How Surrogates Decide: A Secondary Data Analysis of Decision-Making Principles Used by the Surrogates of Hospitalized Older Adults

被引:29
作者
Devnani, Rohit [1 ,2 ]
Slaven, James E., Jr. [3 ]
Bosslet, Gabriel T. [1 ,2 ]
Montz, Kianna [4 ]
Inger, Lev [4 ]
Burke, Emily S. [4 ]
Torke, Alexia M. [2 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Div Pulm Crit Care Sleep & Occupat Med, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[2] Indiana Univ Hlth, Fairbanks Ctr Med Eth, Indianapolis, IN USA
[3] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Dept Biostat, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[4] Indiana Univ, Ctr Aging Res, Regenstrief Inst Inc, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[5] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Dept Med, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
关键词
medical decision-making; patient preferences; ethics; aging; doctor-patient relationships; SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT; LIFE; END; CARE; VALIDATION; INTERESTS; PREFERENCES; INCAPACITY; ACCURACY; AUTONOMY;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-017-4158-z
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Many hospitalized adults do not have the capacity to make their own health care decisions and thus require a surrogate decision-maker. While the ethical standard suggests that decisions should focus on a patient's preferences, our study explores the principles that surrogates consider most important when making decisions for older hospitalized patients. We sought to determine how frequently surrogate decision-makers prioritized patient preferences in decision-making and what factors may predict their doing so. We performed a secondary data analysis of a study conducted at three local hospitals that surveyed surrogate decision-makers for hospitalized patients 65 years of age and older. Surrogates rated the importance of 16 decision-making principles and selected the one that was most important. We divided the surrogates into two groups: those who prioritized patient preferences and those who prioritized patient well-being. We analyzed the two groups for differences in knowledge of patient preferences, presence of advance directives, and psychological outcomes. A total of 362 surrogates rated an average of six principles as being extremely important in decision-making; 77.8% of surrogates selected a patient well-being principle as the most important, whereas only 21.1% selected a patient preferences principle. Advance directives were more common to the patient preferences group than the patient well-being group (61.3% vs. 44.9%; 95% CI: 1.01-3.18; p = 0.04), whereas having conversations with the patient about their health care preferences was not a significant predictor of surrogate group identity (81.3% vs. 67.4%; 95% CI: 0.39-1.14; p = 0.14). We found no differences between the two groups regarding surrogate anxiety, depression, or decisional conflict. While surrogates considered many factors, they focused more often on patient well-being than on patient preferences, in contravention of our current ethical framework. Surrogates more commonly prioritized patient preferences if they had advance directives available to them.
引用
收藏
页码:1285 / 1293
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1983, DEC FOR LIF SUST TRE
[2]  
Berger JT, 2005, J CLIN ETHIC, V16, P3
[3]   Decision-making styles of seriously ill male Veterans for end-of-life care: Autonomists, Altruists, Authorizers, Absolute Trusters, and Avoiders [J].
Braun, Ursula K. ;
Beyth, Rebecca J. ;
Ford, Marvella E. ;
Espadas, Donna ;
McCullough, Laurence B. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2014, 94 (03) :334-341
[4]   Reconceptualizing the Experience of Surrogate Decision Making: Reports vs Genuine Decisions [J].
Braun, Ursula K. ;
Naik, Aanand D. ;
McCullough, Laurence B. .
ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2009, 7 (03) :249-253
[5]  
Brudney D, 2009, HASTINGS CENT REP, V39, P31
[6]  
Buchanan AllenE., 1990, DECIDING OTHERS ETHI
[7]   The dynamics of change: Cancer patients' preferences for information, involvement and support [J].
Butow, PN ;
Maclean, M ;
Dunn, SM ;
Tattersall, MHN ;
Boyer, MJ .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1997, 8 (09) :857-863
[8]  
Dresser R, 2003, TEX LAW REV, V81, P1823
[9]  
EMANUEL EJ, 1992, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V267, P2067
[10]   Enough - The failure of the living will [J].
Fagerlin, A ;
Schneider, CE .
HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 2004, 34 (02) :30-42