本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

advance-directive-vs-polst

Produces a plain-language comparison of advance directives and POLST/MOLST forms, covering legal status, clinician signatures, emergency precedence, clinical appropriateness, and document coordination. Use when the user asks about advance directive vs. POLST, living will vs. DNR, which document EMS follows, POLST vs. MOLST vs. POST, whether a healthy person needs a POLST, or document coordination in elder law, estate planning, or serious illness contexts.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Advance Directive vs. POLST Comparison

Compares advance directives (legal planning documents) with POLST/MOLST forms (clinician-signed medical orders). These occupy different legal and clinical lanes — confusing them creates dangerous gaps in emergency care.

Quick Start

Gather before drafting (skip if user says "use defaults"):

  1. State(s) of residence — required before any jurisdiction-specific claim
  2. Existing documents — current advance directive, POLST/MOLST, or neither
  3. Health status — healthy / chronic illness / serious illness / advanced frailty / terminal
  4. Care setting — home, hospital, SNF, assisted living
  5. Named healthcare agent — appointed? successors?
  6. Primary question — e.g., "Which form wins in an emergency?"

Defaults if no response: general comparison, no state-specific claims, healthy adult context, educational memo format.

Core Distinction Table

FeatureAdvance DirectivePOLST / MOLST
NatureLegal planning documentClinician-signed medical order
PurposeAppoints agent; expresses valuesTranslates preferences into actionable orders
Who signsPrincipal (+ witnesses/notary per state)Clinician + patient or rep
Who it instructsAgents, families, downstream cliniciansEMS, hospitals, facilities — immediately actionable
ScopeBroad: values, agent authority, end-of-life wishesSpecific: CPR, hospitalization, ventilation, nutrition
Appropriate forAll competent adultsSerious illness, advanced frailty, limited life expectancy
EMS usabilityGenerally not actionable at sceneYes — designed for field portability
Clinician signature?NoYes — invalid without it

Emergency Precedence

POLST takes practical precedence in the field. EMS looks for medical orders, not legal documents.

  • POLST "Do Not Attempt Resuscitation" → EMS generally follows it
  • Advance directive alone → EMS may default to full treatment
  • At hospital with agent present: agent has legal authority (from directive) to request physician revoke/modify POLST
  • Conscious patient with capacity: contemporaneous wishes control regardless of documents

Never promise "EMS will always follow" any form. Availability, local protocol, validity, and state registry participation determine what gets followed.

Clinical Appropriateness

POLST is not for healthy adults. Use the "Surprise Question": Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next year? If yes → POLST is premature.

Nursing home warning: Facilities sometimes present POLST as routine intake paperwork. Clients should not sign without a goals-of-care discussion with their physician about actual prognosis.

Document Coordination

Advance directive = values framework + agent authority. POLST = current clinical goals as orders. They must be consistent.

  • Conflict (directive says "do everything," POLST says "DNR"): clinicians often follow the most current, most specific, properly signed order — state-dependent. Treat inconsistency as urgent.
  • Agent role: can participate in POLST discussions and request physician updates, but cannot unilaterally revoke a POLST. Modification requires clinician to cancel and reissue.
  • Access: directive accessible at hospital for agent authority proof; POLST physically accessible to EMS (refrigerator, chart front, state registry).

Deliverable

Draft a memo or client handout covering:

  • Plain-language definitions of each document
  • Who signs each; why clinician signature is essential for POLST
  • Emergency scenario (practical, scenario-based)
  • Whether POLST is appropriate given client's health status
  • How to ensure consistency between documents
  • Next steps: update directive / initiate POLST conversation with physician / void outdated copies

Use analogy: advance directive = "constitution," POLST = "executive order."

Post-Draft Checks

Ask after delivering:

  1. Does this answer your specific question?
  2. Do you have both documents — are they consistent?
  3. Want help drafting or updating either document? (separate skill)
  4. Any out-of-state care scenarios to address?

State Terminology

Adapt to the state's label before finalizing:

AcronymStates
POLSTCA, OR, WA, others
MOLSTNY, MD
MOSTNC, SC
POSTID, TN, UT, WV, others
TPOPPMN
Out-of-Hospital DNR onlyFL, TX (limited scope)

Verify via the National POLST program directory before asserting any state's form name.

Guardrails

Scope: This skill explains and compares — does not draft documents, determine capacity, or resolve validity disputes.

Anti-hallucination:

  • No state-specific claims without verified jurisdiction
  • No invented statutory citations or case names
  • No assertions about POLST signer eligibility without verification — mark [VERIFY]
  • No medical advice (e.g., which POLST boxes to check)
  • No promises any document "will always be honored"

Quality checklist:

  • Core distinction table accurate
  • Emergency precedence scenario-based
  • Clinical appropriateness assessed for client's health
  • POLST form name matches state terminology
  • Agent role and limitations explained
  • Document consistency addressed
  • Citations verified or marked [VERIFY]
  • Next steps provided
  • Disclaimer included

Required disclaimer: This is general legal information, not legal advice. Review with a licensed attorney before use in any client matter and with a licensed clinician before any medical decisions are implemented.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

CSlawyer1985 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する