POLST paradigm US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for POLST paradigm. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
POLST paradigm US Medical PG Question 1: A 76-year-old man is brought to the hospital after having a stroke. Head CT is done in the emergency department and shows intracranial hemorrhage. Upon arrival to the ED he is verbally non-responsive and withdraws only to pain. He does not open his eyes. He is transferred to the medical ICU for further management and intubated for airway protection. During his second day in the ICU, his blood pressure is measured as 91/54 mmHg and pulse is 120/min. He is given fluids and antibiotics, but he progresses to renal failure and his mental status deteriorates. The physicians in the ICU ask the patient’s family what his wishes are for end-of-life care. His wife tells the team that she is durable power of attorney for the patient and provides appropriate documentation. She mentions that he did not have a living will, but she believes that he would want care withdrawn in this situation, and therefore asks the team to withdraw care at this point. The patient’s daughter vehemently disagrees and believes it is in the best interest of her father, the patient, to continue all care. Based on this information, what is the best course of action for the physician team?
- A. Call other family members and consult them for their opinions
- B. Listen to the patient’s daughter’s wishes and continue all care
- C. Compromise between the wife and daughter and withdraw the fluids and antibiotics but keep the patient intubated
- D. Listen to the patient’s wife’s wishes and withdraw care (Correct Answer)
- E. Consult the hospital ethics committee and continue all care until a decision is reached
POLST paradigm Explanation: ***Listen to the patient’s wife’s wishes and withdraw care***
- The **durable power of attorney for healthcare** legally designates the wife as the patient's surrogate decision-maker when the patient lacks capacity, overriding other family opinions.
- In the absence of a living will, the **surrogate's interpretation of the patient's best interests** and previously expressed wishes is legally and ethically binding.
*Call other family members and consult them for their opinions*
- While involving family is good practice in general, the presence of a **legally appointed durable power of attorney** means that other family members' opinions do not supersede the designated surrogate's decisions.
- Consulting other family members could **create more conflict and delay** crucial decisions, as the wife holds the legal authority.
*Listen to the patient’s daughter’s wishes and continue all care*
- The daughter's wishes, while understandable, **do not hold legal authority** over the decisions of the legally appointed durable power of attorney.
- Disregarding the wife's authority would be a **breach of ethical and legal obligations** in patient care.
*Compromise between the wife and daughter and withdraw the fluids and antibiotics but keep the patient intubated*
- A compromise that goes against the legal surrogate's explicitly stated decision (to withdraw all care) is **ethically problematic and legally unsound**.
- Healthcare decisions should be based on the patient's best interest as interpreted by the **authorized surrogate**, not on attempting to please all family members.
*Consult the hospital ethics committee and continue all care until a decision is reached*
- While an ethics committee consult is appropriate if there's **disagreement over the interpretation of the patient's wishes** *among legally designated surrogates* or concerns about the surrogate's decision-making capacity, it's not the first step when a clear legal surrogate with documentation is present and makes a decision.
- Continuing all care against the wishes of the **legal proxy** would be contrary to patient autonomy and the principles of substituted judgment.
POLST paradigm US Medical PG Question 2: An 8-year-old boy and his 26-year-old babysitter are brought into the emergency department with severe injuries caused by a motor vehicle accident. The child is wheeled to the pediatric intensive care unit with a severe injury to his right arm, as well as other external and internal injuries. He is hemorrhaging and found to be hemodynamically unstable. He subsequently requires transfusion and surgery, and he is currently unconscious. The pediatric trauma surgeon evaluates the child’s arm and realizes it will need to be amputated at the elbow. Which of the following is the most appropriate course of action to take with regards to the amputation?
- A. Obtain an emergency court order from a judge to obtain consent to amputate the child’s arm
- B. Find the child’s parents to obtain consent to amputate the child’s arm
- C. Amputate the child’s arm at the elbow joint (Correct Answer)
- D. Wait for the child’s babysitter to recover from her injuries to obtain her consent to amputate the child’s arm
- E. Wait for the child to gain consciousness to obtain his consent to amputate his arm
POLST paradigm Explanation: ***Amputate the child’s arm at the elbow joint***
- In an emergency situation where a child's life is at risk and a procedure is immediately necessary to save their life or prevent significant harm, **implied consent** allows for medical intervention without explicit parental consent. The child's **hemodynamic instability** and **severe hemorrhage** indicate an immediate threat to life.
- The decision to amputate to save the child's life is a **medically necessary emergency intervention**. Waiting for consent would cause a dangerous delay.
*Obtain an emergency court order from a judge to obtain consent to amputate the child’s arm*
- While court orders can be used in cases of parental refusal or unavailability for non-emergency procedures, the **urgent nature** of this life-threatening situation precludes waiting for a court order.
- The delay in obtaining a court order could significantly worsen the child's prognosis or lead to death.
*Find the child’s parents to obtain consent to amputate the child’s arm*
- Although parental consent is generally required for minors, the child's **critical condition** and **hemodynamic instability** mean delaying life-saving treatment to locate parents would be medically irresponsible.
- The principle of **beneficence** (acting in the best interest of the patient) and avoiding harm takes precedence in this emergency.
*Wait for the child’s babysitter to recover from her injuries to obtain her consent to amputate the child’s arm*
- A babysitter is generally not legally authorized to provide consent for major medical procedures for a child, especially an amputation.
- Even if the babysitter had some form of temporary custody, her own injury makes her an unreliable source of consent, and the delay would be critical.
*Wait for the child to gain consciousness to obtain his consent to amputate his arm*
- An 8-year-old child is generally not considered mature enough to provide **informed consent** for such a major medical decision.
- The child is **unconscious and hemodynamically unstable**, making it impossible to obtain consent and dangerously delaying a life-saving procedure.
POLST paradigm US Medical PG Question 3: 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
POLST paradigm 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.
POLST paradigm US Medical PG Question 4: 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)
POLST paradigm 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**.
POLST paradigm US Medical PG Question 5: A 67-year-old woman is brought by ambulance from home to the emergency department after she developed weakness of her left arm and left face droop. According to her husband, she has a history of COPD, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. She takes hydrochlorothiazide, albuterol, and atorvastatin. She is not on oxygen at home. She is an active smoker and has smoked a pack a day for 20 years. Her mother died of a heart attack at age 60 and her father died of prostate cancer at age 55. By the time the ambulance arrived, she was having difficulty speaking. Once in the emergency department, she is no longer responsive. Her blood pressure is 125/85 mm Hg, the temperature is 37.2°C (99°F), the heart rate is 77/min, and her breathing is irregular, and she is taking progressively deeper inspirations interrupted with periods of apnea. Of the following, what is the next best step?
- A. Start tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)
- B. Intubate the patient (Correct Answer)
- C. Consult a cardiologist
- D. Obtain an MRI of brain
- E. Obtain non-contrast enhanced CT of brain
POLST paradigm Explanation: ***Intubate the patient***
- The patient's **irregular breathing pattern with progressively deeper inspirations interrupted by periods of apnea** (known as **Cheyne-Stokes respiration**) combined with unresponsiveness due to probable acute stroke indicates imminent respiratory failure and the need for **airway protection**.
- **Intubation** secures the airway, ensures adequate ventilation, and prevents aspiration during a neurological emergency.
*Start tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)*
- Although this patient likely has an **acute ischemic stroke**, the first priority is managing the **compromised airway and breathing**.
- **tPA** administration is time-sensitive but requires stabilization of vital signs and exclusion of hemorrhage via neuroimaging, which hasn't occurred yet.
*Consult a cardiologist*
- While the patient has significant **cardiovascular risk factors** (**hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, COPD, family history**), an acute cardiac event is not the immediate concern.
- The pressing issue is **acute neurological deterioration with respiratory compromise**.
*Obtain an MRI of brain*
- An **MRI** offers detailed imaging for stroke but is **time-consuming** and **less accessible** in an emergency compared to CT.
- The patient's critical respiratory status requires immediate intervention before non-urgent diagnostic imaging.
*Obtain non-contrast enhanced CT of brain*
- A **non-contrast CT scan of the brain** is crucial for differentiating between **ischemic** and **hemorrhagic stroke** and guiding treatment, specifically for tPA administration.
- However, ensuring a **patent airway and stable ventilation** takes precedence over imaging in a patient with impending respiratory arrest.
POLST paradigm 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.”
POLST paradigm 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.
POLST paradigm US Medical PG Question 7: A 28-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after being resuscitated in the field. Her husband is with her and recalls seeing pills beside her when he was in the bathroom. He reveals she has a past medical history of depression and was recently given a prescription for smoking cessation. On physical exam, you notice a right-sided scalp hematoma and a deep laceration to her tongue. She has a poor EEG waveform indicating limited to no cerebral blood flow and failed both her apnea test and reflexes. She is found to be in a persistent vegetative state, and the health care team starts to initiate the end of life discussion. The husband states that the patient had no advance directives other than to have told her husband she did not want to be kept alive with machines. The parents want all heroic measures to be taken. Which of the following is the most accurate statement with regards to this situation?
- A. The physician may be appointed as the patient’s health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.
- B. The patient’s parents may be appointed as her health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.
- C. The patient’s husband may be appointed as her health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf. (Correct Answer)
- D. An ethics committee must be appointed as the patient’s health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.
- E. A court-appointed guardian may be appointed as the patient's health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.
POLST paradigm Explanation: ***The patient’s husband may be appointed as her health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.***
- The **hierarchy for healthcare surrogates** typically prioritizes the spouse over parents when there is no advance directive. The husband's recollection of the patient's wishes, although not a formal advance directive, is also relevant.
- State laws generally designate the **spouse as the primary default decision-maker** for incapacitated patients, followed by adult children, parents, and then adult siblings.
*The physician may be appointed as the patient’s health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.*
- A physician's role is to provide medical care and guidance, not to act as a **healthcare surrogate** due to potential conflicts of interest.
- Appointing the treating physician as a surrogate undermines the principles of **patient autonomy** and impartial decision-making.
*The patient’s parents may be appointed as her health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.*
- While parents are part of the surrogate hierarchy, they are generally ranked below the **spouse** in most jurisdictions.
- The parents' desire for "heroic measures" directly conflicts with the patient's stated wish to her husband, potentially leading to decisions not in the patient's best interest or previously expressed values.
*An ethics committee must be appointed as the patient’s health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.*
- An ethics committee's role is to provide **guidance and recommendations** in complex cases, mediate disputes, and ensure ethical principles are upheld, not to act as the primary healthcare surrogate.
- A functional healthcare surrogate takes precedence over an ethics committee in making direct treatment decisions.
*A court-appointed guardian may be appointed as the patient's health care surrogate and may make end-of-life decisions on her behalf.*
- A court-appointed guardian is typically sought only if there is **no clear or willing surrogate** from the established hierarchy, or if there is a dispute among family members that cannot be resolved.
- In this scenario, the husband is the legally recognized next of kin and surrogate by default, making court intervention unnecessary at this stage.
POLST paradigm US Medical PG Question 8: 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
POLST paradigm 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.
POLST paradigm 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
POLST paradigm 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.
POLST paradigm 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
POLST paradigm 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 POLST paradigm US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
