AMBIENTUM BIOETHICA BIOLOGIA CHEMIA DIGITALIA DRAMATICA EDUCATIO ARTIS GYMNAST. ENGINEERING EPHEMERIDES EUROPAEA GEOGRAPHIA GEOLOGIA HISTORIA HISTORIA ARTIUM INFORMATICA IURISPRUDENTIA MATHEMATICA MUSICA NEGOTIA OECONOMICA PHILOLOGIA PHILOSOPHIA PHYSICA POLITICA PSYCHOLOGIA-PAEDAGOGIA SOCIOLOGIA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA LATIN THEOLOGIA GR.-CATH. VARAD THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA THEOLOGIA REF. TRANSYLVAN
The STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI issue article summary
The summary of the selected article appears at the bottom of the page. In order to get back to the contents of the issue this article belongs to you have to access the link from the title. In order to see all the articles of the archive which have as author/co-author one of the authors mentioned below, you have to access the link from the author's name.
Authors: FRANCESCA BOSISIO, DANIELA RITZENTHALER, EVE RUBLI TRUCHARD, RALF J. JOX.
DOI: 10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.17
Published Online: 2021-06-30
Published Print: 2021-06-30
pp.39
FULL PDF
ABSTRACT: Parallel Session I, Room 3 Advance care planning (ACP) has become widely used in medical care in order to plan ahead of a loss of decision-making capacity. Since ACP aim is to promote anticipatory and substitute autonomy by engaging people ‒ and possibly their relatives ‒ in deciding about future goals of care and treatments, scientific literature in this field often posits that ACP involve shared decision-making. This assumption however is rarely backed up by an in-depth reflection on how shared decision-making might operate within ACP and which shared decision-making template is more likely to foster ACP. Our ACP tool, based on a model created at the Zurich University Hospital (Krones et al, 2019), engages patients in a structured communicational process about their values and preferences for care. In this tool, ACP facilitators help patients set goals of care and document treatments decisions in three paradigmatic situations of loss of decision-making capacity. Because our ACP tool entails discussions about goals of care, quality of life, and options in terms of disease- or symptom-management, we turned to Elwyn and al.’s three talk’s model (2012) and Vermunt et al.’s three level goal model (2018) in order to incorporate elements of shared decision-making in our ACP tool. In this presentation we discuss how these models might be combined in order to foster shared decision-making within our ACP tool and, by then, broaden its scope and eventually improve its effectiveness, strengthen its theoretical foundations and uphold the ethics of care in the event of a loss of decision-making capacity.
