 |
|
Can Goals of Care Be Used to Predict Intervention Preferences in an Advance Directive?
Gary S. Fischer, MD;
Hillel R. Alpert, MPM;
John D. Stoeckle, MD;
Linda L. Emanuel, MD, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(7):801-807.
Abstract
Background
Some have suggested that advance directives elicit goals of care from patients, instead of or in addition to specific intervention preferences, but little is known about whether goals of care can be used in a meaningful way on documents or whether they can predict preferences for specific interventions.
Methods
Attending physicians (n=716) at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston were surveyed to elicit general goals of care (eg, treat everything or comfort measures only) along with specific preferences for 11 medical interventions in 6 scenarios. In each scenario, each goal was classified as an adequate predictor of acceptance or rejection of an intervention if its predictive value of the preference for that intervention was at least 80%.
Results
Goals varied with scenarios (P<.001) in a predictable manner. The goal treat everything was an adequate predictor of acceptance of each intervention, and comfort was an adequate predictor of rejection for nearly every intervention. Attempt cure adequately predicted acceptance of almost every nonaggressive intervention, but did not predict acceptance of aggressive interventions. Quality of life predicted rejection of aggressive interventions in 3 scenarios, but was not useful in other cases. When goals were predictors of preferences, the mean range of 95% confidence intervals for their predictive values was generally 20% or less.
Conclusions
Goals have a valid role in advance directives, since the goal choices had a logical relationship to scenarios and intervention choices. However, the 2 goals attempt cure and choose quality of life were not predictive in many instances. If these findings hold true for more general populations of patients, then advance directive documents will need to rely on more than these general goal statements if they are to adequately represent patient preferences.
Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:801-807
Author Affiliations
From the Division of General Internal Medicine and Center for Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Pittsburgh, Pa (Dr Fischer), and Division of Medical Ethics, Harvard Medical School (Drs Alpert and Emanuel), and Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (Drs Stoeckle and Emanuel), Boston, Mass.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Review Article: Goals of Care Toward the End of Life: A Structured Literature Review
Kaldjian et al.
AM J HOSP PALLIAT CARE 2009;25:501-511.
ABSTRACT
Stability of Preferences for End-of-Life Treatment After 3 Years of Follow-up: The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study
Wittink et al.
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:2125-2130.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Three Methods of Assessing Values for Advance Care Planning: Comparing Persons With and Without Dementia
Karel et al.
J Aging Health 2007;19:123-151.
ABSTRACT
Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Patients With Cardiopulmonary Diseases: American College of Chest Physicians Position Statement
Selecky et al.
Chest 2005;128:3599-3610.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ethical Challenges of Partial Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) Orders: Placing DNR Orders in the Context of a Life-Threatening Conditions Care Plan
Berger
Arch Intern Med 2003;163:2270-2275.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A messy necessary end: Health care proxies need our support
Goldblatt
Neurology 2001;56:148-152.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Goals in Geriatric Assessment: Are We Measuring the Right Outcomes?
Bradley et al.
The Gerontologist 2000;40:191-196.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality End-of-Life Care: Patients' Perspectives
Singer et al.
JAMA 1999;281:163-168.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
