Advance directives are written documents that give patients the opportunity to communicate their preferences regarding treatments they do or do not want to receive in case they become unable to make decisions. Commonly used pre-printed forms have different formats. Some offer space for patients to appoint a surrogate decision maker, and/or to determine future medical treatments and/or give a statement of personal values. So far it is unknown which forms GPs preferably use and why they decide to do so. 23 (...) semi-structured interviews with GPs were analysed using content analysis. Interviewees mainly use short templates and medium length templates with checkboxes to indicate patients’ preferences in regards to life prolonging measures. Especially when patients faced the progression of a disease, participants use the latter version. Only then, the interviewees remarked, patients are capable to rate concrete situations reliably. GPs also realize the importance of the verbal assessment of patients’ preferences; however they rarely keep a written form of the conversation. Some GPs hand out one or more templates and ask their patients to read and think about them at home with the option to talk to them about it later on, while others prefer their patients to fill them out alone at home. Regardless of template usage, most GPs emphasize that ADs require regular updates. GPs tend to see standardized advance directives mainly as a tool to start a conversation with their patients and to identify their real preferences and values. When the patient is still not facing the progression of an already existing disease it could be sufficient to only appoint a surrogate decision maker instead of creating a full AD. However, in all other situations, appointing a surrogate decision maker should be backed up by a written statement of a patient’s general values. Patients and their relatives should always have the opportunity to ask their GP for medical advice when drafting an AD. It is crucial to regularly verify and update existing ADs within the course of a disease. (shrink)

BackgroundAdvance directives imply the promise of determining future medical treatment in case of decisional incapacity. However, clinical practice increasingly indicates that standardized ADs often fail to support patients’ autonomy. To date, little data are available about the quality and impact of ADs on end-of-life decisions for incapacitated acute stroke patients.MethodsWe analyzed the ADs of patients with fatal stroke, focusing on: their availability and type, stated circumstances to which the AD should apply, and stated wishes regarding specific treatment options.ResultsBetween 2011 and (...) 2014, 143 patients died during their hospitalization on our stroke unit. Forty-two of them had a completed and signed, written AD, as reported by their family, but only 35 ADs were available. The circumstances in which the AD should apply were stated by 21/35 as a “terminal condition that will cause death within a relatively short time” or an ongoing “dying process.” A retrospective review found only 16 of 35 ADs described circumstances that, according to the medical file, could have been considered applicable by the treating physicians. A majority of patients objected to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and artificial nutrition, while almost all directed that treatment for alleviation of pain or discomfort should be provided at all times even if it could hasten death.ConclusionsThe prevalence of ADs among patients who die from acute stroke is still low. A major flaw of the ADs in our cohort was their attempt to determine single medical procedures without focusing on a precise description of applicable scenarios. Therefore, less than half of the ADs were considered applicable for severe acute stroke. These findings stress the need to foster educational programs for the general public about advance care planning to facilitate the processing of timely, comprehensive, and individualized end-of-life decision-making. (shrink)