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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |