Studies Find Emergency Doctors and Paramedics Commonly Misinterpret Documents for End-of-Life Care Choices, Reports Journal of Patient Safety

Article ID: 630310

Released: 26-Feb-2015 10:40 AM EST

Source Newsroom: Wolters Kluwer Health: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins

  • POLST document

Newswise — February 26, 2015 – Emergency care providers vary in their understanding of a type of medical order intended to communicate seriously ill patients' choices for life-sustaining treatments, according to a pair of studies in the March Journal of Patient Safety. The journal is published by Wolters Kluwer.

The studies show "significant confusion" among emergency physicians and prehospital care providers in interpreting the universal end-of-life care documents, called Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST). "Our data suggest that POLST orders can be confusing for Pennsylvania emergency physicians, and likely for physicians nationwide," wrote Dr. Ferdinando L. Mirarchi of UPMC Hamot, Erie, Pa., and colleagues.

How Well Do Emergency Providers Interpret POLST Documents?POLST orders are a growing "national paradigm" for seriously ill patients to document their choices regarding end-of-life-care. The POLST form is a one-page, brightly colored document—varying in color and formatting from state to state—that serves as an "active medical order" across healthcare settings. The POLST lets patients state their choices regarding resuscitation, either "do not resuscitate" (DNR) or full cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); and other treatments, with options for full treatment, limited treatment, or "comfort measures" only.

Dr Mirarchi and colleagues surveyed Pennsylvania emergency department physicians and prehospital care providers (paramedics and emergency medical technicians) regarding their understanding and interpretation of POLST forms. Both groups were presented with various clinical scenarios of critically ill patients, with POLST forms specifying different options for resuscitation and treatment.

Rates of "consensus"—defined as 95 percent agreement—were assessed in the different situations. Surveys were completed by 223 emergency physicians and 1,069 prehospital care providers.

In the majority of the clinical scenarios, for both emergency physicians and prehospital providers, the results fell well short of consensus benchmarks. "Both studies reveal variable understandings and variable responses as far as treating critically ill patients with the available POLST combinations of choices," Dr. Mirarchi comments.

Consensus Reached Only for Patients Choosing CPR and 'Full Treatment'Even when the POLST specified "DNR" with "comfort measures" only, ten percent of emergency physicians and 15 percent of prehospital providers indicated they would still perform CPR. The only situation to show 95 percent agreement was when the POLST form specified "CPR" and "full treatment."

Older and more experienced physicians were less likely to choose "DNR" in certain situations. In both studies, responses were similar for participants with and without previous POLST training.

Intended to address the limitations of "living wills" and advance directives for end-of-life care, "The POLST provides medical orders that are immediately actionable and to be universally honored across various healthcare settings," according to Dr Mirarchi and colleagues. It has quickly disseminated across the United States and has now been adopted by more than 20 states with other in the process of adopting. The POLST is generally used by seriously ill patients for whom sudden death within the next year "would not be surprising." However, some states and institutions have adopted its use outside of the specified indications.

Previous reports have suggested that POLST orders can help to ensure that patients receive care consistent with their treatment goals. Additionally, they are very effective at limiting life-saving care and may prevent avoidable readmissions to hospitals.

However, there has been no study to confirm that the POLST combinations truly equate with informed consent by patients. Reports show that the majority of POLST forms are prepared by non-medical personnel, and then become actionable with a physician's signature.

The new study raises further concern by showing that emergency care providers vary in their interpretation of POLST documents. In some situations, respondents indicate that they would resuscitate when they should be expected to withhold life-saving treatment. Conversely, some respondents would withhold treatment when they would be expected to provide life-saving care.

"Our results reveal clinical and safety issues related to confusion" with POLST documents, Dr Mirarchi and colleagues write. The researchers call for continued research, standards, and education to help ensure "patient autonomy and appropriate care" regarding life-sustaining treatments for people with serious illnesses and limited life expectancy. They have developed a patient safety checklist to be utilized at the time of resuscitation to remind providers to confirm and follow expressed treatment choices with an individualized plan of care for the patient.

Click here to read “TRIAD VI: How Well Do Emergency Physicians Understand Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Forms?”

Article: “TRIAD VI: How Well Do Emergency Physicians Understand Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Forms? (doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000165)

###

About the Journal of Patient SafetyThe Journal of Patient Safety is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing lessons learned from near-miss incidents, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. It prioritizes articles that translate knowledge to action as healthcare transitions from a volume driven to value driven paradigm…making certain that safety is the core intrinsic property. The mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.

About Wolters Kluwer HealthWolters Kluwer Health is a leading global provider of information, business intelligence and point-of-care solutions for the healthcare industry. Serving more than 150 countries worldwide, clinicians rely on Wolters Kluwer Health’s market leading information-enabled tools and software solutions throughout their professional careers from training to research to practice. Major brands include Health Language®, Lexicomp®, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Medicom®, Medknow, Ovid®, Pharmacy OneSource®, ProVation® Medical and UpToDate®.

Wolters Kluwer Health is part of Wolters Kluwer, a market-leading global information services company. Wolters Kluwer had 2013 annual revenues of €3.6 billion ($4.7 billion), employs approximately 19,000 people worldwide, and maintains operations in over 40 countries across Europe, North America, Asia Pacific, and Latin America.maintains operations in over 40 countries across Europe, North America, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. Wolters Kluwer is headquartered in Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands. Its shares are quoted on Euronext Amsterdam (WKL) and are included in the AEX and Euronext 100 indices. Wolters Kluwer has a sponsored Level 1 American Depositary Receipt program. The ADRs are traded on the over-the-counter market in the U.S. (WTKWY).

Follow our official Twitter handle: @WKHealth.


Comment/Share

Chat now!