Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 259–263 | Cite as

Outpatients’ attitudes and understanding regarding living wills

  • Sandra K. Joos
  • James B. Reuler
  • John L Powell
  • David H. Hickam
Original Articles

Abstract

Objective: To assess outpatients’ attitudes toward and understanding of a standard living will.

Design: Survey using a self-administered questionnaire that patients completed after they had read a sample living will.

Setting: General medicine clinic of a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center.

Patients: Two hundred fourteen patients (85% of those approached) attending a continuity care clinic appointment. Eighty-seven percent were men; mean age was 60 years.

Measurements and main results: Patients’ attitudes toward living wills, understanding of the terminology contained in living wills, desire to discuss living wills with their doctors, and desire to prepare a living will.

Results: Seventy-two percent of the patients had prior knowledge of living wills, though only 53% had discussed the topic with family members and only 14% with physicians. Half felt that the living will terminology should be simplified, and 55% were unable to identify the correct definition for at least one commonly used term. Desire to prepare a living will was positively associated with better understanding of the sample document and previous knowledge of and exposure to living wills, and was negatively associated with concern about its use and revocability (all p<0.001). Patients who reported poor understanding of the living will were more likely to want to discuss the topic with a physician (p<0.01).

Conclusions: In this ambulatory patient population attitudes toward living wills were influenced by knowledge and understanding of these documents. Primary care physicians and institutions should develop patient education strategies that enhance understanding of advance directives.

Key words

living wills advance directives ambulatory care patient attitudes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weir RF, Gostin L. Decisions to abate life-sustaining treatment for nonautonomous patients—ethical standards and legal liability for physicians after Cruzan. JAMA. 1990;264:1846–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    White BD, Siegler M, Singer PA, Iserson KV. What does Cruzan mean to the practicing physician? Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:925–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emanuel LL, Barry MJ, Stoeckle JD, Ettelson LM, Emanuel EJ. Advance directives for medical care — a case for greater use. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:889–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stolman CJ, Gregory JJ, Dunn D, Levine JL. Evaluation of patient, physician, nurse, and family attitudes toward to not resuscitate orders. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:653–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schonwetter RS, Teasdale TA, Taffet G, Robinson BE, Luchi RJ. Educating the elderly: cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions before and after intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:372–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davidson KW, Hackler C, Caradine DR, McCord RS. Physicians’ attitudes on advance directives. JAMA. 1989;262:2415–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teno J, Fleishman J, Brock DW, Mor V. The use of formal prior directives among patients with HIV-related diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5:490–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wanzer SH, Federman DP, Adelstein SJ, et al. The physician’s responsibility toward hopelessly ill patients. A second look. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:844–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Making health care decisions—when you can’t speak for yourself. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Decisions, 1990; 13–4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liebetrau AM. Measures of association. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-032. Beverly Hills, CA, and London: Sage Publications, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marascuilo LA, McSweeney M. Nonparametric and distribution-free methods for the social sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lo B, McLeod GA, Saika G. Patient attitudes to discussing life-sustaining treatment. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:161–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ethics Committee, American College of Physicians. American College of Physicians ethics manual. Part 2: The physician and society; research; life-sustaining treatment; other issues. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:327–35.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blackhall LJ, Cobb J, Moskowitz MA. Discussions regarding aggressive care with critically ill patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:399–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emanuel LL, Emanuel EJ. The medical directive: a comprehensive advance care document. JAMA. 1989;261:3288–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hare J, Nelson C. Will outpatients complete living wills? A comparison of two interventions. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra K. Joos
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • James B. Reuler
    • 1
    • 3
  • John L Powell
    • 3
  • David H. Hickam
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.the Section of General Medicine, Medical ServiceOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortland
  2. 2.the Health Services Research and Development ProgramOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortland
  3. 3.Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Division of General Medicine, Department of MedicineOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortland

Personalised recommendations