Advance directives US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Advance directives. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 1: A 29-year-old man is admitted to the emergency department following a motorcycle accident. The patient is severely injured and requires life support after splenectomy and evacuation of a subdural hematoma. Past medical history is unremarkable. The patient’s family members, including wife, parents, siblings, and grandparents, are informed about the patient’s condition. The patient has no living will and there is no durable power of attorney. The patient must be put in an induced coma for an undetermined period of time. Which of the following is responsible for making medical decisions for the incapacitated patient?
- A. The spouse (Correct Answer)
- B. An older sibling
- C. Physician
- D. Legal guardian
- E. The parents
Advance directives Explanation: ***The spouse***
- In the absence of a **living will** or **durable power of attorney**, the law typically designates the **spouse** as the primary decision-maker for an incapacitated patient.
- This hierarchy is established to ensure decisions are made by the individual most intimately connected and presumed to understand the patient's wishes.
*An older sibling*
- Siblings are generally further down the **hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers** than a spouse or parents.
- They would typically only be considered if higher-priority family members are unavailable or unwilling to make decisions.
*Physician*
- The physician's role is to provide medical care and guidance, not to make medical decisions for an incapacitated patient when family surrogates are available.
- Physicians only make decisions in **emergency situations** when no surrogate is immediately available and treatment is immediately necessary to save the patient's life or prevent serious harm.
*Legal guardian*
- A legal guardian is usually appointed by a **court** when there is no appropriate family member available or when there is a dispute among family members.
- In this scenario, with a spouse and other close family members present, a legal guardian would not be the first choice.
*The parents*
- While parents are close family members, they are typically considered **secondary to the spouse** in the hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers for an adult patient.
- They would usually only be the decision-makers if the patient were unmarried or the spouse were unavailable.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 2: A 28-year-old woman dies shortly after receiving a blood transfusion. Autopsy reveals widespread intravascular hemolysis and acute renal failure. Investigation reveals that she received type A blood, but her medical record indicates she was type O. In a malpractice lawsuit, which of the following elements must be proven?
- A. Duty, breach, causation, and damages (Correct Answer)
- B. Only duty and breach
- C. Only breach and causation
- D. Duty, breach, and damages
Advance directives Explanation: ***Duty, breach, causation, and damages***
- In a medical malpractice lawsuit, all four elements—**duty, breach, causation, and damages**—must be proven for a successful claim.
- The healthcare provider had a **duty** to provide competent care, they **breached** that duty by administering the wrong blood type, this breach **caused** the patient's death and renal failure, and these injuries constitute **damages**.
*Only duty and breach*
- While **duty** and **breach** are necessary components, proving only these two is insufficient for a malpractice claim.
- It must also be demonstrated that the breach directly led to the patient's harm and resulted in legally recognized damages.
*Only breach and causation*
- This option omits the crucial elements of professional **duty** owed to the patient and the resulting **damages**.
- A claim cannot succeed without establishing that a duty existed and that quantifiable harm occurred.
*Duty, breach, and damages*
- This option misses the critical element of **causation**, which links the provider's breach of duty to the patient's injuries.
- Without proving that the breach *caused* the damages, even if a duty was owed and breached, and damages occurred, the claim would fail.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 3: An 85-year-old man with terminal stage colon cancer formally designates his best friend as his medical durable power of attorney. After several courses of chemotherapy and surgical intervention, the patient’s condition does not improve, and he soon develops respiratory failure. He is then placed on a ventilator in a comatose condition. His friend with the medical power of attorney tells the care provider that the patient would not want to be on life support. The patient’s daughter disputes this and says that her father needs to keep receiving care, in case there should be any possibility of recovery. Additionally, there is a copy of the patient’s living will in the medical record which states that, if necessary, he should be placed on life support until full recovery. Which of the following is the most appropriate course of action?
- A. Withdraw the life support since the patient’s chances of recovery are very low
- B. Contact other family members to get their input for the patient
- C. Act according to the patient’s living will
- D. The durable medical power of attorney’s decision should be followed. (Correct Answer)
- E. Follow the daughter’s decision for the patient
Advance directives Explanation: ***The durable medical power of attorney's decision should be followed***
- The patient designated his friend as his **durable power of attorney for healthcare (DPOA)**, giving him legal authority to make medical decisions when the patient cannot communicate.
- While the living will states life support "until full recovery," the patient has **terminal stage colon cancer** - full recovery is **medically impossible**. The living will's condition cannot be fulfilled.
- When advance directive language is ambiguous or cannot be applied to actual clinical circumstances, the **DPOA's interpretive authority** is essential. The DPOA is expected to apply the patient's values to the real situation.
- The DPOA states the patient would not want to be on life support - this reflects the patient's **values and wishes** as understood by his chosen decision-maker, applied to the actual terminal situation.
- This honors both **patient autonomy** (through his chosen proxy) and the reality that advance directives cannot anticipate every clinical scenario.
*Act according to the patient's living will*
- While a living will expresses patient wishes, it states life support should continue "**until full recovery**" - but the patient has terminal cancer with no possibility of recovery.
- Literal adherence to an advance directive whose conditions are **medically impossible** does not serve the patient's true interests or autonomy.
- Living wills and DPOAs work **together** - the DPOA interprets and applies the living will to actual circumstances, especially when literal application is impossible or the situation wasn't anticipated.
*Withdraw the life support since the patient's chances of recovery are very low*
- While this may align with the DPOA's interpretation of the patient's wishes, unilateral physician decision-making without following the proper **decision-making hierarchy** is inappropriate.
- The physician should work **with the DPOA** rather than make independent decisions about life support withdrawal.
*Contact other family members to get their input for the patient*
- The patient **legally designated** his friend as DPOA, indicating his trust in this person's judgment over family members.
- While family input can be valuable, seeking additional opinions when there is a **legally appointed decision-maker** undermines the patient's explicit choice.
- The daughter has no legal standing to override the DPOA's decisions.
*Follow the daughter's decision for the patient*
- The daughter was **not designated** as the healthcare decision-maker; the friend was explicitly chosen as DPOA.
- Following the daughter's wishes would **violate** the patient's autonomous choice of decision-maker.
- Family relationship alone does not override a formal DPOA designation.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 4: A psychiatrist receives a call from a patient who expresses thoughts of harming his ex-girlfriend. The patient describes a detailed plan to attack her at her workplace. Which of the following represents the psychiatrist's most appropriate legal obligation?
- A. Warn the ex-girlfriend and notify law enforcement (Correct Answer)
- B. Only notify the patient's family
- C. Warn only law enforcement
- D. Maintain patient confidentiality
Advance directives Explanation: ***Warn the ex-girlfriend and notify law enforcement***
- This scenario directly triggers the **"duty to warn"** and **"duty to protect"** principles, primarily stemming from the **Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California** case.
- The psychiatrist has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to protect the identifiable victim, which includes directly warning the intended victim and informing law enforcement.
*Only notify the patient's family*
- Notifying the patient's family alone does not fulfill the **legal obligation to protect** an identifiable third party from a serious threat of harm.
- While family involvement might be part of a comprehensive safety plan, it is insufficient as the sole action in this critical situation.
*Warn only law enforcement*
- While notifying law enforcement is a crucial step, the **Tarasoff duty** specifically mandates warning the **intended victim** directly (or those who can reasonably be expected to notify the victim).
- Relying solely on law enforcement might not ensure the immediate safety of the ex-girlfriend, especially if there's a delay in their response or ability to locate her.
*Maintain patient confidentiality*
- Patient confidentiality is a cornerstone of psychiatric practice, but it is **not absolute** when there is a serious and imminent threat of harm to an identifiable individual.
- The **duty to protect** a potential victim *outweighs* the duty to maintain confidentiality in such extreme circumstances.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 5: A 68-year-old woman was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. At what point should her physician initiate a discussion with her regarding advance directive planning?
- A. Once she enters hospice
- B. Now that she is ill, speaking about advance directives is no longer an option
- C. Only if her curative surgical and medical treatment fails
- D. Only if she initiates the conversation
- E. At this visit (Correct Answer)
Advance directives Explanation: ***At this visit***
- Advance care planning should ideally be initiated as soon as a **serious illness** like pancreatic cancer is diagnosed, while the patient still has the capacity to make informed decisions.
- This allows the patient to clearly state their **wishes** for future medical care and designate a **surrogate decision-maker**.
*Once she enters hospice*
- Delaying discussions until hospice care often means the patient's condition has significantly deteriorated, potentially impacting their ability to actively participate in **decision-making**.
- While advance directives are crucial for hospice patients, starting earlier ensures their preferences guide all stages of their care, not just the end-of-life phase.
*Now that she is ill, speaking about advance directives is no longer an option*
- This statement is incorrect as illness is often the **catalyst** for initiating advance care planning, not a barrier.
- Patients often appreciate the opportunity to discuss their wishes, especially when facing a serious diagnosis, to maintain a sense of **control** and ensure their autonomy.
*Only if her curative surgical and medical treatment fails*
- Waiting until treatment failure is too late as the patient's condition may have worsened to a point where they are no longer able to engage in **meaningful discussions** or have decreased mental capacity.
- Advance care planning is about preparing for potential future scenarios, not just reacting to immediate failures; it provides a framework for care regardless of **treatment outcomes**.
*Only if she initiates the conversation*
- While patient initiation is ideal, it is the physician's responsibility to bring up these important discussions, especially with a new diagnosis of a serious illness like **pancreatic cancer**.
- Many patients may not know about advance directives or feel comfortable initiating such a sensitive conversation, so the physician should proactively offer the **opportunity**.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 6: A 72-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department by ambulance after an unexpected fall at home 1 hour ago. She was resuscitated at the scene by paramedics before being transferred to the hospital. She has a history of ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. She has not taken any sedative medications. Her GCS is 6. She is connected to a mechanical ventilator. Her medical records show that she signed a living will 5 years ago, which indicates her refusal to receive any type of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, or maintenance of life support on mechanical ventilation. Her son, who has a durable power-of-attorney for her healthcare decisions, objects to the discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and wishes that his mother be kept alive without suffering in the chance that she might recover. Which of the following is the most appropriate response to her son regarding his wishes for his mother?
- A. “We will take every measure necessary to prolong her life.”
- B. “She may be eligible for hospice care.”
- C. “The opinion of her primary care physician must be obtained regarding further steps in management.”
- D. “Based on her wishes, mechanical ventilation must be discontinued.” (Correct Answer)
- E. “Further management decisions will be referred to the hospital’s ethics committee.”
Advance directives Explanation: ***Based on her wishes, mechanical ventilation must be discontinued.***
- A **living will** is a legally binding document that outlines a patient's wishes regarding medical treatment, including **refusal of life support**.
- In this scenario, the patient’s clear and documented wishes in her living will take precedence over the son's objections, even though he holds **durable power of attorney for healthcare** (DPA).
*“We will take every measure necessary to prolong her life.”*
- This statement directly contradicts the patient's **documented wishes** in her living will to refuse intubation and maintenance on mechanical ventilation.
- Ignoring a patient's advance directive can lead to ethical and legal issues, as it undermines the principle of **patient autonomy**.
*“She may be eligible for hospice care.”*
- While hospice care is a relevant consideration for patients with terminal illnesses, suggesting it prematurely without addressing the immediate issue of the **living will** can be dismissive of the patient's explicit directives.
- The primary concern is upholding the patient's autonomy, which includes addressing her advance directive regarding **withdrawal of life support**.
*“The opinion of her primary care physician must be obtained regarding further steps in management.”*
- While the **primary care physician's** input is valuable for understanding the patient's overall health and discussing goals of care, the existence of a clear and legally binding **living will** simplifies the decision-making process concerning life support.
- The patient's advance directive is paramount and generally does not require further medical negotiation unless there's ambiguity or new information suggesting a change in her wishes.
*“Further management decisions will be referred to the hospital’s ethics committee.”*
- An **ethics committee** consultation may be appropriate in cases of ambiguity surrounding an advance directive, conflict among surrogates, or uncertainty about the patient's capacity at the time of signing the directive.
- However, in this case, the **living will** explicitly states her wishes regarding mechanical ventilation, making the patient's intent clear and generally overriding the need for an ethics committee in the initial response.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 7: A 32-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department by her husband because of an episode of hematemesis 2 hours ago. She has had dyspepsia for 2 years. Her medications include occasional ibuprofen for headaches. After initial stabilization, the risks and benefits of upper endoscopy and alternative treatments, including no therapy, are explained thoroughly. She shows a good understanding of her condition and an appreciation of endoscopic treatment and its complications. She decides that she wants to have an endoscopy to find the source of bleeding and appropriately manage the ulcer. Her medical records show advance directives that she signed 3 years ago; her sister, who is a nurse, has a durable power of attorney. Regarding obtaining informed consent, which of the following is the most accurate conclusion for providing endoscopic treatment for this patient?
- A. There are reasons to believe that she may not have decision-making capacity
- B. Endoscopic treatment may be performed without further action
- C. Her sister must sign the consent form
- D. Documentation of her decision prior to treatment is required (Correct Answer)
- E. Her decision to have an endoscopy is not voluntary
Advance directives Explanation: **Documentation of her decision prior to treatment is required**
- The patient has been fully informed, understands her condition, and has expressed a clear desire for the procedure, demonstrating **decision-making capacity**.
- To ensure ethical and legal compliance, her **informed consent** must be accurately documented in her medical record before any invasive treatment, including endoscopy, is performed.
*There are reasons to believe that she may not have decision-making capacity*
- The patient has clearly demonstrated **understanding of her condition, treatment options, and potential complications**, which indicates preserved decision-making capacity.
- Despite the acute medical situation, her ability to articulate her preference after a thorough discussion confirms her competence for informed consent.
*Endoscopic treatment may be performed without further action*
- While the patient has consented verbally, this does not negate the need for proper **documentation of informed consent** before initiating the procedure.
- Legally and ethically, a verbal agreement alone is insufficient; a signed consent form or detailed chart note confirming her understanding and decision is essential.
*Her sister must sign the consent form*
- Her sister, holding a **durable power of attorney**, would only be authorized to make medical decisions if the patient were deemed to lack **decision-making capacity**.
- Since the patient clearly demonstrates the ability to make her own medical decisions, her sister's consent is not required and would override the patient's autonomy.
*Her decision to have an endoscopy is not voluntary*
- The scenario explicitly states that the risks and benefits were **thoroughly explained**, and she shows a "good understanding" and "appreciation of endoscopic treatment."
- Her decision to "want to have an endoscopy" despite knowing the alternatives suggests a **voluntary and informed choice**, not coercion.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 8: A 67-year-old man is brought to the emergency department because of severe dyspnea and orthopnea for 6 hours. He has a history of congestive heart disease and an ejection fraction of 40%. The medical history is otherwise unremarkable. He appears confused. At the hospital, his blood pressure is 165/110 mm Hg, the pulse is 135/min, the respirations are 48/min, and the temperature is 36.2°C (97.2°F). Crackles are heard at both lung bases. There is pitting edema from the midtibia to the ankle bilaterally. The patient is intubated and admitted to the critical care unit for mechanical ventilation and treatment. Intravenous morphine, diuretics, and nitroglycerine are initiated. Which of the following is the most effective method to prevent nosocomial infection in this patient?
- A. Nasogastric tube insertion
- B. Suprapubic catheter insertion
- C. Daily oropharynx decontamination with antiseptic agent (Correct Answer)
- D. Daily urinary catheter irrigation with antimicrobial agent
- E. Condom catheter placement
Advance directives Explanation: ***Daily oropharynx decontamination with antiseptic agent***
- **Oropharyngeal decontamination** helps reduce the bacterial load in the oral cavity, which is crucial for preventing **ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)** in intubated patients.
- Regular cleaning with an antiseptic agent disrupts the formation of **biofilms** and the aspiration of pathogenic bacteria into the lower respiratory tract.
*Nasogastric tube insertion*
- While a nasogastric tube can be important for nutrition and medication delivery, it does not directly prevent **nosocomial infections** and can even be a source of infection if not properly managed.
- It does not address the primary risk of pneumonia or other infections related to intubation and critical illness.
*Suprapubic catheter insertion*
- A suprapubic catheter is used for drainage of the bladder, but it is an invasive procedure with its own risks of **urinary tract infections (UTIs)** and is not indicated for preventing nosocomial infections in this patient's primary presentation.
- It is not a standard method to prevent the most common nosocomial infections in an intubated patient in the ICU.
*Daily urinary catheter irrigation with antimicrobial agent*
- Irrigating a urinary catheter daily with an antimicrobial agent is **not recommended** as a routine practice to prevent **catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs)**.
- Such irrigation can disrupt the natural flora and potentially lead to **antimicrobial resistance** or further infection by promoting the growth of resistant organisms.
*Condom catheter placement*
- A condom catheter is a non-invasive external device used for urinary incontinence in males, but it's generally **less effective** than indwelling catheters for critical care patients requiring precise fluid output monitoring.
- It does not address the risk of **VAP**, which is a major concern for intubated patients, and may not be feasible or adequate for all bedridden patients in the ICU.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 9: A 68-year-old man comes to the emergency department because of sudden onset abdominal pain for 6 hours. On a 10-point scale, he rates the pain as a 8 to 9. The abdominal pain is worst in the right upper quadrant. He has atrial fibrillation and hyperlipidemia. His temperature is 38.7° C (101.7°F), pulse is 110/min, and blood pressure is 146/86 mm Hg. The patient appears acutely ill. Physical examination shows a distended abdomen and tenderness to palpation in all quadrants with guarding, but no rebound. Murphy's sign is positive. Right upper quadrant ultrasound shows thickening of the gallbladder wall, sludging in the gallbladder, and pericolic fat stranding. He is admitted for acute cholecystitis and grants permission for cholecystectomy. His wife is his healthcare power of attorney (POA), but she is out of town on a business trip. He is accompanied today by his brother. After induction and anesthesia, the surgeon removes the gallbladder but also finds a portion of the small intestine is necrotic due to a large thromboembolism occluding a branch of the superior mesenteric artery. The treatment is additional surgery with small bowel resection and thromboendarterectomy. Which of the following is the most appropriate next step in management?
- A. Decrease the patient's sedation until he is able to give consent
- B. Contact the patient's healthcare POA to consent
- C. Proceed with additional surgery without obtaining consent (Correct Answer)
- D. Ask the patient's brother in the waiting room to consent
- E. Close the patient and obtain re-consent for a second operation
Advance directives Explanation: ***Proceed with additional surgery without obtaining consent***
- In an **emergency situation** where immediate intervention is required to save a patient's life or prevent serious harm, and the patient **lacks capacity** to consent, explicit consent for additional necessary procedures is not required. The surgeon can proceed based on the principle of **implied consent** in emergencies.
- The discovery of **necrotic small bowel due to thromboembolism** is a life-threatening condition requiring urgent surgical intervention in an already sedated patient, making it an emergency.
*Decrease the patient's sedation until he is able to give consent*
- Decreasing sedation to obtain consent in this critical situation would cause a **dangerous delay** in treating a life-threatening condition (bowel necrosis) and could lead to worsening outcomes or death.
- The patient is **acutely ill** and likely in a state where he cannot grasp information and make decisions, even with reduced sedation, thus true informed consent would be difficult to obtain quickly.
*Contact the patient's healthcare POA to consent*
- Contacting the POA who is out of town would introduce **significant and potentially fatal delays** in treating a rapidly progressing, life-threatening condition.
- While POAs are crucial for non-emergent decision-making, the **principle of preserving life** takes precedence in an acute emergency when a delay would cause irreversible harm.
*Ask the patient's brother in the waiting room to consent*
- The brother is **not the designated healthcare POA** and there is no indication he has legal authority to make medical decisions for the patient.
- Relying on a non-POA family member for consent in an emergency, when the patient's legally appointed surrogate is known, is generally **not the appropriate first step** unless no other option exists and the brother can confirm the patient's wishes from prior discussions, which is not stated.
*Close the patient and obtain re-consent for a second operation*
- Closing the patient and then re-opening for another surgery would expose the patient to **two separate anesthetic events and surgical procedures**, significantly increasing morbidity and mortality risks compared to continuous surgery.
- This option would also introduce an **unacceptable delay** in addressing the acute bowel necrosis, which requires immediate intervention.
Advance directives US Medical PG Question 10: A 72-year-old man presents to the emergency department with chest pain and shortness of breath. An EKG demonstrates an ST elevation myocardial infarction, and he is managed appropriately. The patient suffers from multiple comorbidities and was recently hospitalized for a myocardial infarction. The patient has a documented living will, which specifies that he does wish to receive resuscitative measures and blood products but refuses intubation in any circumstance. The patient is stabilized and transferred to the medical floor. On day 2, the patient presents with ventricular fibrillation and a resuscitative effort occurs. He is successfully resuscitated, but his pulmonary parameters warrant intervention and are acutely worsening. The patient's wife, son, and daughter are present and state that the patient should be intubated. The patient's prognosis even with intubation is very poor. Which of the following describes the best course of action?
- A. Intubate the patient - the family is representing the patient's most recent and accurate wishes
- B. Consult the hospital ethics committee
- C. Do not intubate the patient given his living will (Correct Answer)
- D. Intubate the patient - a patient's next of kin take precedence over a living will
- E. Do not intubate the patient as his prognosis is poor even with intubation
Advance directives Explanation: ***Do not intubate the patient given his living will***
- A **living will** or **advance directive** is a legally binding document that outlines a patient's wishes regarding medical treatment, including refusal of specific interventions like intubation.
- When the patient is **competent**, their stated wishes are paramount; when they are **incapacitated**, their advance directive becomes the primary guide for care decisions.
*Intubate the patient - the family is representing the patient's most recent and accurate wishes*
- While family input is valuable, a **legally executed living will** takes precedence over family opinions, especially when there's a conflict regarding specific life-sustaining treatments like intubation.
- There is no evidence presented that the patient has **revoked or updated** his living will.
*Consult the hospital ethics committee*
- While an ethics committee can provide guidance in complex cases, the patient's living will provides **clear instructions** that should be followed directly, making an immediate ethics committee consultation less necessary for this specific decision.
- The primary role of the ethics committee is to address **ambiguity or conflict** in patient care, which is not present regarding the patient's explicit refusal of intubation.
*Intubate the patient - a patient's next of kin take precedence over a living will*
- This statement is incorrect; a **valid living will** *takes precedence* over the wishes of the next of kin when the patient is unable to express their current desires.
- The next of kin's role is to act as a **surrogate decision-maker** only when a patient lacks capacity and has no advance directive that covers the specific situation.
*Do not intubate the patient as his prognosis is poor even with intubation*
- While a **poor prognosis** can be a factor in end-of-life discussions, the primary reason for not intubating in this scenario is the patient's explicit refusal documented in his **living will**, not solely the prognosis.
- Relying *only* on prognosis without considering the patient's prior stated wishes can undermine **patient autonomy**.
More Advance directives US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
