Advisory council reviews redesigned MOLST website and debates form wording, hospital‑transfer checkbox and provider attestation

DPH staff previewed a redesigned MOLST website and an updated, fillable MOLST form and opened a detailed council discussion over form wording, a 'transfer to hospital' checkbox, and provider training and attestation requirements.

Malia (DPH) demonstrated a non-public preview of the site, describing separate FAQs for individuals, providers and EMS, three form links (overview, downloadable PDF, and a fillable PDF with an electronic signature option) and a resources section that will host statute and DPH policies. "There will be three links here in the final version: instructions on how to access the online MOLST course, view and download the MOLST form, and a fillable version," she said.

The council spent substantial time debating whether the form should keep a checkbox under selective treatments labeled 'transfer to hospital if treatment needs including comfort cannot be met in current location' or whether that should be reworked as an explicit yes/no question or returned to being its own treatment choice as in earlier versions. Dr. Susman and others warned that leaving inconsistent or unclear checkboxes could create discordant orders (for example, selecting selective treatments but also checking options that imply hospital transfer). "We need to know whether the patient wants to be transferred to the hospital or not," Barbara Jacobs said.

Members also raised concerns that posting slide decks or other materials on the website could be used by providers to shortcut mandatory training. The group discussed three related safeguards: label slide decks clearly as reference-only, require completion of a DPH‑approved training program (with a certificate) before signing the MOLST attestation, and have attorneys refine the final attestation language. "It has to say 'completed a DPH‑approved training program,'" one council member urged; staff answered that attorneys will craft the final wording.

Council members weighed the tradeoffs of a public registry or verification system to track trained eligible providers but noted resource constraints and the risk of creating barriers to completing MOLST forms. Staff said they can view CT‑train completion rosters internally and will explore registry options later.

The council accepted the April 7 meeting minutes as amended during the session and agreed to provide edits on the knowledge‑based guidance documents by email over the next two weeks. DPH staff said they will circulate the implementer language, post the updated form and policies after internal review, and return with attestation wording for council review.