Advanced directives: Are they fulfilling their purpose?

Current Opinion in Critical Care

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 337-343

  Silverman, Henry J ^a   Lanken, Paul N ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0004320805     PISSN: 10705295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00075198-199608000-00016     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Greco PJ, Schulman KA, Lavizzo-Mourey R, Hansen-Flaschen J: The Patient Self-Determination Act and the future of advance directives. Ann Intern Med 1991, 115:639-643.
2. Silverman HJ, Tuma P, Schaeffer MH, Singh B: Implementation of the Patient Self-Determination Act in a hospital setting: an initial evaluation. Arch Intern Med 1995, 155:502-510. A prospective observational study at a single university hospital that examined the effectiveness of their program of informing patients about advanced directives and the patient-related variables related to the success of this process (race and educational level were found to be independent predictors).
3. Perkins HS: Are advance directives becoming an endangered species? Chest 1996, 109:299.
4. McIntyre KM: On advancing advance directives: why should we believe the promise? Arch Intern Med 1995, 155:2271-2273.
5. Travaline JM, Silverman HJ: Discussions with outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease regarding mechanical ventilation as life-sustaining therapy. South Med J 1995, 88:1034-1038.
6. Loewy EH, Carlson RW: Talking, advance directives, and medical practice. Arch Intern Med 1994, 154:2265-2267.
7. Morrison RS, Morrison EW, Glickman DF: Physician reluctance to discuss advance directives: an empiric investigation of potential barriers. Arch Intern Med 1994, 154:2311-2318.
8. Reilly BM, Wagner M, Magnussen R, Ross J, Papa L, Ash J: Promoting inpatient directives about life-sustaining treatments in a community hospital: results of a 3 year time-series intervention trial. Arch Intern Med 1995, 155:2317-2323.
9. Walker RM, Schonwetter RS, Kramer DR, Robinson BE: Living wills and resuscitation preferences in elderly population. Arch Intern Med 1995, 155:171-175.
10. Curtis JR, Park DR, Krone MR, Pearlman RA: Use of the medical futility rationale in do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders. JAMA 1995, 273:124-128. A cross-sectional study of self-reported attitudes and practices of medical residents at two university affiliated hospitals that found that residents' conceptions of what is futile to justify use of DNR orders varied widely both in terms of quantitative and qualitative futility. They found residents equated futility with a probability of dying during hospitalization that ranged from 0% to 75%.
11. Morrison RS, Olson E, Mertz KR, Meier DE: The inaccessibility of advance directives on transfer from ambulatory to acute care settings. JAMA 1995, 274:478-482.
12. Asch DA, Hansen-Flaschen J, Lanken PN: Decisions to limit or continue life-sustaining treatment by critical care physicians in the United States: conflicts between physician's practices and patient's wishes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995, 151:288-292. A cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians' self-reported behavior related to withholding and withdrawing life-support. Despite a very high overall prevalence of withholding and withdrawing life-support, a substantial fraction of the respondents reported that they refused to carry out such requests by family or patients. A large fraction of respondents also incorporated some aspect of medical futility in their decision making process in some cases.
13. Capron AM: In re Helga Wanglie. Hastings Cent Rep 1991, 21:30-35.
14. Grodin MA: CPR and the right to demand treatment. Physician's News Digest (Eastern Massachusetts) 1995, June:4
15. Rutter T: US doctors win life support lawsuit. BMJ 1995, 310:1223-1224.
16. Schneiderman LJ, Faber-Langendoen K, Jecker NS: Beyond futility to an ethic of care. Am J Med 1994, 96:110-114.
17. Engelhardt HT, Khushf G: Futile care for the critically ill patient. Curr Opin Crit Care 1995, 1:329-333. An essay about the usage of the term "futility" when applied to medical intervention. Its inherent ambiguities can explain the inconsistencies in interpretation observed in empirical studies.
18. Tomlinson T, Czlonka D: Futility and hospital policy. Hastings Cent Rep 1995, 25:28-35. An essay on how to operationalize the use of medical futitlity within the context of hospital policies; it provides a model policy in this regard.
19. Jones WHS: Selection from the Hippocratic Corpus. In Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns. Edited by Reiser SJ, Dyck AJ, Curran WJ. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1977:6.
20. Waisel DB, Truog RD: The cardiopulmonary resuscitation-not-indicated order: futility revisited. Ann Intern Med 1995, 122:304-308.
21. Capron AM: Abandoning a waning life. Hastings Cent Rep 1995, 25:24-26.
22. American Thoracic Society: Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991, 144:726-731.
23. Task Force on Ethics of the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Consensus report on the ethics of foregoing life-sustaining treatments in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 1990, 18:1435-1439.
24. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators: A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients: the study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatment (SUPPORT). JAMA 1995, 274:1591-1636. A prospective observational study followed by an interventional clinical trial to improve physician-patient communication and decision making related to end-of-life medical care at five US teaching hospitals. The intervention included objective prognostic estimates of hospital survival and functional status after CPR and the efforts of a full-time trial nurse to inform patients and encourage communications about preferences related to end-of-life medical care. No significant differences were observed in the interventional group versus the control group.
25. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, Reeve J, Spanier A, King D, Molloy W, Willan A, Streiner DL: Determinants in Canadian health care workers of the decision to withdraw life support from the critically ill. JAMA 1995, 273:703-708. Cross-sectional survey of Canadian ICU practioners that used model case scenarios to identify predictive variables in the probability of stopping life-support using multi-variate logistic regression.
26. In re Quinlan, 70 N.E. 10, 355 A2d 647, cert denied 429 US 922 [1976].
27. Brophy vs New England Sinai Hospital, Inc., 398 Mass. 417, 497 N. 2d 626 [1986].
28. Cruzan v Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 110 S. Ct 284 [1990].
29. Dubler NN: The doctor-proxy relationship: the neglected connection. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1995, 5:289-306. This comprehensive essay focuses in on the poorly defined relationship between health care proxies and physicians, especially a physician's ethical duties to proxies, and identifies problems with this relationship as a major contributor to lack of success of advanced directives.
30. Drane JG, Coulehan JL: The best-interest standard: surrogate decision making and quality of life. J Clin Ethics 1995, 6:20-29.
31. Baergen R: Revising the substituted judgment standard. J Clin Ethics 1995, 6:30-38.
32. Christakis NA, Asch DA: Physician characteristics associated with decisions to withdraw life support. Am J Public Health 1995, 85:367-372. Results of a survey of Pennsylvania internists indicated that the respondents' personal characteristics, such as age and religion, and professional characteristics, such as medical specialty and exposure to ICU patients, influenced the respondents' willingness to withdraw life-support and their self-reported behavior in this regard.
33. Annas GJ: How we lie. Hastings Cent Rep 1995, 25:S12-S14. An essay that argues for the establishment of proactive legal measures to ensure that patient preferences regarding life-support are respected more consistently by the medical profession.
34. Marshall PA: The SUPPORT study: who's talking? Hastings Cent Rep 1995, 25:39-S11.
35. Brody H: The Healer's Power. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1992:68.
36. Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM: Changing physician's practices. N Engl J Med 1993, 329:1271-1274.
37. Emanuel LL: Structured deliberation to improve decision-making for the seriously ill. Hastings Cent Report 1995, 25:S14-S18.
38. Berwick DM: The SUPPORT project: lessons for action. Hastings Cent Report 1995, 25:S21-S22.
39. Schneider CE: From consumer choice to consumer welfare. Hastings Cent Report 1995, 25:S25-S28. The author suggests that the movement to empower patients by giving them more information about advance directives may be inadequate in a medical bureaucracy like a hospital and that more proactive reforms such as exist in the consumer welfare movement might be more useful. Doing more of the same, he suggests, is not likely to work.
40. Solomon MZ: The enormity of the task: SUPPORT and changing practice. Hastings Cent Rep 1995, 25:S28-S32.
41. Callahan D: Once again, reality: now where do we go? Hastings Cent Report 1995, 25:S33-S36.
42. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Chicago: JCAHO; 1988.
43. Vladeck BC: End-of-life-care. JAMA 1995, 274:449.