Background:
Advance care planning aims to ensure that care received during serious and chronic illness is consistent with the person’s values, preferences and goals. However, less than 40% of people with dementia undertake advance care planning internationally.
Aim:
This study aims to describe the perspectives of people with dementia and their carers on advance care planning and end-of-life care.
Design:
Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.
Data sources:
Electronic databases were searched from inception to July 2018.
Results:
From 84 studies involving 389 people with dementia and 1864 carers, five themes were identified: avoiding dehumanising treatment and care (remaining connected, delaying institutionalisation, rejecting the burdens of futile treatment); confronting emotionally difficult conversations (signifying death, unpreparedness to face impending cognitive decline, locked into a pathway); navigating existential tensions (accepting inevitable incapacity and death, fear of being responsible for cause of death, alleviating decisional responsibility); defining personal autonomy (struggling with unknown preferences, depending on carer advocacy, justifying treatments for health deteriorations); and lacking confidence in healthcare settings (distrusting clinicians’ mastery and knowledge, making uninformed choices, deprived of hospice access and support at end of life).
Conclusion:
People with dementia and their carers felt uncertain in making treatment decisions in the context of advance care planning and end-of-life care. Advance care planning strategies that attend to people’s uncertainty in decision-making may help to empower people with dementia and carers and strengthen person-centred care in this context.
ObjectivesIt is important that the outcomes of advance care planning (ACP) conversations are documented and available at the point of care. Advance care directives (ACDs) are a subset of ACP documentation and refer to structured documents that are completed and signed by competent adults. Other ACP documentation includes informal documentation by the person or on behalf of the person by someone else (eg, clinician, family). The primary objectives were to describe the prevalence and correlates of ACDs among Australians aged 65 and over accessing health and residential aged care services. The secondary aim was to describe the prevalence of other ACP documentation.Design and settingA prospective multicentre health record audit in general practices (n=13), hospitals (n=12) and residential aged care facilities (RACFs; n=26).Participants503 people attending general practice, 574 people admitted to hospitals and 1208 people in RACFs.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrevalence of one or more ACDs; prevalence of other ACP documentation.Results29.8% of people had at least one ACD on file. The majority were non-statutory documents (20.9%). ACD prevalence was significantly higher in RACFs (47.7%) than hospitals (15.7%) and general practices (3.2%) (p<0.001), and varied across jurisdictions. Multivariate logistic regression showed that the odds of having an ACD were positively associated with greater functional impairment and being in an RACF or hospital compared with general practice. 21.6% of people had other ACP documentation.ConclusionsIn this study, 30% of people had ACDs accessible and a further 20% had other ACP documentation, suggesting that approximately half of participants had some form of ACP. Correlates of ACD completion were greater impairment and being in an RACF or hospital. Greater efforts to promote and standardise ACDs across jurisdictions may help to assist older people to navigate and complete ACDs and to receive care consistent with their preferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12617000743369.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.