Arianne Brinkman-Stoppelenburg1, Judith A C Rietjens2, Agnes van der Heide2. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, The Netherlands a.brinkman-stoppelenburg@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is the process of discussing and recording patient preferences concerning goals of care for patients who may lose capacity or communication ability in the future. Advance care planning could potentially improve end-of-life care, but the methods/tools used are varied and of uncertain benefit. Outcome measures used in existing studies are highly variable. AIM: To present an overview of studies on the effects of advance care planning and gain insight in the effectiveness of different types of advance care planning. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases for experimental and observational studies on the effects of advance care planning published in 2000-2012. RESULTS: The search yielded 3571 papers, of which 113 were relevant for this review. For each study, the level of evidence was graded. Most studies were observational (95%), originated from the United States (81%) and were performed in hospitals (49%) or nursing homes (32%). Do-not-resuscitate orders (39%) and written advance directives (34%) were most often studied. Advance care planning was often found to decrease life-sustaining treatment, increase use of hospice and palliative care and prevent hospitalisation. Complex advance care planning interventions seem to increase compliance with patients' end-of-life wishes. CONCLUSION: The effects of different types of advance care planning have been studied in various settings and populations using different outcome measures. There is evidence that advance care planning positively impacts the quality of end-of-life care. Complex advance care planning interventions may be more effective in meeting patients' preferences than written documents alone. More studies are needed with an experimental design, in different settings, including the community.
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is the process of discussing and recording patient preferences concerning goals of care for patients who may lose capacity or communication ability in the future. Advance care planning could potentially improve end-of-life care, but the methods/tools used are varied and of uncertain benefit. Outcome measures used in existing studies are highly variable. AIM: To present an overview of studies on the effects of advance care planning and gain insight in the effectiveness of different types of advance care planning. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases for experimental and observational studies on the effects of advance care planning published in 2000-2012. RESULTS: The search yielded 3571 papers, of which 113 were relevant for this review. For each study, the level of evidence was graded. Most studies were observational (95%), originated from the United States (81%) and were performed in hospitals (49%) or nursing homes (32%). Do-not-resuscitate orders (39%) and written advance directives (34%) were most often studied. Advance care planning was often found to decrease life-sustaining treatment, increase use of hospice and palliative care and prevent hospitalisation. Complex advance care planning interventions seem to increase compliance with patients' end-of-life wishes. CONCLUSION: The effects of different types of advance care planning have been studied in various settings and populations using different outcome measures. There is evidence that advance care planning positively impacts the quality of end-of-life care. Complex advance care planning interventions may be more effective in meeting patients' preferences than written documents alone. More studies are needed with an experimental design, in different settings, including the community.
Authors: Christopher R Manz; Ravi B Parikh; Chalanda N Evans; Corey Chivers; Susan H Regli; Justin E Bekelman; Dylan Small; Charles A L Rareshide; Nina O'Connor; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Mitesh S Patel Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Judith M Resick; Robert M Arnold; Rebecca L Sudore; David Farrell; Shane Belin; Andrew D Althouse; Betty Ferrell; Bernard J Hammes; Edward Chu; Douglas B White; Kimberly J Rak; Yael Schenker Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Kunal Bailoor; Leslie H Kamil; Ed Goldman; Laura M Napiewocki; Denise Winiarski; Christian J Vercler; Andrew G Shuman Journal: J Bioeth Inq Date: 2018-03-17 Impact factor: 1.352
Authors: Amelia Barwise; Young J Juhn; Chung-Il Wi; Paul Novotny; Carolina Jaramillo; Ognjen Gajic; Michael E Wilson Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 2.500