An Integrative Review of the State of POLST Science: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?
Elizabeth E Umberfield,Matthew C Fields,Rachel Lenko,Teryn P Morgan,Elissa Schuler Adair,Erik K Fromme,Hillary D Lum,Alvin H Moss,Neil S Wenger,Rebecca L Sudore,Susan E Hickman,Elizabeth E. Umberfield,Matthew C. Fields,Teryn P. Morgan,Erik K. Fromme,Hillary D. Lum,Alvin H. Moss,Neil S. Wenger,Rebecca L. Sudore,Susan E. Hickman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2024.01.009
IF: 7.802
2024-02-01
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Abstract:OBJECTIVES: POLST is widely used in the care of seriously ill patients to document decisions made during advance care planning (ACP) conversations as actionable medical orders. We conducted an integrative review of existing research to better understand associations between POLST use and key ACP outcomes as well as to identify directions for future research.DESIGN: Integrative review.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable.METHODS: We queried PubMed and CINAHL databases using names of POLST programs to identify research on POLST. We abstracted study information and assessed study design quality. Study outcomes were categorized using the international ACP Outcomes Framework: Process, Action, Quality of Care, Health Status, and Healthcare Utilization.RESULTS: Of 94 POLST studies identified, 38 (40%) had at least a moderate level of study design quality and 15 (16%) included comparisons between POLST vs non-POLST patient groups. There was a significant difference between groups for 40 of 70 (57%) ACP outcomes. The highest proportion of significant outcomes was in Quality of Care (15 of 19 or 79%). In subdomain analyses of Quality of Care, POLST use was significantly associated with concordance between treatment and documentation (14 of 18 or 78%) and preferences concordant with documentation (1 of 1 or 100%). The Action outcome domain had the second highest positive rate among outcome domains; 9 of 12 (75%) Action outcomes were significant. Healthcare Utilization outcomes were the most frequently assessed and approximately half (16 of 35 or 46%) were significant. Health Status outcomes were not significant (0 of 4 or 0%), and no Process outcomes were identified.CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings of this review indicate that POLST use is significantly associated with a Quality of Care and Action outcomes, albeit in nonrandomized studies. Future research on POLST should focus on prospective mixed methods studies and high-quality pragmatic trials that assess a broad range of person and health system-level outcomes.
geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology