A cross-sectional study assessing concordance with advance care directives in a rural health district.

OBJECTIVE: To measure compliance with Advance Care Directives (ACDs) for decedents in a rural setting. DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional medical records audit comparing requests in ACDs with actual outcomes. SETTING: Rural Australian coastal district. PARTICIPANTS: People who had an ACD, died during the study period (30 May 2020 to 15 December 2021) and participated in a local research project. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Compliance was measured by comparing stated requests in the ACD with outcomes recorded in medical records. This included the place of death and a list of 'unacceptable interventions'. RESULTS: Sixty-eight people met the inclusion criteria (age range of 46-92 [mean 67 years; median 74 years]; 42 [62%] male). The main cause of death was cancer (n = 48; 71%). Preferred place of death was not stated in 16 ACDs. Compliance with documented preferred place of death was 63% (33/52): 48% (16/33) when the preferred place of death was home; 78% (7/9) when sub-acute was preferred; and 100% (10/10) when hospital was preferred. Compliance was 100% with 'unacceptable interventions'. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate strong compliance with rural patients' requests in ACDs, particularly 'unacceptable interventions'. Home was the most common preferred place of death, but the compliance measure (48%) was the lowest in this study. This requires further exploration.

Assessing patients decision-making capacity in the hospital setting: A literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Decision-making capacity assessments for hospital settings are challenging as it is dominated by the ethical and legal principles of maintaining autonomy and protection. Health clinicians, especially in rural areas, are challenged with a lack of a standardised processes and pathways for decision-making capacity assessment. A literature review was conducted to determine what measurement tools clinicians are utilising in the hospital setting for decision-making capacity assessment and how decisions relating to consent to treatment, independent living and finances are made. DESIGN: Literature review. METHOD: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases from January 2006 to April 2019 was conducted for peer-reviewed articles to determine how decision-making capacity assessments are conducted and the tools clinicians are utilising in the hospital setting. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified from this review: (a) domains of capacity; (b) capacity assessment; (c) capacity assessment instruments; (d) who performs capacity assessment; and (e) challenges and limitations to capacity assessment in the hospital setting. Currently, there is no gold standard for capacity assessment. CONCLUSION: This review shows that there is currently a lack of a uniform approach or a singular test to determine capacity. It is proposed that a multidisciplinary approach to decision-making capacity assessment could be an effective model in the hospital setting, especially in rural health due to limited access to aged care specialists. It is important that clinicians receive ongoing training in decision-making capacity assessment and further research is recommended in this specialised area of practice.