Do surrogates predict patient preferences more accurately after a physician-led discussion about advance directives? A randomized controlled trial

Catarina Sampaio Martins, Iva Sousa, Cláudia Barros, Alexandra Pires, Luisa Castro, Cristina da Costa Santos, Rui Nunes, Catarina Sampaio Martins, Iva Sousa, Cláudia Barros, Alexandra Pires, Luisa Castro, Cristina da Costa Santos, Rui Nunes

Abstract

Background: Caregivers frequently assume the role of surrogate decision-makers but often are unable to accurately predict patients' preferences. This trial aims to find if the use of the Advance Directives documents as a communication tool, improves the agreement between patients and caregivers.

Methods: This trial occurred in a palliative care service of a Portuguese hospital center. A prospective, single-blinded, controlled, randomized trial, enrolling patients and caregivers as a dyad was conducted. Participants individually fulfilled an Advance Directive document, in which patients reported their end-of-life preferences and caregivers reported their decisions as patients' health surrogates. Dyads were randomly assigned to the Intervention or the Control group, in which the physician respectively promoted an open discussion about patients' Advance Directives or evaluated patients' clinical condition. Caregivers' Advance Directives as surrogates were collected one month later. Proportions of agreement and Cohen's κ were used to access agreement and reliability, respectively, between the dyads.

Results: Results from 58 dyads were analyzed. We observed an improvement in agreement between the caregivers' answers and the patients' wishes on two-thirds (8/12) of the answers, in the Intervention group, contrasting to one-quarter (3/12) of the answers, in the Control group, despite statistical significance in differences wasn´t obtained.

Conclusions: Although not reaching statistical significance, the results suggest that discussions of advance directives with physicians may lead to better prepared surrogates.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05090072 . Retrospectively registered on 22/10/2021.

Keywords: Advance Directives; Caregivers; Decision-making; Palliative Care.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Consort 2010 Flow Diagram

References

    1. Wittich AR, Williams BR, Bailey FA, Woodby LL, Burgio KL. “He got his last wishes”: Ways of knowing a loved one’s end-of-life preferences and whether those preferences were honored. J Clin Ethics. 2013;24(2):113–124.
    1. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers. A systematic review Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(5):493–497. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.5.493.
    1. Engelberg RA, Patrick DL, Curtis JR. Correspondence between patient’s preferences and surrogates’ understandings for dying and death. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30(6):498–509. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.06.006.
    1. Tunney RJ, Ziegler FV. Toward a psychology of surrogate decision making. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(6):880–885. doi: 10.1177/1745691615598508.
    1. Pérez MV, Macchi MJ, Agranatti AF. Advance directives in the context of end-of-life palliative care. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2013;7(4):406–410. doi: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000007.
    1. Rentev - Testamento Vital - Diretiva Antecipada de Vontade. Retrieved from: Accessed on 18th Apr 2018.
    1. Emanuel LL. Advance directives Ann Rev Med. 2008;59:187–198. doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.58.072905.062804.
    1. Folstein M, McHugh P. Mini mental state a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.
    1. Guerreiro M, Silva AP, Botelho MA. Adaptação à população portuguesa na tradução do “Mini Mental State Examination” (MMSE) Revista Portuguesa de Neurologia. 1994;1:9–10.
    1. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care. 1991;7:6–9. doi: 10.1177/082585979100700202.
    1. Haahr M. (1998). - list randomizer. Accessed on May 3rd, 2018. Retrieved from Accessed on May 3rd, 2018.
    1. Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002.
    1. Grant JM. The fetal heart rate trace is normal, isn’t it? Observer agreement of categorical assessments. Lancet. 1991;337(8735):215–218. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92169-3.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measurement. 1960;20(1):37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Henriques T, Antunes L, Costa-Santos C. obs.agree: An R package to assess agreement between observers. R package version 1.0. URL: Accessed 2013.
    1. Revelle W. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. URL: Version = 2.0.8. (Accessed on 2020)
    1. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2020. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: . Accessed on 2020.
    1. Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N. Palliative Performance Scale (PPS): A new tool. J Palliat Care. 1996;12(1):5–11. doi: 10.1177/082585979601200102.
    1. Thiede E, Levi BH, Lipnick D, Johnson R, La IS, Lehman EB et al. Effect of Advance Care Planning on Surrogate Decision Makers’ Preparedness for Decision Making: Results of a Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial. J Palliat Med. 2020; Epub ahead of print 29 December 2020. 10.1089/jpm.2020.0238
    1. Su Y, Yuki M, Hirayama K. The experiences and perspectives of family surrogate decision-makers: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(6):1070–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.12.011.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe