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 who lacked a surrogate decision maker and an advance directive.

6 and lower ICU charges than patients without advance directives.

7 ignificantly among patients with and without advance directives.

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

9 Few critically ill seniors have advance directives.

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

11 titutional programs seem more promising than advance directives.

12 available treatment, yet few presented with advance directives.

13 may compromise the clinical effectiveness of advance directives.

14 al barriers to the clinical effectiveness of advance directives.

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

16 These findings support the continued use of advance directives.

17 uld have influenced participants to complete advance directives.

18 have raised questions regarding the value of advance directives.

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

20 ked knowledge about the perioperative use of advance directives.

21 tion to facilitate completion of psychiatric advance directives.

22 patients plan for future needs and complete advance directives.

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

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

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

26 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35 Advance directives, although important, are just one pie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

58 Advance directives are recorded by medical personnel mor

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

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

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

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

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

64 Conversations about advance directives averaged 5.6 minutes; physicians spok

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

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

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

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

69 Rate of advance directive completion, assessed by inspection of

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

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

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

73 , 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 12.9), advance directive discussions (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 8

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

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

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

77 Advanced directive documentation was significantly great

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90 Advance directive law may compromise the clinical effect

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

92 These restrictions have rendered advance directives less clinically useful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 Because advance directives offer only limited benefit, advance c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

112 , 1.48 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.99), not having an advance directive (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.04 to 1.76]), estimat

113 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120 Advance directives promise patients a say in their futur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

131 Advance directives simply presuppose more control over f

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

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

134 Advance directives specifying limitations in end-of-life

135 Advance directives specifying limits in care were associ

136 Advance directive statements included refusal of cardiop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

153 Advance directives were associated with higher adjusted

154 Advance directives were designed to help patients establ

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

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

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

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

159 48% (36 of 75) actually preferred to discuss advance directives with their oncologist if AD discussio

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