PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10732933

Systematic implementation of an advance directive program in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although advance directives are commonly used in the community, little is known about the effects of their systematic implementation. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of systematically implementing an advance directive in nursing homes on patient and family satisfaction with involvement in decision making and on health care costs. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted June 1, 1994, to August 31, 1998. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1292 residents in 6 Ontario nursing homes with more than 100 residents each. INTERVENTION: The Let Me Decide advance directive program included educating staff in local hospitals and nursing homes, residents, and families about advance directives and offering competent residents or next-of-kin of mentally incompetent residents an advance directive that provided a range of health care choices for life-threatening illness, cardiac arrest, and nutrition. The 6 nursing homes were pair-matched on key characteristics, and 1 home per pair was randomized to take part in the program. Control nursing homes continued with prior policies concerning advance directives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Residents' and families' satisfaction with health care and health care services utilization over 18 months, compared between intervention and control nursing homes. RESULTS: Of 527 participating residents in intervention nursing homes, 49% of competent residents and 78% of families of incompetent residents completed advance directives. Satisfaction was not significantly different in intervention and control nursing homes. The mean difference (scale, 1-7) between intervention and control homes was -0.16 (95 % confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to 0.10) for competent residents and 0.07 (95% CI, -0.08 to 0.23) for families of incompetent residents. Intervention nursing homes reported fewer hospitalizations per resident (mean, 0.27 vs 0.48; P = .001) and less resource use (average total cost per patient, Can $3490 vs Can $5239; P = .01) than control nursing homes. Proportion of deaths in intervention (24%) and control (28%) nursing homes were similar (P = .20). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that systematic implementation of a program to increase use of advance directives reduces health care services utilization without affecting satisfaction or mortality.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D W Molloy, G H Guyatt, R Russo, R Goeree, B J O'Brien, M Bédard, A Willan, J Watson, C Patterson, C Harrison, T Standish, D Strang, P J Darzins, S Smith, S Dubois. 2000-03-15. Systematic implementation of an advance directive program in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial.. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.11.1437

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

"Not-for-resuscitation" orders in Australian public hospitals: policies, standardised order forms and patient information leaflets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and content of policies, standardised order forms (SOFs) and patient information leaflets (PILs) pertaining to "not-for-resuscitation" (NFR) orders in Australian public hospitals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional postal survey conducted across Australia from August to December 2005, using a one-page questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of Medical, Nursing or Clinical Services of all public hospitals in Australia with 60 or more beds, excluding psychiatric, military and private hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of documented NFR policies, by hospital characteristics, and content of these policies, SOFs and PILs. RESULTS: 222 hospitals were surveyed, and 157 responded (71%). Of these, 85 (54%) had NFR policies, 62 (39%) had SOFs, and four (3%) had PILs. Hospitals with more than 200 beds were more likely to have NFR policies than those with 60-200 beds (P = 0.04). More metropolitan than rural hospitals had NFR policies (P = 0.01). More hospitals with 60-100 beds had SOFs than hospitals with 101-200 beds (P = 0.03). "NFR" was defined in 53% of policies, while 97% of policies explicitly stated where NFR orders were to be documented, 89% stated who was allowed to make them, 37% stated that advanced care directives ("living wills") were to be respected, and 89% stated that competent patients should be involved in discussions regarding their NFR status. The most common items noted in SOFs were the name and signature of the issuing medical practitioner (92%) and documentation of the discussion with the patient (81%). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in the content of hospital policies, SOFs and PILs pertaining to NFR orders. Aspects of current policies show room for improvement.

Advance Directives↗

Modifications to advanced life support in renal failure.

The outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been reported to be worse in patients with renal failure compared with those with normal renal function. It is likely that this increased mortality may be at least partly attributable to sub-optimal and highly variable treatment strategies used in cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure, but this issue has not previously been explored. Such patients undoubtedly pose a challenge to advanced life support (ALS) providers, and renal unit staff are not trained to provide specialist advice after a patient has sustained a cardiac arrest. There are few studies investigating the epidemiology, safety or outcome of cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure and there are no generally accepted resuscitation guidelines for this special circumstance. In this article we discuss the unique problems of resuscitating patients with renal failure and propose a suitable management strategy.

Advance Directives↗