Cargando…

The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective

Advance directives (AD) are written documents that give patients the opportunity to communicate their preferences regarding treatments they do or do not want to receive in case they become unable to make decisions. Commonly used pre-printed forms have different formats. Some offer space for patients...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Otte, Ina Carola, Elger, Bernice, Jung, Corinna, Bally, Klaus Walter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26860626
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9688-3
_version_ 1782433818221740032
author Otte, Ina Carola
Elger, Bernice
Jung, Corinna
Bally, Klaus Walter
author_facet Otte, Ina Carola
Elger, Bernice
Jung, Corinna
Bally, Klaus Walter
author_sort Otte, Ina Carola
collection PubMed
description Advance directives (AD) are written documents that give patients the opportunity to communicate their preferences regarding treatments they do or do not want to receive in case they become unable to make decisions. Commonly used pre-printed forms have different formats. Some offer space for patients to (a) appoint a surrogate decision maker, and/or (b) to determine future medical treatments and/or (c) give a statement of personal values. So far it is unknown which forms GPs preferably use and why they decide to do so. 23 semi-structured interviews with GPs were analysed using content analysis. Interviewees mainly use short templates (to appoint surrogate decision makers) and medium length templates with checkboxes to indicate patients’ preferences in regards to life prolonging measures. Especially when patients faced the progression of a disease, participants use the latter version. Only then, the interviewees remarked, patients are capable to rate concrete situations reliably. GPs also realize the importance of the verbal assessment of patients’ preferences; however they rarely keep a written form of the conversation. Some GPs hand out one or more templates and ask their patients to read and think about them at home with the option to talk to them about it later on, while others prefer their patients to fill them out alone at home. Regardless of template usage, most GPs emphasize that ADs require regular updates. GPs tend to see standardized advance directives mainly as a tool to start a conversation with their patients and to identify their real preferences and values. When the patient is still not facing the progression of an already existing disease it could be sufficient to only appoint a surrogate decision maker instead of creating a full AD. However, in all other situations, appointing a surrogate decision maker should be backed up by a written statement of a patient’s general values. Patients and their relatives should always have the opportunity to ask their GP for medical advice when drafting an AD. It is crucial to regularly verify and update existing ADs within the course of a disease.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4880623
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48806232016-06-21 The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective Otte, Ina Carola Elger, Bernice Jung, Corinna Bally, Klaus Walter Med Health Care Philos Scientific Contribution Advance directives (AD) are written documents that give patients the opportunity to communicate their preferences regarding treatments they do or do not want to receive in case they become unable to make decisions. Commonly used pre-printed forms have different formats. Some offer space for patients to (a) appoint a surrogate decision maker, and/or (b) to determine future medical treatments and/or (c) give a statement of personal values. So far it is unknown which forms GPs preferably use and why they decide to do so. 23 semi-structured interviews with GPs were analysed using content analysis. Interviewees mainly use short templates (to appoint surrogate decision makers) and medium length templates with checkboxes to indicate patients’ preferences in regards to life prolonging measures. Especially when patients faced the progression of a disease, participants use the latter version. Only then, the interviewees remarked, patients are capable to rate concrete situations reliably. GPs also realize the importance of the verbal assessment of patients’ preferences; however they rarely keep a written form of the conversation. Some GPs hand out one or more templates and ask their patients to read and think about them at home with the option to talk to them about it later on, while others prefer their patients to fill them out alone at home. Regardless of template usage, most GPs emphasize that ADs require regular updates. GPs tend to see standardized advance directives mainly as a tool to start a conversation with their patients and to identify their real preferences and values. When the patient is still not facing the progression of an already existing disease it could be sufficient to only appoint a surrogate decision maker instead of creating a full AD. However, in all other situations, appointing a surrogate decision maker should be backed up by a written statement of a patient’s general values. Patients and their relatives should always have the opportunity to ask their GP for medical advice when drafting an AD. It is crucial to regularly verify and update existing ADs within the course of a disease. Springer Netherlands 2016-02-09 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4880623/ /pubmed/26860626 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9688-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Scientific Contribution
Otte, Ina Carola
Elger, Bernice
Jung, Corinna
Bally, Klaus Walter
The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective
title The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective
title_full The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective
title_fullStr The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective
title_full_unstemmed The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective
title_short The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective
title_sort utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners’ perspective
topic Scientific Contribution
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26860626
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9688-3
work_keys_str_mv AT otteinacarola theutilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective
AT elgerbernice theutilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective
AT jungcorinna theutilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective
AT ballyklauswalter theutilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective
AT otteinacarola utilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective
AT elgerbernice utilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective
AT jungcorinna utilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective
AT ballyklauswalter utilityofstandardizedadvancedirectivesthegeneralpractitionersperspective