Original Article
Patient Beliefs and Preferences Regarding Surrogate Decision Makers
Abstract
Objectives: Many patients lose the capacity to make medical decisions because of severe illness or the effects of sedation or anesthesia. Most states in the United States designate the next of kin (NOK) as a default surrogate decision maker (SDM), but this may not always reflect patient preferences. Our objective was to determine how frequently the default SDM matched the patient’s preferred SDM, and whether patients knew who would serve as their SDM should they become incapacitated.Methods: We used a cross-sectional survey to determine whom patients believed would make decisions on their behalf, patients’ relationship to their preferred SDM, how frequently their NOK was their preferred SDM, and how frequently patients’ beliefs about SDM determination were accurate.
Results: In total, 18% of patients believed that someone other than their NOK would be asked to make decisions for them; 20.3% of all participants, and 9.3% of married participants, identified someone other than their NOK as their preferred SDM.
Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients are unaware that someone other than their preferred SDM may be asked to make decisions for them. Providers should explicitly ask patients about their preferences, including whom the patient’s preferred SDM would be, and should encourage the patient to designate a healthcare proxy when his or her preferred SDM is not the default SDM designated by local law. Although there are inherent problems with using SDMs, using the person preferred by the patient should result in a greater chance of following the patient’s wishes for medical treatment.
This content is limited to qualifying members.
Existing members, please login first
If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.
Purchase only this article ($25)
Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.
Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)
Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.
Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)
Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.
References
1. Pope TM. Legal fundamentals of surrogate decision making. Chest 2012;141:1074-1081.
2. DeMartino ES, Dudzinski DM, Doyle CK, et al. Who decides when a patient can’? Statutes on alternate decision makers. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1478-1482.
3. Hickman SE, Sabatino CP, Moss AH, et al. The POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) paradigm to improve end-of-life care: potential state legal barriers to implementation. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:119-140.
4. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. Default surrogate consent statutes. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_aging/2014_default_surrogate_consent_statutes.authcheckdam.pdf. Published 2014, updated 2018. Accessed June 30, 2018.
5. Raymont V, Bingley W, Buchanan A, et al. Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors: cross-sectional study. Lancet 2004;364:1421-1427.
6. Torke AM, Sachs GA, Helft PR, et al. Scope and outcomes of surrogate decision making among hospitalized older adults. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174: 370-377.
7. Mendoza JL, Burns CM. “Who Will Talk for Me?” Next of kin is not necessarily the preferred substitute decision maker: findings from an Australian intensive care unit. Palliat Med 2015;29:391-392.
8. Lipkin KM. Brief report: identifying a proxy for health care as part of routine medical inquiry. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:1188-1191.
9. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Chevret S, et al. Opinions about surrogate designation: a population survey in France. Crit Care Med 2003;31:1711-1714.
10. Mirzaei K, Milanifar A, Asghari F. Patients’ perspectives of the substitute decision maker: who makes better decisions? J Med Ethics 2011;37:523-525.
11. Puchalski CM, Zhong Z, Jacobs MM, et al. Patients who want their family and physician to make resuscitation decisions for them: observations from SUPPORT and HELP. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48( 5 Suppl ):S84-S90.
12. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
13. Sulmasy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, et al. The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Intern Med 1998;128: 621-629.
14. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2006;166: 493-497.
15. Wendler D. The theory and practice of surrogate decision-making. Hastings Cent Rep 2017;47:29-31.
16. Cohen AB, Trentalange M, Fried T. Patients with next-of-kin relationships outside the nuclear family. JAMA 2015;313:1369-1370.
17. Marks MA, Arkes HR. Patient and surrogate disagreement in end-of-life decisions: can surrogates accurately predict patients’ preferences? Med Decis Making 2008;28:524-531.
18. Moorman SM, Hauser RM, Carr D. Do older adults know their spouses’ end-of-life treatment preferences? Res Aging 2009;31:463-491.
19. Song MK, Ward SE. Disconnect between emergency contacts and surrogate decision-makers in the absence of advance directives. Palliat Med 2013;27:789-792.
20. Ala. Code 1975 §-8A-11.
21. Rolland JS, Emanuel LL, Torke AM. Applying a family systems lens to proxy decision making in clinical practice and research. Fam Syst Health 2017;35:7-17.
22. White DB. Rethinking interventions to improve surrogate decision making in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care 2011;20:252-257.
