Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 10/2010

01-10-2010 | Original Research

Medical Decision-making During the Guardianship Process for Incapacitated, Hospitalized Adults: A Descriptive Cohort Study

Authors: Robin J. Bandy, JD, MA, Paul R. Helft, MD, Robert W. Bandy, MS, Alexia M. Torke, MD, MS

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 10/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gillick MR. Medical decision-making for the unbefriended nursing home resident. J Ethics Law Aging. 1995;1(2):87–92.PubMed Gillick MR. Medical decision-making for the unbefriended nursing home resident. J Ethics Law Aging. 1995;1(2):87–92.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Karp N, Wood E. Incapacitated and Alone: Healthcare Decision-making for Unbefriended Older People. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging; 2003. Karp N, Wood E. Incapacitated and Alone: Healthcare Decision-making for Unbefriended Older People. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging; 2003.
3.
go back to reference Veatch RM. Limits of guardian treatment refusal: a reasonableness standard. Am J Law Med. 1984;9(4):427–68.PubMed Veatch RM. Limits of guardian treatment refusal: a reasonableness standard. Am J Law Med. 1984;9(4):427–68.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Chambers-Evans J, Carnevale F. Dawning of awareness: the experience of surrogate decision making at the end of life. J Clin Ethics. 2005;16(1):28–45.PubMed Chambers-Evans J, Carnevale F. Dawning of awareness: the experience of surrogate decision making at the end of life. J Clin Ethics. 2005;16(1):28–45.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Jeffers BR. The surrogate’s experience during treatment decision-making. Med Surg Nurs. 1998;7(6):357–63. Jeffers BR. The surrogate’s experience during treatment decision-making. Med Surg Nurs. 1998;7(6):357–63.
6.
go back to reference Swigart V, Lidz C, Butterworth V, Arnold R. Letting go: family willingness to forgo life support. Heart Lung. 1996;25(6):483–94.CrossRefPubMed Swigart V, Lidz C, Butterworth V, Arnold R. Letting go: family willingness to forgo life support. Heart Lung. 1996;25(6):483–94.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Garland MJ, Nelson CA. Decisions about life-sustaining treatment: impact of physicians’ behaviors on the family. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:633–8.CrossRefPubMed Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Garland MJ, Nelson CA. Decisions about life-sustaining treatment: impact of physicians’ behaviors on the family. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:633–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Torke AM, Alexander GC, Lantos J, Siegler M. The physician-surrogate relationship. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1117–21.CrossRefPubMed Torke AM, Alexander GC, Lantos J, Siegler M. The physician-surrogate relationship. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1117–21.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Frank C. Surrogate decision-making for “Friendless” patients. Colorado Lawyer. 2005;71-75. Frank C. Surrogate decision-making for “Friendless” patients. Colorado Lawyer. 2005;71-75.
10.
go back to reference Ind. Code Ann. §16-36-1-5 (West Supp. 2008). Ind. Code Ann. §16-36-1-5 (West Supp. 2008).
11.
go back to reference Ind. Code Ann. §29-3-3-4 (West Supp. 2008). Ind. Code Ann. §29-3-3-4 (West Supp. 2008).
12.
go back to reference Guidelines for Emergency Guardianships of Adults in Marion County. Bureau of Quality Improvement Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities and Rehabilitative Services, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, March 2008. Guidelines for Emergency Guardianships of Adults in Marion County. Bureau of Quality Improvement Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities and Rehabilitative Services, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, March 2008.
13.
go back to reference Ind. Code §16-36-3-3 and Ind. Code §16-36-3-5. Ind. Code §16-36-3-3 and Ind. Code §16-36-3-5.
14.
go back to reference Berger JT. Ethical challenges of partial Do_Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2270–5.CrossRefPubMed Berger JT. Ethical challenges of partial Do_Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2270–5.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference White DB, Curtis JR, Lo B, Luce JM. Decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for critically Ill patients who lack both decision-making capacity and surrogate decision makers. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(8):2053–9.CrossRefPubMed White DB, Curtis JR, Lo B, Luce JM. Decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for critically Ill patients who lack both decision-making capacity and surrogate decision makers. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(8):2053–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference White DB. Life support for patients without a surrogate decision maker: who decides? Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:34–40.PubMed White DB. Life support for patients without a surrogate decision maker: who decides? Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:34–40.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Fader AM, et al. Implementing a “Do-Not-Resuscitate” (DNR) policy in a nursing home. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1989;37:544–8.PubMed Fader AM, et al. Implementing a “Do-Not-Resuscitate” (DNR) policy in a nursing home. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1989;37:544–8.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Molloy WD, Guyatt GH. A comprehensive health care directive in a home for the aged. Can Med Ass J. 1991;145(4):307–11. Molloy WD, Guyatt GH. A comprehensive health care directive in a home for the aged. Can Med Ass J. 1991;145(4):307–11.
19.
go back to reference Barton. Guardianship Reform and an Aging Population, Northwest Indiana Symposium December 2008. Barton. Guardianship Reform and an Aging Population, Northwest Indiana Symposium December 2008.
20.
go back to reference Hardy D. Who is guarding the guardians? A localized call for improved guardianship systems and monitoring. NAELA J. 2008;4(1):1–33. Hardy D. Who is guarding the guardians? A localized call for improved guardianship systems and monitoring. NAELA J. 2008;4(1):1–33.
21.
go back to reference Herr SS, Hopkins BL. Health care decision-making of persons with disabilities. An alternative to guardianship. JAMA. 1994;271(13):1017–22.CrossRefPubMed Herr SS, Hopkins BL. Health care decision-making of persons with disabilities. An alternative to guardianship. JAMA. 1994;271(13):1017–22.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Teaster PB, Wood EF, Schmidt WC, Lawrence SA. Public Guardianship after 25 Years: In the Best Interest of Incapacitated People? National Study of Public Guardianship; 2007. Teaster PB, Wood EF, Schmidt WC, Lawrence SA. Public Guardianship after 25 Years: In the Best Interest of Incapacitated People? National Study of Public Guardianship; 2007.
23.
go back to reference Indiana Adult Guardianship Services (IAGS) Project Symposium. Adult Guardianship Issues & Needs Indianapolis, Indiana. May 12, 2009. Indiana Adult Guardianship Services (IAGS) Project Symposium. Adult Guardianship Issues & Needs Indianapolis, Indiana. May 12, 2009.
Metadata
Title
Medical Decision-making During the Guardianship Process for Incapacitated, Hospitalized Adults: A Descriptive Cohort Study
Authors
Robin J. Bandy, JD, MA
Paul R. Helft, MD
Robert W. Bandy, MS
Alexia M. Torke, MD, MS
Publication date
01-10-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 10/2010
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1351-8

Other articles of this Issue 10/2010

Journal of General Internal Medicine 10/2010 Go to the issue