At her next review 4 months later Mrs A brought her daughter and

At her next review 4 months later Mrs A brought her daughter and an interpreter attended. The uncertainty of her prognosis was discussed again and Mrs A indicated that she did not wish to discuss her end-of-life care preferences with Dr Y but that she had done so with her family. Her daughter commented that it was really useful having

the interpreter whose command of Samoan was much better than her own. The following month Mrs A was found to have liver cirrhosis with complications including ascites and rectal varices, her multiple medical problems Talazoparib cost made her unsuitable for intervention for the varices. Later that month Dr Y met with Mrs A in clinic, this time with her husband and her eldest son, the two people Mrs A identified as her chosen surrogate decision-makers, as well as an interpreter. From this consultation an Advance Care Plan emerged. Dr Y wrote a summary of the discussion on a hospital ACP pro forma. Dr Y met with Mrs A and an interpreter to go through this Plan and modified it with Mrs A. Mrs A then took written information (in English) on ACP home, along with her unsigned Plan. Mrs A met with her husband and five of her children at home and reviewed the Plan and information before returning the Plan for Mrs A and Dr Y to sign and enter in the hospital record. Over

the ensuing 6 months LDK378 solubility dmso Mrs A deteriorated in health and was hospitalized recurrently. Four months after the plan was written she was referred to community palliative care services, largely 4-Aminobutyrate aminotransferase for family support. It was identified that Mrs A had a strong desire to be reacquainted with a child who had been adopted out and was living overseas. The community palliative care team and Dr Y were able to assist with the paperwork required to expedite this person’s immigration visa. Mrs A withdrew from dialysis 6 months after writing her Plan when it became technically impossible to achieve an adequate treatment. She was cared for at home surrounded by her family and with input from community palliative care services until her death. Although

Mrs A was competent to participate in the decision to withdraw from dialysis and her written Advance Care Plan was therefore not referred to, the process of ACP was felt by nephrology staff and the family to have been worthwhile. The nephrologist conducting the final family meeting in hospital commented that the family and patient were very well prepared. Mrs A’s eldest son, reflecting on her death 6 months later, commented that the plan was the ‘best thing ever’. It articulated what their mother wanted rather than what they thought she wanted, particularly the importance of her spirituality and faith. He felt that having had the opportunity to reunite his mother with his brother was especially valuable. His mother had also communicated with them how she wanted to spend her last days after she stopped dialysis and they shared some special time fulfilling these wishes for her.

Comments are closed.