Junior Medical Doctors’ Decision Making when Using Advance Care Directives to Guide Treatment for People with Dementia : A Cross-Sectional Vignette Study

Background: Junior medical doctors have a key role in discussions and decisions about treatment and end-of-life care for people with dementia in hospital. Little is known about junior doctors’ decision-making processes when treating people with dementia who have advance care directives (ACDs), or the factors that influence their decisions. To describe among junior doctors in relation to two hypothetical vignettes involving patients with dementia: (1) their legal compliance and decision-making process related to treatment decisions; (2) the factors influencing their clinical decision-making; and (3) the factors associated with accurate responses to one hypothetical vignette.Method: A cross-sectional survey of junior doctors, including trainees, interns, registrars and residents, on clinical rotation in five public hospitals located in one Australian state. The anonymous, investigator-developed survey was conducted between August 2018 and June 2019. Two hypothetical vignettes describing patients with dementia presenting to hospital with an ACD and either: (1) bacterial pneumonia; or (2) suspected stroke were presented in the survey. Participants were asked to indicate whether they would commence treatment, given the ACD instructions described in each vignette.Results: Overall, 116 junior doctors responded (35% consent rate). In Vignette 1, 58% of respondents (n=67/116) selected the legally compliant option (i.e. not commence treatment). Participants who chose the legally compliant option perceived ‘following patient wishes’ (n=32/67; 48%) and ‘legal requirements to follow ACDs’ (n=32/67; 48%) as equally important reasons for complying with the ACD. The most common reason for not selecting the legally compliant option in Vignette 1 was the ‘ACD is relevant in my decision-making process, but other factors are more relevant’ (n=14/37; 38%). In Vignette 2, 72% of respondents (n=83/116) indicated they would commence treatment (i.e. not follow the ACD) and 18% (n=21/116) selected they would not commence treatment. (i.e. follow the ACD). Similar reasons influenced participant decision-making in Vignette 2, a less legally certain scenario.Conclusions: There are critical gaps in junior doctors’ compliance with the law as it relates to the implementation of ACDs. Despite there being differences in relation to the legal answer and its certainty, clinical and ethical factors