Hillary D Lum1, Jacqueline Jones2, Daniel D Matlock3, Russell E Glasgow4, Ingrid Lobo5, Cari R Levy6, Robert S Schwartz7, Rebecca L Sudore8, Jean S Kutner5. 1. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, Colorado Hillary.Lum@ucdenver.edu. 2. College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, Colorado Colorado Research in Implementation Science Program, Adult and Child Center for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 4. VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, Colorado Colorado Research in Implementation Science Program, Adult and Child Center for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 6. Denver-Seattle Center for Veteran-centered and Value-Driven Care, Denver, Colorado. 7. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, Colorado. 8. University of California, San Francisco Division of Geriatrics, VA Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Primary care needs new models to facilitate advance care planning conversations. These conversations focus on preferences regarding serious illness and may involve patients, decision makers, and health care providers. We describe the feasibility of the first primary care-based group visit model focused on advance care planning. METHODS: We conducted a pilot demonstration of an advance care planning group visit in a geriatrics clinic. Patients were aged at least 65 years. Groups of patients met in 2 sessions of 2 hours each facilitated by a geriatrician and a social worker. Activities included considering personal values, discussing advance care planning, choosing surrogate decision-makers, and completing advance directives. We used the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the project. RESULTS: Ten of 11 clinicians referred patients for participation. Of 80 patients approached, 32 participated in 5 group visit cohorts (a 40% participation rate) and 27 participated in both sessions (an 84% retention rate). Mean age was 79 years; 59% of participants were female and 72% white. Most evaluated the group visit as better than usual clinic visits for discussing advance care planning. Patients reported increases in detailed advance care planning conversations after participating (19% to 41%, P = .02). Qualitative analysis found that older adults were willing to share personal values and challenges related to advance care planning and that they initiated discussions about a broad range of relevant topics. CONCLUSION: A group visit to facilitate discussions about advance care planning and increase patient engagement is feasible. This model warrants further evaluation for effectiveness in improving advance care planning outcomes for patients, clinicians, and the system.
PURPOSE: Primary care needs new models to facilitate advance care planning conversations. These conversations focus on preferences regarding serious illness and may involve patients, decision makers, and health care providers. We describe the feasibility of the first primary care-based group visit model focused on advance care planning. METHODS: We conducted a pilot demonstration of an advance care planning group visit in a geriatrics clinic. Patients were aged at least 65 years. Groups of patients met in 2 sessions of 2 hours each facilitated by a geriatrician and a social worker. Activities included considering personal values, discussing advance care planning, choosing surrogate decision-makers, and completing advance directives. We used the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the project. RESULTS: Ten of 11 clinicians referred patients for participation. Of 80 patients approached, 32 participated in 5 group visit cohorts (a 40% participation rate) and 27 participated in both sessions (an 84% retention rate). Mean age was 79 years; 59% of participants were female and 72% white. Most evaluated the group visit as better than usual clinic visits for discussing advance care planning. Patients reported increases in detailed advance care planning conversations after participating (19% to 41%, P = .02). Qualitative analysis found that older adults were willing to share personal values and challenges related to advance care planning and that they initiated discussions about a broad range of relevant topics. CONCLUSION: A group visit to facilitate discussions about advance care planning and increase patient engagement is feasible. This model warrants further evaluation for effectiveness in improving advance care planning outcomes for patients, clinicians, and the system.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Suepattra G May; Peter H Cheng; Caroline K Tietbohl; Laurel Trujillo; Kelly Reilly; Dominick L Frosch; Grace A Lin Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; David B Bekelman; Alexis K Huynh; Thomas J Prendergast; Scott Shreve; Karl A Lorenz Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: James C Martin; Robert F Avant; Marjorie A Bowman; John R Bucholtz; John R Dickinson; Kenneth L Evans; Larry A Green; Douglas E Henley; Warren A Jones; Samuel C Matheny; Janice E Nevin; Sandra L Panther; James C Puffer; Richard G Roberts; Denise V Rodgers; Roger A Sherwood; Kurt C Stange; Cynthia W Weber Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: John C Scott; Douglas A Conner; Ingrid Venohr; Glenn Gade; Marlene McKenzie; Andrew M Kramer; Lucinda Bryant; Arne Beck Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Rebecca L Sudore; Adam D Schickedanz; C Seth Landefeld; Brie A Williams; Karla Lindquist; Steven Z Pantilat; Dean Schillinger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Nerissa S Bauer; Nina Azer; Paula D Sullivan; Dorota Szczepaniak; Sarah M Stelzner; Stephen M Downs; Aaron E Carroll Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Kelly Arnett; Rebecca L Sudore; David Nowels; Cindy X Feng; Cari R Levy; Hillary D Lum Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Hillary D Lum; Rebecca L Sudore; Daniel D Matlock; Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga; Jacqueline Jones; Molly Nowels; Robert S Schwartz; Jean S Kutner; Cari R Levy Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2017 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Regina M Fink; Danielle M Kline; F Amos Bailey; Daniel L Handel; Sarah R Jordan; Hillary D Lum; Stacy M Fischer Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 2.947