4.5 Article

Advance Care Planning in terminally ill and frail older persons

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 323-329

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.008

Keywords

End-of-life care; Advance Care Planning; Elderly; Communication

Funding

  1. Belgian Federal Public Service of Health [NKP_24]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Advance Care Planning (ACP) - the communication process by which patients establish goals and preferences for future care - is encouraged to improve the quality of end-of-life care. Gaining insight into the views of elderly on ACP was the aim of this study, as most studies concern younger patients. Methods: We conducted and analysed 38 semi-structured interviews in elderly patients with limited prognosis. Results: The majority of participants were willing to talk about dying. In some elderly, however, nonacceptance of their nearing death made ACP conversations impossible. Most of the participants wanted to plan those issues of end-of-life care related to personal experiences and fears. They were less interested in planning other end-of-life situations being outside of their power of imagination. Other factors determining if patients proceed to ACP were trust in family and/or physician and the need for control. Conclusions: ACP is considered important by most elderly. However, there is a risk of pseudo-participation in case of non-acceptance of the nearing death or planning end-of-life situations outside the patient's power of imagination. This may result in end-of-life decisions not reflecting the patient's true wishes. Practice implications: Before engaging in ACP conversations, physicians should explore if the patient accepts dying as a likely outcome. Also the experiences and fears concerning death and dying, trust and the need for control should be assessed. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available