August 15, 2026 10:58 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Ajit Doval breaks silence on Operation Sindoor in Discovery’s explosive new docuseries | Rahul Gandhi's 'mock hug' taunt sparks row; Centre stresses 'mutual respect' with Italy | Delhi on high alert: Bomb threat to High Court, airport and multiple locations ahead of I-Day | ‘Who are they to interfere?’: CJI Surya Kant slams Bar Council of India over NALSAR students’ enrolment row | 'Shows how low Congress has sunk': BJP slams Rahul Gandhi over Modi foreign policy jibe | From guns to glamour: Former women Maoists walk the ramp in Chhattisgarh | Netaji row: Suvendu Adhikari govt strips BJP MP Anant Maharaj of state honour | Sukhbir Badal attacked by Nihang Sikh with kirpan at Maharashtra gurdwara; assailant detained | ‘If you cannot do it, we will pass an order’: Supreme Court’s final warning to Centre on food labels | ‘Time to move on’: Bombay HC sends strong message in Vijay Mallya-bank dispute

End-of-life planning talks often fail to communicate goals, finds study

| | Mar 21, 2017, at 10:22 pm
London, Mar 21 (IBNS): Too few older adults plan ahead for end-of-life medical decisions.

Even when they do identify a loved one to make decisions for them, their preferences are not always communicated or understood, according to a new study led by a Yale researcher.

The study was published March 20 by the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

Advance care planning allows older adults to prepare for future treatment decisions, and ideally involves a surrogate who can make decisions on the patient’s behalf. One key goal of planning is to increase the surrogate’s knowledge of the patient’s preferences. While research has shown that surrogates often lack this knowledge, no prior study has examined both the patient and surrogate perspective.

To investigate the issue, Yale’s Dr. Terri Fried and her colleagues interviewed 350 veterans 55 years of age or older, and separately interviewed the individuals the veterans had selected as their surrogates. To gauge the surrogates’ knowledge, they asked whether the patient would prefer treatment even if that treatment would leave the patient severely impaired physically, cognitively, or in severe pain.

The research team found that overall, advanced care planning was lacking. Over 40% of the veteran-surrogate pairs agreed the veterans had not communicated their wishes with their surrogates, or completed a living will or health care proxy.

The researchers also learned that patients and surrogates frequently disagreed about whether they had communicated about end-of-life decisions. Only 20% of surrogates could predict the patient’s wishes for life-sustaining treatment. That knowledge was only slightly better among pairs who had agreed they had communicated than those who did not agree.

The data strongly suggest that surrogates must be more involved in advance care planning. “You can’t assume advanced care planning achieves the goal of making sure the surrogate understands what the patient wants,” said Fried. “Planning needs to include a facilitated discussion between the patient and the surrogate to make sure they are hearing each other and talking about things that are important to the patient.”

To that end, older adults and their surrogates may need extra help with planning, she said. That help may take the form of a clinician facilitator or an internet-based tool. Fried and her colleagues are planning to study the effectiveness of using materials tailored to the patient. They will also assess the impact of conducting motivational interviews.

“The jury is still out on the best way to help people,” said Fried.

Other study authors are Maria Zenoni, Lynne Iannone, John O’Leary, and Brenda T. Fenton.

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service, and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at Yale University School of Medicine.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.