Affiliation:
1. Austin Health
2. University of Melbourne
Abstract
Abstract
Background
A Medical Treatment Decision Maker (MTDM) is appointed to make medical treatment decision on behalf of a person who cannot make such decisions for themselves, provided they are reasonably available and willing to make such decisions. In the Emergency Department (ED), the clinicians’ ability to contact MTDMs is an essential for patient care, particularly in time-critical situations or when end of life discussion is necessary. Our primary objective was to review the verification process and assess the accuracy of MTDM contact numbers in the Health Information System (HIS) at our institution.
Methods
Quantitative method with retrospective observational study design with phone interview transcript was used. Data was imported from Microsoft Office Excel Spreadsheet to SPSS™ for analysis and statistical significance indicated by a two-sided P value < 0.05 and Confidence Interval (CI) range.
Results
Of the one hundred and sixty-nine patients selected, seventy six percent had a MTDM listed selected of whom 59% were available for follow up. The process of registering and validating a person as a MTDM in the HIS was found to be compliant with legal requirements. There was no reported, observed or known existing contact update alert process in the HIS after a period of patient record inactivity. Patient advancing age had statistically significant association with the number of call attempts made to reach the listed MTDM (P = 0.043; CI, -3.541 to -0.057) and the MTDM’s consent to participate (p = 0.023). Patient gender had statistically significant association with successfully contacting the listed MTDM (p = 0.036; CI, 0.012 to 0.355) and the number of call attempts made to reach the listed MTDM (P = 0.039; CI, 0.006 to 0.218).
Conclusion
Identification and listing of MTDMs for elderly patients need to improve, as the study found only 76% had MTDMs listed. In our sample only 59% responded to a contact call, a concerning result when considering the possible time critical nature of such a call. Four participants declined to consent as a call originating from a hospital extension is displayed as “No Caller ID” on smart phones. Concern about cybersecurity or data breaches, may impact on the ability to maintain accurate MTDM details
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference17 articles.
1. 1. Parliament of Victoria. Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (2021)
2. 69 of 2016 Version No. 009, https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/16-69aa009%20authorised.pdf.https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/16-69aa009%20authorised.pdf.
3. 2. Osman AD, Howell J, Smithies L, Wilson D, Lam L, Moran J, Jones D, Taylor DM. Assessment of emergency department staff awareness, access and utilisation of advance care directives and goals of care: A cross-sectional survey. Australasian Emergency Care. 2021;25(3):235 − 40 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2021.12.002.
4. 3. Osman AD, Rahman MA, Lam L, Lin C-C, Yeoh M, Judkins S, Pratten N, Moran J, Jones D. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and endotracheal intubation decisions for adults with advance care directive and resuscitation plans in the emergency department. Australasian Emergency Care. 2020;23(4):247 − 51 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2020.05.003.
5. 4. Cunningham TV. Surrogate Decision Making. In: Hester DM, Schonfeld TL, editors. Guidance for Healthcare Ethics Committees. 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. 113 − 20.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献