Article Text
Abstract
Objectives To investigate which of two sources of information about an older adult’s wishes—choices made in an advance directive or proxy’s opinion—provides better insight into the older adult’s preferences measured in hypothetical clinical situations involving decisional incapacity.
Methods Secondary analyses of data collected from 157 community-dwelling, decisionally competent adults aged 70 years and over who attended a group information session on advance directives with their proxy. Older adults were invited to complete a directive introduced during the session, designed to express healthcare preferences. An average of 3 months later, older adults were asked during an interview whether they would want to receive each of four medical interventions and what their goals of care would be should they develop one of three sudden health events, assuming that they had severe dementia. Proxies were asked to guess the older adult’s answers in each of the seven scenarios.
Results Eighty per cent of the older adults completed the directive. Choices they made in the directive were more in line with the preferences they stated during the interview than were their proxies’ guesses at their answers. However, concordance was relatively low, with percentages of agreement ranging from 43% to 83% across scenarios.
Conclusions Findings suggest that a directive might provide better insight into a person’s wishes than the person’s proxy, although neither source is perfect. A multifaceted decision-making model that includes both sources of information might better serve the interests of older adults who have lost the capacity to make decisions on their own.
Trial registration number ISRCTN89993391; Post-results.
- healthcare preferences
- advance directive
- proxy
- concordance
- agreement
- decisional incapacity
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors GB formulated the research question and wrote the paper. MS conducted the statistical analyses. MS and MA contributed to the interpretation of the data, critically revised drafts of the paper and approved its final version.
Funding The parent study from which the data come from was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant # 200809MCT-190832-RSA).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval Research Ethics Board of the University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- In the patient’s best interest: appraising social network site information for surrogate decision making
- Older adults’ medical preferences for the end of life: a cross-sectional population-based survey in Switzerland
- Advance care planning for vulnerable older adults within an Accountable Care Organization: study protocol for the IMPACT randomised controlled trial
- Determinants of completion of advance directives: a cross-sectional comparison of 649 outpatients from private practices versus 2158 outpatients from a university clinic
- Assessing the internal consistency and temporal stability of advance directives generated by an interactive, online computer program
- End-of-life health literacy, knowledge and behaviours towards advance care planning among older adults: cross-sectional evidence from Switzerland
- ‘Not yet’ and ‘Just ask’: barriers and facilitators to advance care planning—a qualitative descriptive study of the perspectives of seriously ill, older patients and their families
- Video decision aids to assist with advance care planning: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Evidence of increasing public participation in advance care planning: a comparison of polls in Alberta between 2007 and 2013
- Advance care planning in people with early cognitive impairment