The Completion Rate Of Advance Directives

Documentation and communication are constant challenges that healthcare providers face when seeking continuity of care for their patients. Every time a patient moves from a hospital to a nursing home, or from a skilled nursing facility to home health or hospice, the staff that cares for the patient is at risk for a gap in patient care and communication. Home health and hospice agencies rely heavily on Medicaid and other insurance for reimbursements in order to continue to provide care for their patients and keep the doors to their agencies open. Thorough and timely documentation is the key to ensuring proper reimbursement for nursing services and other therapies provided from insurance agencies. This same

The increased use of advanced directives, such as do-not-resuscitate orders, has made discussions on end-of-life care much easier for patients and professionals alike.

The Federal Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) of 1991 first brought attention to the importance of advance directives (GAPNA, n.d.). Although regulatory bodies continue to promote advance directives, little has been done to encourage and enforce this initiative, highlighting the need for directed efforts to improve AD completion rates. The overall prevalence of completed advance directives in the United has been estimated that 5-15% (Tung & North, 2009). This indicates a need for programs to educate and empower patients and providers to ensure that dialogue about advanced care planning is initiated early on, and that advance directives are completed. Studies have shown that patients prefer that their primary care doctor initiate such planning while they are in good health and that such planning should occur earlier than it did in terms of age, natural history of disease, and patient-physician relationship. The barriers to advance care planning that have been identified include availability of trained staff, organizational commitment and policy to support advance care planning, and understanding/support of providers (Ramsaroop, Reid, & Adelman, 2007).

A legal requirement of end of life care is that the wishes of the individual, including whether CPR should be attempted, as well as their wishes how they are cared for after death are properly documented. This means that their rights and wishes even after death are respected.

A legal requirement of end of life care is that the wishes of the individual, including whether CPR should be attempted, as well as their wishes how they are cared for after death are

A patient barrier might include having limited knowledge surrounding life-support systems and treatment options, thereby hindering their ability to fully comprehend or demand certain interventions. Good counseling is therefore essential to overcoming this barrier in implementing the patient’s true and best wishes (Kroning, 2014, p. 222). Another barrier in implementing advance directives concerns the role and influence of family members and the patient. There may be discordance between the desires of the patient and family, which can result in serious debate and tension if not addressed and taken into consideration. Physicians still may have reservations, as certain demands made by the patient may raise ethical concerns in the future, if the provider feels the interventions being done are no longer medically appropriate.

Advance Directives by the patient designates no feeding tubes, artificial ventilation, or CPR. Concerns regarding alteration of mental status consequential to his illness provoke the physician to seek consultation from the designated Power of Attorney. Nursing responsibilities compel the nurse to consider if the proposed actions of Dr. G violate the patient’s rights of self determination and confidentiality and prompt the nurse to advocate for the patient’s desires regarding medical treatment. Health care providers have a responsibility to honor the patient’s autonomy and provide quality medical care (Badger, 2009 p122). Providing artificial nutrition and ventilation transgresses the patient’s directives and is unethical. The physician appears to be asserting a paternalistic approach in deciding what is best for this patient. Should the interventions be temporary and provide resolution of the condition, the physician can defend his actions as being healing and beneficial. However, there is a chance that the interventions may be permanent and futile; avoiding passive euthanasia and terminal dehydration, serving only to prolonging the illness. Violating the patient’s directives of care by performing invasive procedures can lead to legal incriminations of assault and battery.

The patient is experiencing a major illness or disease within their body. All patients who qualify for this act are terminally ill and have six months or less to live. They have exhausted all treatment options or are opting to forgo treatment in favor of quality and not quantity of life. The medications administered to facilitate dying cause CNS depression which lowers the heart rate and respirations and increases drowsiness causing sedation and then ultimately death.

An example of this Act is the very popular Nancy Cruzan Case. Although Nancy was left in a vegetative state resulting from a car accident, her parents were able to make the decision to have her removed from feeding tubes because Nancy expressed before the accident that she never wanted to be kept alive from breathing or feeding tubes. This Act really promotes Advanced Directives and hospitals, clinics and other providers that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds to provide patients with written information about their right and the information must clearly state the institutions policies on withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

Figure 1 displays each state within the United States and which form of advanced directive they have adopted into their individual state’s laws. Utah is one of twenty-eight states which have implemented an advanced health care directive with both a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care. In the state of Utah advanced health care directive is defined as “a designation of an agent to make health care decisions for an adult when the adult cannot make or communicate health care decisions; or an expression of preferences about health care decisions” (le.utah.gov). Agent is defined as “a person designated in an advance health care directive to make health care decisions for the declarant (le.utah.gov).” An individual has the right to not appoint and agent on Utah advanced health care directive forms as well (le.utah.gov).

On the same token, it’s recommended that adult children also have a living will, aka an advance care directive, which outlines a person’s wishes about life-extending medical treatment, as well as other intentions, such as organ donations. This document takes effect when the doctor declares that the patient lacks the capacity to make their own health care

This film explains the legal role of advance directives in end of life issues. An advance directive is “a written document directing how medical decisions are to be made in the future when the patient lacks decisional capacity and is unable to decide and choose” (Hanlon, End of Life Issues, Slide 28, Bullet 1). All three of the cases demonstrate the importance in filling out some form of directive. When there is nothing to go off of, it makes decisions extremely tough for families and medical providers. Having legal documentation of patient wishes helps understand what treatments they would or would not consent to. In cases like

With an increasing aging population and growing numbers of individuals with chronic conditions, it is important for individuals to prepare for end-of-life care. An Advance Directive is a defined as a “legal document that provides data to critical care staff about patients’ wishes, especially when critical illness decreases decision-making ability” (McAdam, Stotts, Padilla, and Puntillo, 2005). An Advance Directive also allows for better communication between the patient and doctor, and preserves the autonomy of patients. It may also alleviate one’s family from any possible burden of uncertainty of one’s wishes. It provides guidance, which may avert arguments with family members concerning treatment choices (Cedars Sinai, 2015). The Patient

Advance Directives gives a documented guide to the care giver’s or family member’s, so that they all can provide the kind of care that the medically impaired patient wants. This covers a wide variety of medical treatments such as dialisis, ventilators, feeding tubes and organ and or tissue transplants. If a patient has kidney

A Do not resuscitate (DNR) order is a legal document written by a licensed physician, which is developed in consultation with the patient, surrogate decision maker, and attending physician. This document indicates whether the patient will receive resuscitative care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or advanced medical directives, in the setting of cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. A DNR can also be referred as a no code when identifying a patient’s resuscitation status. If a patient has an existing DNR it allows the resuscitation team, taking care of the patient, to either withhold or stop any resuscitation measures, and therefore respect the patient’s wishes. Historically, DNR orders did not become active in the care of patients until 1974, when it was identified that patients who received CPR, and survived, had significant morbidities (Braddock & Derbenwick-Clark, 2014). Braddock and Derbenwick-Clark further noted, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommended that physicians, in consultation with the patient, family, and or surrogate, place on the patients chart when CPR was not indicated. This documentation is now what we refer to as the DNR order and has become the standard to allow autonomous respect for patients, and their families, to make informed medical decisions. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the legal aspects, ethical issues, and the application surrounding the DNR order.