on the demands of the most vocal family member, which may not be the patient's wish.3,4 The physician providing continuity of care is well positioned to ensure that the advance directive is available and implemented.24 Additionally, electronic health records provide an opportunity for improving accessibility to advance directives.7
Approaches for Improving Completion and Implementation
Two systematic reviews provide useful insights into interventions that may increase advance directive completion rates.25,26 Interactive interventions, which provide opportunities to ask questions and receive assistance from a knowledgeable person, were shown to be more effective than didactic interventions, which provide education in the form of a program, clinical encounter, or mailing.25 The most successful interactive interventions include repeated conversations about completion of advance directives over time.26 Group-based interactive interventions are more effective than individualized interventions, suggesting that it is beneficial to have the information presented in a setting that stimulates group discussion and generates more questions.25
Most research on improving the completion rate and quality of advance directives uses the health behavior change model.27 Emphasis is placed on identifying barriers specific to the individual patient and using a stepwise approach to overcome those barriers.8,11 Repeated discussions about care goals, which can change as the patient becomes increasingly frail or the disease progresses, may help improve advance directive completion and appropriate implementation.6,28,29 Articles have reviewed guidelines for successful communication and important pitfalls to avoid during end-of-life discussions.24,30 The physician's ability to facilitate involvement of the family and proxy early and over time may be key to a successful advance directive.5,8,21
Improving advance directive implementation requires more than a didactic intervention after the patient becomes ill. A study of intensive education for physicians and patients regarding prognosis and functional outcomes of treatment options (e.g., CPR) in teaching hospital settings failed to show improvement in the quality of end-of-life care or outcomes.31 However, more recent research shows that emphasizing goals of care in advance directive discussions with the patient and family improves end-of-life care, patient satisfaction, and family stress.32 A values history document may be appended to an advance directive to help guide difficult care decisions and make them more reflective of the patient's goals and priorities.33
For patients who have progressive chronic illness or frailty, the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) document is an attempt to address vague language and lack of portability. It has been adopted in varying forms in several states.34 The POLST document is signed by the physician, accompanies the patient between care settings, and stipulates the medical interventions appropriate for that patient. Use of the POLST document has been shown to decrease the likelihood of receiving undesired medical interventions in nursing home patients and to improve the frequency of life-sustaining treatment beyond CPR.35
The Respecting Choices program is an educational process focus improving advance directive completion and implementation at the community level.36 The intervention is staged according to the patient's age and health status and uses trained nonphysician facilitators.37 The program has achieved a 90 percent advance directive completion rate, and has been shown to ensure patient care that is consistent with advance directives and to decrease caregiver stress, anxiety, and depression.32,38 The involvement of facilitators has been shown to be effective in improving the proxy's understanding of the patient's goals, thus improving outcomes consistent with patient wishes.39 However, this program needs further dissemination and validation.
A Suggested Approach for the Primary Care Physician
A clinical approach that is appropriate to the patient's life stage may foster effective and interactive advance directive discussions (Table 4).6 The first phase occurs between 50 and 65 years of age in the physician's office at the time of a routine checkup. The physician should initiate a basic advance directive discussion along with discussions about preventive issues, such as colorectal cancer screening. The discussion is readdressed at subsequent health maintenance visits. One study shows that mailing an advance directive form to the patient ahead of the appointment improves completion rates compared with using computer-generated physician reminders.40
Table 4. Suggested Approach for Including Advance Directives in Primary Care
Suggested Approach for Including Advance Directives in Primary Care
Routine patient visit, patient 50 to 65 years of age
Diagnosis of progressive chronic disease (e.g., heart failure, cancer, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
Increasing frailty and dependency (e.g., patient admitted to nursing home)
Information from reference 6.
The next phase occurs when the patient experiences a chronic and progressive illness. Following a realistic discussion of the patient's prognosis, the physician initiates a more in-depth discussion, including the proxy and family members as desired, that centers on the patient's care goals. Adding a values history to the advance directive may be helpful. After the discussion, the advance directive is updated and made as specific as possible. These issues should be readdressed periodically and as circumstances change.
The last phase occurs with the onset of frailty or the need for long-term care. The discussion, centered on the patient's care goals, may result in consistent and specific physician orders regarding life-sustaining interventions.
1. Karlawish JH, James BD. Ethical issues. In: Hazzard WR, Halter JB, eds. Hazzard's Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2009:399–406.
2. Kapp MB. Legal issues. In: Hazzard WR, Halter JB, eds. Hazzard's Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2009: 385–391.
3. Perkins HS. Controlling death: the false promise of advance directives. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(1):51–57.
4. Gillick MR. Reversing the code status of advance directives? N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1239–1240.
5. Doukas DJ, Hardwig J. Using the family covenant in planning end-of-life care: obligations and promises of patients, families, and physicians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(8):1155–1158.
6. Sudore RL, Fried TR. Redefining the “planning” in advance care planning: preparing for end-of-life decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(4):256–261.
7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Advance directives and advance care planning: report to Congress. August 2008. http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2008/ADCongRpt.htm. Accessed August 7, 2010.
8. Ramsaroop SD, Reid MC, Adelman RD. Completing an advance directive in the primary care setting: what do we need for success? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(2):277–283.
9. Kahana B, Dan A, Kahana E, Kercher K. The personal and social context of planning for end-of-life care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(7):1163–1167.
10. Beck A, Brown J, Boles M, Barrett P. Completion of advance directives by older health maintenance organization members: the role of attitudes and beliefs regarding life-sustaining treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(2):300–306.
11. Schickedanz AD, Schillinger D, Landefeld CS, Knight SJ, Williams BA, Sudore RL. A clinical framework for improving the advance care planning process: start with patients' self-identified barriers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(1):31–39.
12. Sudore RL, Schickedanz AD, Landefeld CS, et al. Engagement in multiple steps of the advance care planning process: a descriptive study of diverse older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(6):1006–1013.
13. Johnson KS, Kuchibhatla M, Tulsky JA. What explains racial differences in the use of advance directives and attitudes toward hospice care? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(10):1953–1958.
14. Welch LC, Teno JM, Mor V. End-of-life care in black and white: race matters for medical care of dying patients and their families. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(7):1145–1153.
15. Kiely DK, Mitchell SL, Marlow A, Murphy KM, Morris JN. Racial and state differences in the designation of advance directives in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(10):1346–1352.
16. Morrison RS, Chichin E, Carter J, Burack O, Lantz M, Meier DE. The effect of a social work intervention to enhance advance care planning documentation in the nursing home. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(2):290–294.
17. Silveira MJ, Kim SY, Langa KM. Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1211–1218.
18. Teno JM, Gruneir A, Schwartz Z, Nanda A, Wetle T. Association between advance directives and quality of end-of-life care: a national study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(2):189–194.
19. Gillick MR. Advance care planning. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(1):7–8.
20. Fried TR, O'Leary JO, Van Ness P, Fraenkel L. Inconsistency over time in the preferences of older persons with advanced illness for life-sustaining treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(7):1007–1014.
21. Vig EK, Taylor JS, Starks H, Hopley EK, Fryer-Edwards K. Beyond substituted judgment: how surrogates navigate end-of-life decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(11):1688–1693.
22. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(5):493–497.
23. Wendler D, Rid A. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(5):336–346.
24. Ngo-Metzger Q, August KJ, Srinivasan M, Liao S, Meyskens FL Jr. End-of-life care: guidelines for patient-centered communication. Am Fam Physician. 2008;77(2):167–174.
25. Jezewski MA, Meeker MA, Sessanna L, Finnell DS. The effectiveness of interventions to increase advance directive completion rates. J Aging Health. 2007;19(3):519–536.
26. Bravo G, Dubois MF, Wagneur B. Assessing the effectiveness of interventions to promote advance directives among older adults: a systematic review and multi-level analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(7):1122–1132.
27. Fried TR, Bullock K, Iannone L, O'Leary JR. Understanding advance care planning as a process of health behavior change. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(9):1547–1555.
28. Boockvar KS, Meier DE. Palliative care for frail older adults: “there are things I can't do anymore that I wish I could . . .”. JAMA. 2006;296(18):2245–2253.
29. Wittink MN, Morales KH, Meoni LA, et al. Stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment after 3 years of follow-up: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2125–2130.
30. Lang F, Quill T. Making decisions with families at the end of life. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70(4):719–723.
31. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). The SUPPORT Principal Investigators [published correction appears in JAMA. 1996;275(16):1232]. JAMA. 1995;274(20):1591–1598.
32. Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial [published ahead of print March 23, 2010]. BMJ. http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1345.long. Accessed June 1, 2011.
33. Values history. A form to assist you in making health care choices in accordance with your values. http://www.nmaging.state.nm.us/pdf_files/Values_History.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2011.
34. Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment paradigm. http://www.ohsu.edu/polst. Accessed September 2, 2010.
35. Hickman SE, Nelson CA, Perrin NA, Moss AH, Hammes BJ, Tolle SW. A comparison of methods to communicate treatment preferences in nursing facilities: traditional practices versus the physician orders for life-sustaining treatment program. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(7):1241–1248.
36. Hammes BJ, Rooney BL. Death and end-of-life planning in one midwestern community. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(4):383–390.
37. Respecting Choices. An advance care planning system that works. http://respectingchoices.org. Accessed September 2, 2010.
38. Hammes BJ, Rooney BL, Gundrum JD. A comparative, retrospective, observational study of the prevalence, availability, and specificity of advance care plans in a county that implemented an advance care planning microsystem. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(7):1249–1255.
39. Kirchhoff KT, Hammes BJ, Kehl KA, Briggs LA, Brown RL. Effect of a disease-specific planning intervention on surrogate understanding of patient goals for future medical treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(7):1233–1240.
40. Heiman H, Bates DW, Fairchild D, Shaykevich S, Lehmann LS. Improving completion of advance directives in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med. 2004;117(5):318–324.
Copyright © 2012 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions