Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Ethics and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Physician perspectives and compliance with patient advance directives: the role external factors play on physician decision making

Christopher M Burkle1*, Paul S Mueller2, Keith M Swetz2, C Christopher Hook3 and Mark T Keegan1

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

2 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

3 Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Ethics 2012, 13:31  doi:10.1186/1472-6939-13-31

Published: 21 November 2012

Abstract

Background

Following passage of the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990, health care institutions that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding are required to inform patients of their right to make their health care preferences known through execution of a living will and/or to appoint a surrogate-decision maker. We evaluated the impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physicians’ decisions to honor or forgo previously established advance directives (ADs). In addition, physician views regarding legal risk, patients’ ability to comprehend complexities involved with their care, and impact of medical costs related to end-of-life care decisions were explored.

Methods

Attendees of two Mayo Clinic continuing medical education courses were surveyed. Three scenarios based in part on previously court-litigated matters assessed impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physician compliance with patient-articulated wishes regarding resuscitation. General questions measured respondents’ perception of legal risk, concerns over patient knowledge of idiosyncrasies involved with their care, and impact medical costs may have on compliance with patient preferences. Responses indicating strength of agreement or disagreement with statements were treated as ordinal data and analyzed using the Cochran Armitage trend test.

Results

Three hundred eighty-eight of 951 surveys were completed (41% response rate). Eighty percent reported they were likely to honor a patient’s AD despite its 5 year age. Fewer than half (41%) would honor the AD of a patient in ventricular fibrillation who had expressed a desire to “pass away in peace.” Few (17%) would forgo an AD following a family’s request for continued resuscitative treatment. A majority (52%) considered risk of liability to be lower when maintaining someone alive against their wishes than mistakenly failing to provide resuscitative efforts. A large percentage (74%) disagreed that patients could not appreciate complexities surrounding their care while 69% agreed that costs should never impact a physician’s decision as to whether to comply with a patient’s AD.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the impact, albeit small, external factors have on physician AD compliance. Most respondents based their decision on the clinical situation at hand and interpretation of the patient’s initial wishes and preferences expressed by the AD.

Keywords:
Advance directive; Physician decision making; Patient preference