ライフサイエンスコーパス: advance directive

1 Few completed a research advance directive.

2 eir practitioner and 1088 (38%) completed an advance directive.

3 quest to withdraw was supported by a patient advance directive.

4 Only 15 (14%) had an advance directive.

5 did not want, and 554 (84.1%) filled out an advance directive.

6 who lacked a surrogate decision maker and an advance directive.

7 ors; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives.

8 to 1996, 236 (27%) were identified as having advance directives.

9 available treatment, yet few presented with advance directives.

10 and lower ICU charges than patients without advance directives.

11 ignificantly among patients with and without advance directives.

12 Few critically ill seniors have advance directives.

13 istered to 11% of the patients who died with advance directives.

14 titutional programs seem more promising than advance directives.

15 ked knowledge about the perioperative use of advance directives.

16 tality attributed to increased completion of advance directives.

17 ferences in the medical record and completed advance directives.

18 Ten of these patients had advance directives.

19 the patient, and 43% of patients had written advance directives.

20 may compromise the clinical effectiveness of advance directives.

21 al barriers to the clinical effectiveness of advance directives.

22 ty and 67.6% of those subjects, in turn, had advance directives.

23 These findings support the continued use of advance directives.

24 uld have influenced participants to complete advance directives.

25 have raised questions regarding the value of advance directives.

26 roxy and 33 (16.2%) expressed preferences in advance directives.

27 There were no differences in completion of advance directives.

28 tion to facilitate completion of psychiatric advance directives.

29 patients plan for future needs and complete advance directives.

30 ics, health profiles, functional status, and advanced directives.

31 aphics (8), chronic comorbid illnesses (18), advanced directives (1), ICU diagnoses (61), diagnostic

32 cipate in discussions 2.7 (0.9), and lack of advance directives 2.9 (1.0); clinician factors, which i

33 n bias in those patients who use hospice and advance directives, (2) the different time frames of ass

34 5; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.44), and if they had an advance directive (65% v 50%; OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.54 to

35 significant differences in documentation of advanced directives (9.6% for TBC vs 9.9% for TPM; OR, 0

36 , male sex, divorced marital status, lack of advance directives, a recent decline in functional statu

37 The Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) provides legal immunity fo

38 Advance directive (AD) designation is an important compo

39 Spiritual Well-Being subscale; at 6 months, advance directive (AD) documentation; and at 46 months o

40 The presence of a written advance directive (AD) in the medical record at the time

41 es suggesting that discussing and completing advance directives (AD) can promote more acceptance and

42 at all patients with heart failure (HF) have advance directives (AD) in place before the end of life

43 involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of h

44 ents with cancer do not discuss prognosis or advance directives (ADs), which may lead to inappropriat

45 itation programs as foci for education about advance directives (ADs).

46 Patients were more likely to complete an advance directive after a physician discussion (odds rat

47 Eleven of those who died had advanced directives against intubation.

48 ess recovery action plan and (7) psychiatric advance directive, alongside several novel recovery prog

49 Advance directives, although important, are just one pie

50 There is a high prevalence of advance directives among American dialysis patients, and

51 These data could aid discussions regarding advance directives among surgical patients.

52 s measures: Identify medical decision-maker, advance directive and resuscitation preference, distribu

53 n of documentation and the implementation of advance directives and advance care planning.

54 We studied the availability of advance directives and appropriate surrogates to guide d

55 hod of helping patients complete psychiatric advance directives and ensuring that the documents conta

56 Effectiveness of legislation promoting advance directives and legalizing physician-assisted sui

57 ople claim that increased use of hospice and advance directives and lower use of high-technology inte

58 care, state laws and regulations concerning advance directives and medical licensure, and literature

59 important differences between living wills, advance directives and other forms of healthcare proxies

60 ssociation between preferences documented in advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision ma

61 ceived written information about psychiatric advance directives and referral to resources in the publ

62 -making are discussed, including guidance on advance directives and shared decision-making.

63 e available medical options, 15 (19%) had an advance directive, and 28 (25%) had a palliative care co

64 or patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-m

65 HC), (3) patient-physician discussions about advance directives, and (4) discussions about life suppo

66 d (for example, 35 states did not allow oral advance directives, and 48 states required witness signa

67 Of these 539, 448 (83.1%) had advance directives, and 60 (11.1%) had POLST forms.

68 of-life care preferences, use of hospice and advance directives, and direct and indirect costs would

69 include improving readability, allowing oral advance directives, and eliminating witness or notary re

70 he patient-physician relationship, distress, advance directives, and end-of-life care preferences.

71 nflict resolution of disagreements, honoring advance directives, and ensuring the provision of pallia

72 Thirty percent of American patients had advance directives, and such directives were used in dec

73 nly 0.3% of German and Japanese patients had advance directives, and such directives were used in dec

74 ation and mechanical ventilation, to prepare advance directives, and to participate in a plan to mana

75 the studies on cost savings from hospice and advance directives are not definitive.

76 Advance directives are recorded by medical personnel mor

77 govern all future treatment decisions; oral advance directives are unenforceable; (5) if a physician

78 Living wills, a type of advance directive, are promoted as a way for patients to

79 Prior work suggests many surgeons regard advance directives as antithetical to the goals of surgi

80 Psychiatrists rated the advance directives as highly consistent with standards o

81 s, unexpected problems arise often to defeat advance directives, as the case in this paper illustrate

82 Secondary outcomes were completion of advance directives, assessments (falls, incontinence, an

83 Conversations about advance directives averaged 5.6 minutes; physicians spok

84 nts (52%) either sometimes or always discuss advance directives before surgery, with younger physicia

85 show a high potential demand for psychiatric advance directives but low completion rates.

86 anese nephrologists appear willing to follow advance directives, but the low prevalence of such direc

87 , the existing data suggest that hospice and advance directives can save between 25% and 40% of healt

88 A significant absolute increase in advance directive completion of 28.4% with GAIN vs 13.3%

89 Advance directive completion was higher under the interv

90 Rate of advance directive completion, assessed by inspection of

91 Secondary outcomes included advance directive completion, emergency department visit

92 focused primary care was not associated with advance directive completion, medication quality, or sel

93 mes included goals of care conversations and advance directive completion.

94 with completion and implementation, but the advance directive concept itself may be fundamentally fl

95 d diagnosis) critically ill patients without advance directives (control group).

96 anical ventilation for at least 96 hours and advanced directive decisions in the subgroup receiving a

97 ument how physicians introduced the topic of advance directives, discussed scenarios and treatments,

98 sion), and physician-related factors (having advanced directives discussion) (p < 0.0001).

99 , 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 12.9), advance directive discussions (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 8

100 mplished the goal of introducing patients to advance directives, discussions infrequently dealt with

101 When available, advance directives do not change care or reduce hospital

102 ; p < 0.001) as were first-time requests for advanced directive documentation (14.6% vs 0.0%; p < 0.0

103 Advanced directive documentation was significantly great

104 discussed in this essay shows, even a valid advance directive does not guarantee that unwanted medic

105 ulmonary rehabilitation to assess effects of advance directive education on completion of (1) living

106 ression models examined associations between advance directives, end-of-life Medicare expenditures, a

107 Many had not completed an advance directive (estimated probability, 47.5% [95% CI,

108 incapacitated patient without a surrogate or advance directive for whom they considered limiting life

109 s to assess attitudes and concerns regarding advance directives for their patients who have high-risk

110 imal, self-guided intervention consisting of advance directive forms and written educational informat

111 The presence of frailty or advance directives had little impact on limiting use of

112 hrs (19% vs. 11%, p =.046) and patients with advance directives had shorter ICU durations and lower I

113 The presence of an advance directive, however, may have helped guide decisi

114 severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive in their medical record, and physician

115 o limit treatment was based on the patient's advance directives in 9,951 (48%), and in 15,341 (73%),

116 The language in an advanced directive is often imprecise and may not provid

117 Completion of an advance directive, its structure and content, and its sh

118 Advance directive law may compromise the clinical effect

119 Unintended negative consequences of advance directive legal restrictions may prevent all pat

120 These restrictions have rendered advance directives less clinically useful.

121 d decline to operate on patients who have an advance directive limiting postoperative life-supporting

122 vance directives preoperatively, and (2) how advance directives limiting postoperative life-supportin

123 It is unclear if advance directives (living wills) are associated with en

124 ors responding to the survey thought that an advance directive made by the patient should have a deci

125 ch evidence be provided in a formal research advance directive may be unnecessarily restrictive.

126 tion that leads to the completion of written advance directives may influence the usefulness of these

127 Achieving the promise of psychiatric advance directives may require system-level policies to

128 ing medical treatment may be terminated; (4) advance directives must comply with specific forms, are

129 vance care planning, including completion of advance directives, occurs for all patients with serious

130 Because advance directives offer only limited benefit, advance c

131 re defined: patients with do not resuscitate advance directives on day 1 of ICU admission and a contr

132 A case is made for listing simplified Advance Directives on the Medicare card.

133 ce, and decision-making capacity to complete advance directives on the treatment preferences for life

134 t for an incompetent patient who had left no advance directive or appointed healthcare proxy.

135 ants in the facilitated session completed an advance directive or authorized a proxy decision maker,

136 al care research based on the presence of an advance directive or do-not-resuscitate order, as it wou

137 itical care research involving patients with advance directives or do-not-resuscitate status is both

138 pen discourse and encourage the execution of advance directives or healthcare proxies.

139 d of life (EOL) decisional authority through advance directives or surrogates.

140 , 1.48 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimat

141 (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7), and authoring an advance directive (OR,1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-2.0) were not ass

142 goals of care documented in an ACP note, an advance directive, or a physician order for life-sustain

143 reement with the medical team, the patient's advance directive, or each other lasting >7 days; death

144 ts when they have do-not-resuscitate orders, advance directives, or are in need of end-of-life care.

145 Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are promising tools that may r

146 ients valued the existence or creation of an advance directive preoperatively, but they did not discu

147 ariables and: (1) how often surgeons discuss advance directives preoperatively, and (2) how advance d

148 Many surgeons do not routinely discuss advanced directives preoperatively and more than one hal

149 including symptom management and discussing advance directives, prognosis, and hospice care.

150 Advance directives promise patients a say in their futur

151 Patients who had prepared advance directives received care that was strongly assoc

152 < .001); and the presence of clearly defined advance directives regarding patient preferences for med

153 west levels were for legal issues (proxy and advanced directives) related to end of life.

154 ns were applied in patients with and without advance directives (respectively): mechanical ventilatio

155 The advance directive's 4 clinical scenarios found a prefere

156 ficiency, or both who cannot read or execute advance directives; same-sex or domestic partners who ma

157 ndomly assigned to a facilitated psychiatric advance directive session or a control group that receiv

158 CP conversation (session 2), and Five Wishes advance directive (session 3).

159 bioethical, and financial issues as well as advance directives should be addressed long before enter

160 ertheless, they do indicate that hospice and advance directives should be encouraged because they cer

161 The nonrandomized trials of hospice and advance directives show a wide range of savings, from 68

162 Advance directives simply presuppose more control over f

163 We now have a decade of experience with advance directives since the Patient Self-Determination

164 and families at time of hospitalization and advance directives solicited.

165 Advance directives specifying limitations in end-of-life

166 Advance directives specifying limits in care were associ

167 Advance directive statements included refusal of cardiop

168 Two patients received CPR, despite advance directive statements refusing this treatment.

169 to be aware of whether or not patients have advance directive statements, as unauthorized CPR was ad

170 s not affected by the presence or absence of advance directive statements.

171 Two independent reviewers selected 51 advance directive statutes and 20 articles.

172 Nineteen (5%) patients had advance directives (study group).

173 likely to stop dialysis in the absence of an advance directive than German or Japanese nephrologists.

174 More patients with advance directives than those without had do-not-resusci

175 ICU family meeting who refuses to follow an advance directive that clearly declines advanced life-su

176 nsplantation based upon (1) the telos of the advance directive that may not be applicable to this cli

177 mination Act encourages patients to fill out advance directives that state their desires.

178 eview shows that 90% of patients do not have advance directives, that patients and doctors are both r

179 pitals and not others, although none used an advance directive to refuse all treatment.

180 Most participants used the advance directive to refuse some medications and to expr

181 They enable patients' advance directives to be valid wherever they are cared f

182 transcripts of audiotaped discussions about advance directives to document how physicians introduced

183 The overall completion rate for advance directives was 26.7% (95% CI, 21.5% to 32.5%), w

184 ses, blacks, Hispanics, and those without an advance directive were at increased risk.

185 Higher comorbidities and prior advance directives were associated with GOCD but were of

186 Advance directives were associated with higher adjusted

187 Advance directives were designed to help patients establ

188 ge, ethnicity, marital status, religion, and advance directives were not associated with accuracy.

189 impairment and were incapable of completing advance directives were significantly more likely to opt

190 One hundred thirty five patients who had advance directives were successfully matched to 135 pati

191 n consisting of counseling and completing an advance directive with a social worker.

192 48% (36 of 75) actually preferred to discuss advance directives with their oncologist if AD discussio

193 ients who lack surrogate decision makers and advance directives, yet little is known about how often