Search

Context: Patients with terminal illnesses often require surrogate decision makers. Prior research has demonstrated high surrogate stress, and that despite standards promoting substituted judgment, most patients do not want their surrogates to make pure substituted judgments for them. It is not known how best to help loved ones fulfill the surrogate role., Objectives: To test the effectiveness of an intervention to help surrogate decision makers., Methods: One hundred sixty-six patients (41% with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and 59% with gastrointestinal cancers) and their surrogates at two university medical centers were randomized to an intensive nurse-directed discussion of the end-of-life decision control preferences of the patient (TAILORED) or a discussion of nutrition (CONTROL); 163 completed baseline interviews and underwent the intervention., Results: Twelve patients died during follow-up and 137 dyads completed the study. Post-intervention, using all available data, TAILORED patients and surrogates became more likely to endorse mutual surrogate decision making, that is, a balance of their own wishes and what the surrogate thinks best (adjusted odds compared with baseline for patients = 1.78, P = 0.04; adjusted odds for surrogates = 2.05, P = 0.03). CONTROL patients became 40% less likely to endorse mutual surrogate decision making (P = 0.08), and CONTROL surrogates did not change significantly from baseline (adjusted odds = 1.44, P = 0.28). Stress levels decreased for TAILORED surrogates (impact of events scale = 23.1 ± 14.6 baseline, 20.8 ± 15.3 f/u, P = 0.046), but not for CONTROL (P = 0.85), and post-intervention stress was lower for TAILORED than CONTROL (P = 0.04). Surrogates' confidence was uniformly high at baseline and did not change. Caregiver burden (Zarit) increased from 12.5 ± 6.5 to 14.7 ± 8.1 for TAILORED (P < 0.01), while not changing for CONTROL, yet satisfaction with involvement in decision making was higher at follow-up for TAILORED than for CONTROL (71% vs. 52%, P = 0.03)., Conclusion: TAILORED patients and surrogates who completed the study adopted a more mutual decision-making style, balancing their own wishes with what the surrogate thinks would be best for them. Surrogates reported less stress and more satisfaction. Confidence was high at baseline and did not change. There was a modest increase in caregiver burden. These findings suggest that interventions like TAILORED might positively impact surrogate decision making., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Many patients with advanced heart failure (HF) experience the life-extending benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), but at the end stage of HF, patients may experience shocks with increasing frequency and change the plan for end-of-life (EOL) care including the deactivation of the ICD. This report describes family members' experiences of patients with ICD making decisions at EOL. Understanding the decision-making of patients with ICD at EOL can promote informed decision-making and improve the quality of EOL care., Methods: This pilot study used a mixed methods approach to test the effects of a nurse-guided discussion in decision-making about ICD deactivation (turning off the defibrillation function) at the EOL. Interviews were conducted, audiotaped, and transcribed in 2012 to 2013 with 6 family members of patients with advanced HF and ICDs. Three researchers coded the data and identified themes in 2014., Results: Three main themes described family members' experiences related to patients having HF with ICDs making health-care decision at EOL: decision-making preferences, patients' perception on ICD deactivation, and communication methods., Discussion: Health-care providers need to have knowledge of patients' decision-making preferences. Preferences for decision-making include the allowing of appropriate people to involve and encourages direct conversation with family members even when advance directives is completed. Information of ICD function and the option of deactivation need to be clearly delivered to patients and family members. Education and guidelines will facilitate the communication of the preferences of EOL care.

Background: Surrogate accuracy in predicting patient treatment preferences (i.e., what patients want) has been studied extensively, but it is not known whether surrogates can predict how patients want loved ones to make end-of-life decisions on their behalf., Objective: To evaluate the ability of family members to correctly identify the preferences of seriously-ill patients regarding family involvement in decision making., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Participants: Twenty-five pancreatic cancer and 27 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients and their family members (52 dyads total)., Main Measures: Patients and family members completed the Decision Control Preferences (DCP) scale regarding patient preferences for family involvement in health care decisions using conscious and unconscious scenarios., Key Results: Patient and family member agreement was 56% (29/52 dyads) for the conscious scenario (kappa 0.29) and 46% (24/52 dyads) for the unconscious scenario (kappa 0.15). Twenty-four family members identified the patient's preference as independent in the unconscious scenario, but six of these patients actually preferred shared decision making and six preferred reliant decision making. In the conscious scenario, preference for independent decision making was associated with higher odds of patient-family agreement (AOR 5.28, 1.07-26.06). In the unconscious scenario, cancer patients had a higher odds of agreement than ALS patients (AOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.02-14.54)., Conclusion: Family members were often unable to correctly identify patient preferences for family involvement in end-of-life decision making, especially when patients desired that decisions be made using the best-interest standard. Clinicians and family members should consider explicitly eliciting patient preferences for family involvement in decision making. Additional research is still needed to identify interventions to improve family member understanding of patient preferences regarding the decision-making process itself.

Objective: Several studies have reported high levels of distress in family members who have made health care decisions for loved ones at the end of life. A method is needed to assess the readiness of family members to take on this important role. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale to measure family member confidence in making decisions with (conscious patient scenario) and for (unconscious patient scenario) a terminally ill loved one., Methods: On the basis of a survey of family members of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) enriched by in-depth interviews guided by Self-Efficacy Theory, we developed six themes within family decision making self-efficacy. We then created items reflecting these themes that were refined by a panel of end-of-life research experts. With 30 family members of patients in an outpatient ALS and a pancreatic cancer clinic, we tested the tool for internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and for consistency from one administration to another using the test-retest reliability assessment in a subset of 10 family members. Items with item to total scale score correlations of less than .40 were eliminated., Results: A 26-item scale with two 13-item scenarios resulted, measuring family self-efficacy in decision making for a conscious or unconscious patient with a Cronbach's alphas of .91 and .95, respectively. Test-retest reliability was r = .96, p = .002 in the conscious senario and r = .92, p = .009 in the unconscious scenario., Significance of Results: The Family Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale is valid, reliable, and easily completed in the clinic setting. It may be used in research and clinical care to assess the confidence of family members in their ability to make decisions with or for a terminally ill loved one.

Objective: Persons with ALS differ from those with other terminal illnesses in that they commonly retain capacity for decision making close to death. The role patients would opt to have their families play in decision making at the end of life may therefore be unique. This study compared the preferences of patients with ALS for involving family in health care decisions at the end of life with the actual involvement reported by the family after death., Methods: A descriptive correlational design with 16 patient-family member dyads was used. Quantitative findings were enriched with in-depth interviews of a subset of five family members following the patient's death., Results: Eighty-seven percent of patients had issued an advance directive. Patients who would opt to make health care decisions independently (i.e., according to the patient's preferences alone) were most likely to have their families report that decisions were made in the style that the patient preferred. Those who preferred shared decision making with family or decision making that relied upon the family were more likely to have their families report that decisions were made in a style that was more independent than preferred. When interviewed in depth, some family members described shared decision making although they had reported on the survey that the patient made independent decisions., Significance of Results: The structure of advance directives may suggest to families that independent decision making is the ideal, causing them to avoid or underreport shared decision making. Fear of family recriminations may also cause family members to avoid or underreport shared decision making. Findings from this study might be used to guide clinicians in their discussions of treatments and health care decision making with persons with ALS and their families.

Objectives: To determine the role terminally ill patients would opt to have their loved ones and physicians play in healthcare decisions should they lose decision-making capacity and how this changes over time., Design: Serial interviews., Setting: The study institutions were The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore, Maryland, and St. Vincent's Hospital, in New York., Participants: One hundred forty-seven patients with cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or heart failure, at baseline and 3 and 6 months., Results: Patients' baseline decision control preferences varied widely, but most opted for shared decision-making, leaning slightly toward independence from their loved ones. This did not change significantly at 3 or 6 months. Fifty-seven percent opted for the same degree of decision control at 3 months as at baseline. In a generalized estimating equation model adjusted for time, more-independent decision-making was associated with college education (P=.046) and being female (P=.01), whereas more-reliant decision-making was associated with age (P<.001). Patients leaned toward more reliance upon physicians to make best-interest determinations at diagnosis but opted for physicians to decide based upon their own independent wishes (substituted judgment) over time, especially if college educated., Conclusion: Terminally ill patients vary in how much they wish their own preferences to control decisions made on their behalf, but most would opt for shared decision-making with loved ones and physicians. Control preferences are stable over time with respect to loved ones, but as they live longer with their illnesses, patients prefer somewhat less reliance upon physicians.

Surrogate decision-makers make critical decisions for loved ones at the end of life, and some experience lasting negative psychological outcomes. Understanding whom they rely on for support and the types of support they value may inform nursing care and that of other health team members who work with surrogates. The purpose of the study was to explore decision support and other types of support provided to surrogate decision-makers at the end of life of their loved one and perceived usefulness of the support. This secondary analysis of data from a mixed-methods study involved the examination of the transcripts of qualitative interviews with 13 surrogate decision-makers in the United States, conducted between 2010 and 2014. A constant comparative method was used to identify common themes surrounding surrogate decision support at the end of life. Surrogates valued advance directives and conversations with their loved one about treatment preferences. Surrogates described involving many different types of people in decision-making and other types of support. Finally, surrogates appreciated being reassured that they were doing a good job in making decisions and seemed to seek out this type of affirmation from various sources including the health care team, family, and friends. Nurses are well-positioned to provide this affirmation because of the time that they spend caring for the patient and family. Future research should further explore the concept of affirmation of surrogates in their role as a means of support as they make decisions for a loved one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives The purpose of this study was to consider how fear and symptom experience are perceived in patients with heart failure at the end of life. Background Heart failure is a burdensome condition and mortality rates are high globally. There is substantive literature describing suffering and unmet needs but description of the experience of fear and the relationship with symptom burden is limited. Design A convergent mixed methods design was used. Methods Data from the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire ( n = 55) were compared to data from in-depth interviews ( n = 5). Results Patients denied fear when asked directly, but frequently referred to moments of being afraid when they were experiencing symptoms. In addition, patients reported few troublesome symptoms on the survey, but mentioned many more symptoms during interviews. Conclusions These data not only identify the relationship between psychological issues and symptom experience but also elucidate the benefit of a mixed method approach in describing such experiences from the perspective of the patient. Future research should examine relationships between and among symptom experience, fear and other psychological constructs across the illness trajectory. Relevance to Clinical Practice Conversations about the interaction of symptom burden and fear can lead to both a more robust assessment of symptoms and lead to patient centred interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A person's ability to minimize HIV risk is embedded in a complex, multidimensional context. In this study, we tested a model of how relationship power impacts IPV victimization, which in turn impacts HIV risk behaviors. We analyzed data from 474 young adult women (aged 15–31) in Cebu Province, Philippines, using structural equation modeling, and demonstrated good fit for the models. High relationship power is directly associated with increased IPV victimization, and IPV victimization is positively associated with increased HIV risk. We highlight in this article the complex dynamics to consider in HIV risk prevention among these young women. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Surrogate accuracy in predicting patient treatment preferences (i.e., what patients want) has been studied extensively, but it is not known whether surrogates can predict how patients want loved ones to make end-of-life decisions on their behalf.Objective: To evaluate the ability of family members to correctly identify the preferences of seriously-ill patients regarding family involvement in decision making.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Participants: Twenty-five pancreatic cancer and 27 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients and their family members (52 dyads total).Main Measures: Patients and family members completed the Decision Control Preferences (DCP) scale regarding patient preferences for family involvement in health care decisions using conscious and unconscious scenarios.Key Results: Patient and family member agreement was 56% (29/52 dyads) for the conscious scenario (kappa 0.29) and 46% (24/52 dyads) for the unconscious scenario (kappa 0.15). Twenty-four family members identified the patient's preference as independent in the unconscious scenario, but six of these patients actually preferred shared decision making and six preferred reliant decision making. In the conscious scenario, preference for independent decision making was associated with higher odds of patient-family agreement (AOR 5.28, 1.07-26.06). In the unconscious scenario, cancer patients had a higher odds of agreement than ALS patients (AOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.02-14.54).Conclusion: Family members were often unable to correctly identify patient preferences for family involvement in end-of-life decision making, especially when patients desired that decisions be made using the best-interest standard. Clinicians and family members should consider explicitly eliciting patient preferences for family involvement in decision making. Additional research is still needed to identify interventions to improve family member understanding of patient preferences regarding the decision-making process itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Current approaches to end-of-life decision making are widely considered inadequate. We explored these complexities by examining how patients with terminal diagnoses would choose to involve their physicians and loved ones in making medical decisions, assuming they were able and unable to participate. Cross-sectional interviews of 130 patients recently diagnosed with fatal conditions were conducted. Patients were recruited from two academic medical centers using a modification of the Decision Control Preferences Scale, ranging from independent decision making to decision making that relies upon others. Patients were asked how they would balance their own wishes relative to the input of physician and loved ones in making medical decisions, and to weigh the input of loved ones relative to physician. Most patients (52%), assuming they had the capacity, would opt to share decision making with their physicians, but 15% would defer to their physicians and 34% would make decisions independently. Similarly, 44% would share decision making with their loved ones, but fewer (6%) would defer to their loved ones. Thirty-nine percent would rely upon their physicians'' judgments about what would be best for them rather than their own wishes if they became unconscious, compared with 15% who would do so if they were conscious (P < 0.001). Nonetheless, patients were more likely to weigh their loved ones'' input more heavily than their physicians'' input if they were unconscious (33%) than if they were conscious (7%, P = 0.05). Race, religion, gender, diagnosis, and health status were largely unassociated with patients'' decision control preferences. Patients with terminal diagnoses report a wide diversity of decision control preferences, but most would opt to share decision making with their physicians and loved ones. If unable to decide for themselves, they shift toward greater reliance on physician input relative to their own wishes but would weigh loved ones'' input more heavily than physician input. Deciding for patients who cannot speak for themselves may be more complex than has previously been reflected in law, policy, or clinical ethics. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]