Reasons for discordance and concordance between POLST orders and current treatment preferences.
Susan E Hickman, Alexia M Torke, Nicholette Heim Smith, Anne L Myers, Rebecca L Sudore, Bernard J Hammes, Greg A Sachs
Author Information
Susan E Hickman: Department of Community and Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Alexia M Torke: Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Nicholette Heim Smith: Department of Community and Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Anne L Myers: Department of Community and Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Rebecca L Sudore: Division of Geriatrics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA.
Bernard J Hammes: Respecting Choices, A Division of C-TAC Innovations, La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA.
Greg A Sachs: Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
BACKGROUND: The reasons for discordance between advance care planning (ACP) documentation and current preferences are not well understood. The POLST form offers a unique opportunity to learn about the reasons for discordance and concordance that has relevance for POLST as well as ACP generally. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive including constant comparative analysis within and across cases. SETTING: Twenty-six nursing facilities in Indiana. PARTICIPANTS: Residents (n = 36) and surrogate decision-makers of residents without decisional capacity (n = 37). MEASUREMENTS: A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore the reasons for discordance or concordance between current preferences and existing POLST forms. FINDINGS: Reasons for discordance include: (1) problematic nursing facility practices related to POLST completion; (2) missing key information about POLST treatment decisions; (3) deferring to others; and (4) changes over time. Some participants were unable to explain the discordance due to a lack of insight or inability to remember details of the original POLST conversation. Explanations for concordance include: (1) no change in the resident's medical condition and/or the resident is unlikely to improve; (2) use of the substituted judgment standard for surrogate decision-making; and (3) fixed opinion about what is "right" with little to no insight. CONCLUSION: Participant explanations for discordance between existing POLST orders and current preferences highlight the importance of adequate structures and processes to support high quality ACP in nursing facilities. Residents with stable or poor health may be more appropriate candidates for POLST than residents with a less clear prognosis, though preferences should be revisited periodically as well as when there is a change in condition to help ensure existing documentation is concordant with current treatment preferences.
