| Summary: | Abstract Background Advance care planning involves the discussion and documentation of an individual’s values and preferences to guide their future healthcare should they lose capacity to make or communicate treatment decisions. Advance care planning can involve the individual’s completion of an Advance Care Directive (ACD), a legislated and common-law instrument which may include appointment of a substitute decision-maker and binding refusals of treatment. In South Australia, ACDs intersect in the acute-care context with the Resuscitation Plan 7-Step Pathway (7-SP), an integrated care plan written for and by clinicians, designed to organise and improve patients’ end-of-life care through the use of structured documentation. Here, we examine the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) within a hospital setting on the practical integration of ACDs and the 7-SP, exploring the perceived role, function, and value of each as they intersect to guide end-of-life care in an Australian hospital setting. Methods Qualitative data were collected via eight focus groups with a total of 74 HCPs (acute care, and oncology specialists; medical intern; general and emergency nurses; social workers) across two hospitals. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results HCPs viewed ACDs as a potentially valuable means of promoting patient autonomy, but as rarely completed and poorly integrated into hospital systems. Conversely, the process and documentation of the 7-SP was perceived as providing clarity about clinicians’ responsibilities, and as a well-understood, integrated resource. Participants sometimes exhibited uncertainty around which document takes precedence if both were present. Sometimes, the routinisation of the 7-SP meant it was understood as the ‘only way’ to determine patient wishes and provide optimal end-of-life care. When this occurs, the perceived authority of ACDs, or of patients’ choice not to participate in end-of-life discussions, may be undermined. Conclusions The intersection of ACDs and the 7-SP appears problematic within acute care. Clinicians’ uncertainty as to whether an ACD or 7-SP takes precedence, and when it should do so, suggests a need for further clarity and training on the roles of these documents in guiding clinical practice, the legislative context within which specific documentation is embedded, and the dynamics associated with collaborative decision-making in end-of-life care.
|
|---|
