• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.103-128
• /
• 2023

According to the current act of Decision-Marking in Life-Sustaining Medicine, the decision to withhold or discontinue life-sustaining treatment is primarily based on the wishes of a patient in the dying process. Decision-making regarding life-sustaining treatment for these patients is made by the patient, if he or she is conscious, directly expressing his/her intention for life-sustaining treatment in writing or verbally or by writing an advance medical directive and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment. It can be exercised. On the other hand, if the patient has not written an advance medical directive or physician orders for life-sustaining treatment, the patient's intention can be confirmed with a statement from the patient's family, or a decision to discontinue life-sustaining treatment can be made with the consent of all members of the patient's family. However, in the case of an unrelated patient who has no family or whose family is unknown, if an advance medical directive or physician orders for life-sustaining treatment are not written before hospitalization and a medical condition prevents the patient from expressing his or her opinion, the patient's will cannot be known and the patient cannot be informed. A situation arises where a decision must be made as to whether to continue or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. This study reviewed discussions and measures for unbefriended patients under the current law in order to suggest policy measures for deciding on life-sustaining treatment in the case of unbefriended patients. First, we looked at the application of the adult guardian system, but although an adult guardian can replace consent for medical treatment that infringes on the body, permission from the family court is required in cases where death may occur as a direct result of medical treatment. It cannot be said to be an appropriate solution for patients in the process of dying. Second, in accordance with Article 14 of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act, we looked at the deliberation of medical institution ethics committees on decisions to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for patients without family ties.Under the current law, the medical institution ethics committee cannot make decisions on discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment for unbefriended patients, so through revision, matters regarding decisions on discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment for unbefriended patients are reflected in Article 14 of the same Act or separate provisions for unbefriended patients are made. It is necessary to establish and amend new provisions. In addition, the medical institution ethics committee must make a decision on unbefriended patients, but if the medical institution cannot make such a decision, there is a need to revise the law so that the public ethics committee can make decisions, such as discontinuing life-sustaining treatment for unbefriended patients.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.51-57
• /
• 2018

Purpose: End-of-life (EoL) decisions are challenging and multifaceted for patients and physicians. This study was aimed to explore how EoL care is practiced for patients with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients who died after agreeing to a DNR order in 2016 at a university hospital. Characteristics including cause of death, intensity of EoL care, and other factors were reviewed and statistically analyzed. Results: Of total 375 patients, 170 patients (45.3%) died with malignancies, and 205 patients (54.6%) with other causes involving the central nervous system (19.2%), pulmonary (14.7%), cardiologic (6.7%) and infectious (6.4%) conditions. Both the cancer and non-cancer patient groups showed a short duration from DNR to death (median 3 days vs 2 days, P=0.629). An intensive care group comprising patients who received one or more intensive treatments such as ventilator (n=205) showed a higher number of non-cancer patients and a shorter duration from DNR to death than a group that withheld treatment before DNR (P<0.05). Conclusion: EoL decisions were made very late by both cancer and non-cancer patients. About half of the patients did not have cancer, and two-thirds of them decided DNR during intensive treatment. To make a good EoL decision, a shared decision making with patients should be done at an earlier stage.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.198-206
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life was enacted in 2016 and has taken effect since 2018 February. The content of this act was based on Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) in the United States and we modified it for terminal cancer patients registering hospice. The object of this study is to investigate preference and implementation rate for modified Korean POLST (MMK-POLST) items in hospice ward. Methods: From February 1, 2017 to April 30, 2019, medical records regarding MMK-POLST were retrospectively analyzed for all patients hospitalized in the hospice ward of Gyeongsang National University Hospital. Results: Of the eligible 387 total cohorts, 295 patients filled out MK-POLST. MK-POLST has been completed in 133 cases (44.1%) by the patient themselves, 84 cases (28.5%) by the spouse, and 75 cases (25.4%) by their children, respectively. While only 13 (4.4%) out of 295 MK-POLST completed patients refused the parenteral nutrition and 5 patients (1.7%) for palliative sedation, the absolute majority of 288 (97.6%) patients did not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and ventilators and 226 people (76.9%) for pressor medications. Kappa values for the matched strength of MK-POLST implementation were poor for all items except CPR, ventilators and palliative sedation. Conclusion: Hospice patients refused to conduct cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilators and pressor agents. In contrast, antibiotics, parenteral nutrition and palliative sedation were favored in the majority of patients.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.67-76
• /
• 2019

For hospice palliative care that provides comprehensive and general care, it is necessary to use assessment tools to objectively list issues and detail care plans. The initial assessment is a process of establishing an overall direction of care by identifying the patient's symptoms, social and spiritual issues and palliative care needs on the admission day or within one day of admission. This process is also used to identify the patients' and families' awareness of the illness, prognosis, treatment options and if the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) has been drafted. Consisting of 13 simple questions regarding the physical, mental, social, and spiritual domains, the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) is recommended as an initial assessment tool. Using specific assessment tools, a care plan is established for the issues identified in the initial assessment within three days of admission. A multidisciplinary assessment tool can be helpful in the physical domain. The psychosocial domain evaluates psychological distress, anxiety and depression. The social domain examines an ability to make decisions, understanding of the socioeconomic circumstance, family relationship, and death preparedness. A spiritual evaluation is also important, for which the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual WellBeing Scale (FACIT-Sp) or the Spiritual Health Inventory (SHI) can be used. The use of an assessment tool could not only contribute to pain mitigation a better quality of life for patients, but also provide systematic training for a multidisciplinary team; And the process itself could be a stepping stone for the better care provision.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.19-28
• /
• 2023

Background: With the enactment of the Hospice, Palliative, Care, and Life-sustaining Treatment Decision-Making Act in February 2018, legal guidelines for physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST) were presented. This study was conducted to analyze the association of writing POLST on the use of health care before death. Methods: The study analyzed the electronic medical records and POLSTs of 1,003 adult patients who died at a tertiary hospital located in Seoul from February 4, 2018 to February 4, 2019. Results: Of the deaths, 80% (n=804) completed POLST. Among patients who completed POLST before death, 51% (n=412) were written 1-7 days before death, and only 31% (n=246) were completed by patients themselves. 99% (n=799) decided to withdraw or withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation. As a result of analyzing the effect of POLST on medical use before death, it was found that POLST and inpatient cost had a significant negative correlation, and POLST completion significantly reduced death in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, both inpatient costs and death at ICU increased when the POLST was completed by surrogate decision-makers rather than patients themselves. Conclusion: The enactment of the Hospice, Palliative, Care, and Life-sustaining Treatment Decision-Making Act provided a legal basis for withdrawing and withholding meaningless life-sustaining treatment. By specifying the treatment to be received at the end of one's life through the POLST, inpatient treatment costs and death at the ICU were decreased. However, the frequent decision-making by the surrogates and completion of POLST close to death may hinder the original purpose of the law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.335-373
• /
• 2014

According to one Medicare report, in the US, total federal spending on health care expends almost 18 percent of the nation's GDP, about double what most industrialized nations spend on health care. And in 2011, Medicare spending reached close to $554 billion, which amounted to 21 percent of the total spent on U.S. health care in that year. Of that $554 billion, Medicare spent 28 percent, or about $170 billion, on patients' last six months of life. So what are the reasons of this high cost in EOL care and its possible solutions? Much spendings of Medicare on End-of-Life care for the terminally ill/chronically ill in the US has led health economics experts to assess the characteristics of the care. Decades of study shows that EOL care is usually supply-sensitive and poor in cost-effectiveness. The volume of care is sensitively depending on the supply of resources, rather than the severity of illness or preferences of patients. This means at the End-of-Life care, the medical resources are being overused. On the other hand, opposed to the common assumption, "The more care the better utility", the study shows that the outcome is very poor. Actually the patient preference and concerns are quite the opposite from what intense EOL care would bring about. This study analyzes the reasons for the supply-sensitiveness of EOL care. It can be resulted from the common misconception about the intense care and the outcome, physicians' mission for patients, lack of End-of-Life Care Decision which helps the patients choose their own preferred treatment intensity. It also could be resulted from physicians' fear of legal liabilities, and the management strategy since the hospitals are also seeking for financial benefits. This study suggests the possible solutions for over-treatment at the End-of-Life resulting from supply-sensitiveness. Solutions can be sought in two aspects, legal implementation and management strategy. In order to implement advance directive properly, active ethics education for physicians to change their attitude toward EOL care and more conversations about end-of-life care between physicians and patients is crucial, and incentive system for the physicians who actively have the conversations with patients will also help. Also, the general education towards the public is also important in the long run, and easy and official advance directive registry system-such as online registry-has to be built and utilized more widely. Alternative strategies in management are also needed. For example, the new strategic cost management and management education, such as cutting unnecessary costs and resetting values as medical providers have to be considered. In order to effectively resolve the problem in EOL care for the terminally ill/chronically ill and provide better experience to the patients, first of all, the misconception and the wrong conventional wisdom among doctors, patients, and the government have to be overcome. And then there should be improvements in systems and cultures of the EOL care.