BACKGROUND: It is sometimes necessary for courts to appoint guardians for adult, incapacitated patients. There are few data describing how medical decisions are made for such patients before and during the guardianship process. OBJECTIVE:To describe the process of medical decision-making for incapacitated, hospitalized adults for whom court-appointed guardians are requested. DESIGN:Retrospective, descriptive cohort study. MEASUREMENTS:Patients were identified from the legal files of a public, urban hospital. Medical and legal records were reviewed for demographic data, code status, diagnoses, code status orders and invasive procedures and person authorizing the order or procedure, dates of incapacitation and appointment of temporary guardian, reason for guardianship, and documentation of communication with a guardian. RESULTS:A total of 79 patients met inclusion criteria; 68.4% were male and 56.2% African-American. The median age was 65 years. Of the 71 patients with medical records available 89% of patients had a temporary guardianship petitioned because of the need for placement only. Seventeen patients had a new DNR order written during hospitalization, eight of which were ordered by physicians without consultation with a surrogate decision maker. Overall, 32 patients underwent a total of 81 documented invasive procedures, 16 of which were authorized by the patient, 15 by family or friend, and 11 by a guardian; consent was not required for 39 of the procedures because of emergency conditions or because a procedure was medically necessary and no surrogate decision maker was available.CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the guardianships were requested for placement purposes, important medical decisions were made while patients were awaiting appointment of a guardian. Hospitalized, incapacitated adults awaiting guardianship may lack a surrogate decision maker when serious decisions must be made about their medical care.KEY WORDS: proxy decision-making; court-appointed guardian; incapacitated patients; health care decisions; surrogate decisionmaking; health care consent.

Unbefriended, incapacitated individuals who lack surrogates to make medical decisions present a complex problem to the healthcare providers who treat them. Adults without surrogates are among the most vulnerable in the community and are often alone and estranged from family, neglected and abused, and at risk of receiving inappropriate medical treatment. This article describes the program model and outcomes for the first 2 years of the Wishard Volunteer Advocates Program (WVAP), a guardianship program using trained, supervised volunteers as surrogates for unbefriended, incapacitated individuals. Of the 50 individuals enrolled during the study period, 20 were female, and 39 were Caucasian and 11 African American. Their average age was 67. Nineteen were insured with Medicare as primary and Medicaid as supplementary insurance. Ninety-eight percent had four or more comorbid conditions at the time of the index hospitalization. Before program referral, many lived alone in unsafe conditions. Adult Protective Services was involved in almost half of the cases at the time of the index hospitalization. Approximately half of the participants required some type of property management. Healthcare usage data demonstrated that most were not receiving medical care before WVAP enrollment; the data indicated a decrease in emergency department visits and hospitalization after WVAP enrollment. The WVAP completed Medicaid applications for 12 participants, resulting in $297,481.62 in reimbursement for the index hospitalization and a payer source for subsequent hospitalization and long-term care. The volunteer advocate model provides an efficient and quality mechanism for providing unbefriended individuals with surrogates.

Written behavioral agreements (WBAs) are gaining popularity as part of the effort to manage the alarming increase in prescription drug abuse. The rationale for increased use of WBAs in managing patients with chronic pain is that they are believed to increase adherence to agreed-upon behaviors, reduce addiction to or diversion of prescription drugs, and satisfy informed consent requirements. However, there are no high-quality data to support their widespread use in any of these areas. The evidence used to support the use of WBAs is insufficient to justify their unfairness and the high risk of harm they pose to the doctor-patient relationship. Instead, we contend that WBAs are being used to provide leverage for severing relationships with some of our most challenging patients. We propose that physicians treating patients for chronic pain abandon the use of WBAs. Alternatives include open communication, detailed informed consent processes, carefully documented discussions, and most important, commitment to ongoing relationships even with difficult patients.