When a Patient Says “No”: Understanding Refusal of Transport to Hospital

When responding to an emergency, the primary goal of EMS professionals is to ensure patient safety and provide necessary medical care. However, situations arise where a patient refuses transportation to the hospital, even when medical concerns exist. This scenario, while challenging, requires a careful balance between respecting patient autonomy and upholding the duty to provide care. This article delves into the critical aspects of handling patient refusal of transport, focusing on assessing patient capacity and making ethically sound decisions in these complex situations.

Imagine this scenario: You are dispatched to a motor vehicle collision. Upon arrival, you encounter a 58-year-old man, the driver, who was restrained during a moderate-speed collision. Despite visible vehicle damage, the patient is on his phone, engaged in a conversation with his lawyer, and adamantly refuses any medical evaluation or transport. You notice the smell of alcohol but observe no overt signs of impairment like slurred speech. Eventually, he permits a quick vital sign check: blood pressure is 132/90, heart rate 138, respiratory rate 20, and SpO2 is 98% on room air. A quick glucose check reads 118 mg/dL. At this point, he declares he’s done and will not cooperate further. Simultaneously, police officers at the scene, suspecting DUI, inquire about his intoxication and whether you will transport him to the hospital.

Scene of a Motor Vehicle Collision

This situation presents a common yet critical dilemma for EMS providers: Can this patient refuse transport? When is it appropriate to transport someone against their will? And what is the most responsible course of action? The answer hinges on a crucial concept: patient capacity.

Defining Patient Capacity in Refusal Situations

The cornerstone of handling patient refusal of transport lies in determining whether the patient possesses the capacity to make informed decisions about their medical care. Capacity, in this context, refers to a patient’s ability to understand their condition, the proposed treatment, and the consequences of refusing care. It is a clinical determination, not a legal one like competency, which is decided by a court.

It’s essential to first rule out any underlying medical conditions that could be impairing the patient’s judgment. In the MVC scenario, initial assessments ruled out hypoglycemia and hypoxia. However, other factors like head injuries, severe pain, or developmental delays could also impact capacity. A thorough initial assessment is paramount to identify any medical reasons for altered mental status.

Even if a patient is under arrest, they retain the right to refuse medical care if they have capacity. The challenge for EMS providers is to discern whether a patient has this capacity, particularly in stressful and time-sensitive situations.

Assessing Patient Capacity: A Step-by-Step Approach

Determining capacity is not about adhering to a specific number, such as a blood alcohol level. A Breathalyzer result, therefore, is not a definitive tool for assessing capacity. Instead, it requires a comprehensive evaluation based on observable patient abilities.

To possess decision-making capacity, a patient must demonstrate four key abilities:

1. Communication of Choice: The patient can clearly and consistently express their decision.
2. Understanding Relevant Information: The patient comprehends the information provided about their condition, proposed treatment, and risks of refusal.
3. Appreciation of Significance: The patient recognizes how this information applies to their own situation and potential consequences.
4. Reasoning and Rational Choice: The patient uses logical reasoning to arrive at a decision.

Essentially, the patient needs to understand the risks and benefits associated with their choices. If they demonstrate these abilities, they have the right to make their own decisions, even if those decisions seem unwise from a medical perspective. Conversely, if these abilities are lacking, EMS providers are obligated to act in the patient’s best interest, which may include transport to the hospital against their will.

To aid in this assessment, consider asking the following questions:

1. “Have you made a decision about your medical care today?” (Assesses communication of choice)
2. “Can you explain to me the potential risks of refusing medical transport in your situation?” (Assesses understanding of risks)
3. “What could happen if you choose not to go to the hospital right now?” (Further assesses understanding of consequences)
4. “Why do you believe refusing transport is the best option for you at this time?” (Assesses reasoning and appreciation)
5. “Why have you chosen this particular course of action?” (Further assesses reasoning and appreciation)

Clear and coherent answers to these questions, even if the EMS provider disagrees with the patient’s ultimate decision, can indicate capacity. Conversely, an inability or unwillingness to answer may suggest a lack of capacity.

Legal and Ethical Considerations in Refusal of Transport

EMS professionals operate within a framework of legal and ethical obligations. While respecting patient autonomy is paramount, so is the duty to provide care and prevent harm. The level of scrutiny applied when assessing capacity should be proportionate to the potential risks involved in the patient’s decision.

For instance, a patient with a minor abrasion refusing transport after a low-mechanism injury requires less stringent capacity assessment than a patient refusing transport after a high-mechanism MVC. The potential consequences of refusal are vastly different in these scenarios.

In situations where doubt persists regarding a patient’s capacity, the guiding principle should be: “When in doubt, do what you would rather defend.” This principle emphasizes prioritizing patient well-being and acting in their best interest, even if it means overriding their refusal.

While transporting a patient against their will may raise concerns about false imprisonment or battery, courts generally favor healthcare providers who act in good faith and within reasonable standards of care during emergencies. Legal repercussions for providing necessary treatment without explicit consent are far less common than legal action for failing to treat when capacity is questionable. Therefore, erring on the side of caution and prioritizing patient safety is often the most defensible course of action.

Best Practices and Documentation

Navigating patient refusal situations demands expertise and sound judgment. To enhance practice in these challenging scenarios, EMS providers should:

• Develop proficiency in capacity assessment: Regularly train and practice capacity assessment techniques.
• Utilize a structured approach: Employ a systematic method for evaluating capacity, such as the questions outlined earlier.
• Consult with medical direction: When uncertain, seek guidance from medical command or online medical control.
• Document thoroughly and objectively: Meticulously document the assessment process, the patient’s statements, and the rationale behind the decision made. Documentation should be factual, non-judgmental, and completed as soon as possible after the event. Remember, documentation should reflect capacity as an assessment made at a specific point in time, not a subjective opinion.

Conclusion: Balancing Autonomy and Duty of Care

Handling situations where a patient refuses transport to the hospital requires a delicate balance between respecting patient autonomy and fulfilling the duty of care. The key to navigating these situations ethically and legally is a thorough and thoughtful assessment of patient capacity. If a patient demonstrates capacity, their decision must be respected, even if it differs from medical recommendations. However, if capacity is compromised, EMS providers are obligated to prioritize patient safety and act accordingly, potentially including transport against the patient’s will. This responsibility demands skill, sound judgment, and a commitment to acting in the best interests of the patient, especially when they are unable to fully advocate for themselves.

References

1. Jones RC, Holden T. A guide to assessing decision-making capacity. Cleve Clin J Med. 2004;71(12):971—975.
2. Appelebaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients’ capacity to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(25):1635—1638.
3. Appelbaum PS. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1834—1840.
4. Miller vs. Rhode Island Hospital, 625 A2d 778 (RI 1993).
5. Bitterman RA: Emergency medical treatment and active labor act and medicolegal issues. In Marx JA, Hockberger RS, Walls RM, et al. (eds.), Rosen’s emergency medicine: Concepts and clinical practice. Elsevier: Philadelphia, pp. 2582—2599, 2010.
6. Simel DL, Feussner JR. Does determining serum alcohol concentrations in ED patients influence physicians’ civil suit liability? Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(5):1016—1018.
7. Heller DB: Informed consent and assessing decision-making capacity in the emergency department. In JG Adams (Ed.), Emergency medicine, second edition. Saunders: Philadelphia, pp. 1749—1752, 2008.
8. Monico EP. (June 1, 2009.) Against medical advice in the ED: Where we are in 2009. ACH Media. Retrieved June 14, 2016, from http://www.ahcmedia.com/articles/113244-against-medical-advice-in-the-ed-where-we-are-in-2009.