Does the Law Reflect Patient Preferences? Discordance Between Legal Surrogate Hierarchy and Chosen Surrogate Decision-Makers in Preoperative Patients.

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Riya Kumar, Andrew Childress, Claire Hoppenot
{"title":"Does the Law Reflect Patient Preferences? Discordance Between Legal Surrogate Hierarchy and Chosen Surrogate Decision-Makers in Preoperative Patients.","authors":"Riya Kumar, Andrew Childress, Claire Hoppenot","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2026.2718064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>All surgeries requiring general anesthesia carry the risk that a patient will be unable to make medical decisions during the procedure. However, only a small proportion of patients who are not critically or terminally ill complete medical power of attorney (MPOA) documentation, with lower rates among underserved populations. If an unexpected value-dependent decision needs to be made during a surgery (e.g., removal of an organ linked to patient fertility that may affect cancer-related outcomes), the medical team must consult a surrogate decision-maker (SDM) assigned per state law. In this study, we seek to understand what preoperative patients in Texas know about SDM laws and how well these laws align with patients' preferences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two investigators approached patients in the preoperative area at a private hospital (PV) and safety-net hospital (SN) and provided a standardized verbal survey examining patient knowledge of SDM laws in Texas and who they expected to make decisions for them, as well as patient demographics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 101 patients surveyed, nearly 30% designated a preferred SDM that differed from the one assigned by the Texas law. There was no significant difference in rates of discordance between patients by location, language, race, or ethnicity. Only marital status was shown to have significant effect on concordance (<i>p</i><.001). Patients at PV were significantly more likely to have MPOA documentation (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study reveals a significant gap in patients' understanding of local SDM laws. There is likely similarly low understanding of local laws throughout the country. This misunderstanding may miss opportunities for patients to have their preferred decision-maker participate in their care and place physicians at odds with the law when attempting to follow patient preferences divergent from the SDM hierarchy. To best honor patient preferences, surgeons should have early conversations with all preoperative patients about SDM.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2026.2718064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: All surgeries requiring general anesthesia carry the risk that a patient will be unable to make medical decisions during the procedure. However, only a small proportion of patients who are not critically or terminally ill complete medical power of attorney (MPOA) documentation, with lower rates among underserved populations. If an unexpected value-dependent decision needs to be made during a surgery (e.g., removal of an organ linked to patient fertility that may affect cancer-related outcomes), the medical team must consult a surrogate decision-maker (SDM) assigned per state law. In this study, we seek to understand what preoperative patients in Texas know about SDM laws and how well these laws align with patients' preferences.

Methods: Two investigators approached patients in the preoperative area at a private hospital (PV) and safety-net hospital (SN) and provided a standardized verbal survey examining patient knowledge of SDM laws in Texas and who they expected to make decisions for them, as well as patient demographics.

Results: Of the 101 patients surveyed, nearly 30% designated a preferred SDM that differed from the one assigned by the Texas law. There was no significant difference in rates of discordance between patients by location, language, race, or ethnicity. Only marital status was shown to have significant effect on concordance (p<.001). Patients at PV were significantly more likely to have MPOA documentation (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Our study reveals a significant gap in patients' understanding of local SDM laws. There is likely similarly low understanding of local laws throughout the country. This misunderstanding may miss opportunities for patients to have their preferred decision-maker participate in their care and place physicians at odds with the law when attempting to follow patient preferences divergent from the SDM hierarchy. To best honor patient preferences, surgeons should have early conversations with all preoperative patients about SDM.

法律是否反映了患者的偏好?术前患者法定代理人层级与选定代理人决策者的不一致。
背景:所有需要全身麻醉的手术都有患者在手术过程中无法做出医疗决定的风险。然而,只有一小部分非危重或绝症患者完成了医疗委托书(MPOA)文件,在服务不足的人群中,这一比例较低。如果在手术过程中需要做出一个意外的价值相关决定(例如,切除与患者生育能力相关的器官,可能会影响癌症相关的结果),医疗团队必须咨询每个州法律指定的代理决策者(SDM)。在这项研究中,我们试图了解术前患者在得克萨斯州知道什么关于SDM法律,以及这些法律如何与患者的偏好一致。方法:两名研究人员在私立医院(PV)和安全网医院(SN)的术前区接触患者,并提供标准化的口头调查,调查患者对德克萨斯州SDM法律的了解程度,他们希望谁为他们做决定,以及患者人口统计学。结果:在101名接受调查的患者中,近30%的患者指定了与德克萨斯州法律指定的不同的首选SDM。不同地区、语言、种族或民族的患者之间的不一致率没有显著差异。只有婚姻状况对一致性有显著影响(pp)。结论:我们的研究揭示了患者对当地SDM法律的理解存在显著差距。在全国范围内,对当地法律的理解可能同样很低。这种误解可能会使患者错过让他们喜欢的决策者参与他们的护理的机会,并使医生在试图遵循与SDM等级不同的患者偏好时与法律发生冲突。为了最好地尊重患者的喜好,外科医生应该与所有术前患者进行关于SDM的早期对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书