Terri R Fried1,2, Maria Zenoni1, Lynne Iannone1,3, John O'Leary1,3, Brenda T Fenton4. 1. Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. 2. Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Program on Aging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Pain Research, Informatics, Multi-Morbidities and Education Center, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A key objective of advance care planning (ACP) is improving surrogates' knowledge of patients' treatment goals. Little is known about whether ACP outside of a trial accomplishes this. The objective was to examine patient and surrogate reports of ACP engagement and associations with surrogate knowledge of goals. DESIGN: Cohort study SETTING: Primary care in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: 350 community-dwelling veterans age ≥55 years and the individual they would choose to make medical decisions on their behalf, interviewed separately. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment goals were assessed by veterans' ratings of 3 health states: severe physical disability, cognitive disability, and pain, as an acceptable or unacceptable result of treatment for severe illness. Surrogates had knowledge if they correctly predicted all 3 responses. Veterans and surrogates were asked about living will and health care proxy completion and communication about life-sustaining treatment and quality versus quantity of life (QOL). RESULTS: Over 40% of dyads agreed that the veteran had not completed a living will or health care proxy and that there was no QOL communication. For each activity, sizeable proportions (18-34%) disagreed about participation. In dyads who agreed QOL communication had occurred, 30% of surrogates had knowledge, compared to 21% in dyads who agreed communication had not occurred and 15% in dyads who disagreed (P = .01). This relationship persisted in multivariable analysis. Agreement about other ACP activities was not associated with knowledge. CONCLUSION: Disagreement about ACP participation was common. Agreement about communication regarding QOL was modestly associated with surrogate knowledge of treatment goals. Eliciting surrogates' perspectives is critical to ACP. Even dyads who agree about participation may need additional support for successful engagement.
OBJECTIVES: A key objective of advance care planning (ACP) is improving surrogates' knowledge of patients' treatment goals. Little is known about whether ACP outside of a trial accomplishes this. The objective was to examine patient and surrogate reports of ACP engagement and associations with surrogate knowledge of goals. DESIGN: Cohort study SETTING: Primary care in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: 350 community-dwelling veterans age ≥55 years and the individual they would choose to make medical decisions on their behalf, interviewed separately. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment goals were assessed by veterans' ratings of 3 health states: severe physical disability, cognitive disability, and pain, as an acceptable or unacceptable result of treatment for severe illness. Surrogates had knowledge if they correctly predicted all 3 responses. Veterans and surrogates were asked about living will and health care proxy completion and communication about life-sustaining treatment and quality versus quantity of life (QOL). RESULTS: Over 40% of dyads agreed that the veteran had not completed a living will or health care proxy and that there was no QOL communication. For each activity, sizeable proportions (18-34%) disagreed about participation. In dyads who agreed QOL communication had occurred, 30% of surrogates had knowledge, compared to 21% in dyads who agreed communication had not occurred and 15% in dyads who disagreed (P = .01). This relationship persisted in multivariable analysis. Agreement about other ACP activities was not associated with knowledge. CONCLUSION: Disagreement about ACP participation was common. Agreement about communication regarding QOL was modestly associated with surrogate knowledge of treatment goals. Eliciting surrogates' perspectives is critical to ACP. Even dyads who agree about participation may need additional support for successful engagement.
Authors: Terri R Fried; Colleen A Redding; Mark L Robbins; John R O'Leary; Lynne Iannone Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: D P Sulmasy; P B Terry; C S Weisman; D J Miller; R Y Stallings; M A Vettese; K B Haller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1998-04-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Terri R Fried; John O'Leary; Virginia Towle; Mary K Goldstein; Mark Trentalange; Deanna K Martin Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Terri R Fried; Colleen A Redding; Mark L Robbins; Andrea L Paiva; John R O'Leary; Lynne Iannone Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Dulce M Cruz-Oliver; Tuo-Yen Tseng; Mary M Mitchell; Zachary Catanzarite; Chakra Budhathoki; Thomas J Smith; Cynda H Rushton; Amy R Knowlton Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Michael K Y Wong; Maria Cassandre Medor; Katerina Yelle Labre; Mengzhu Jiang; Jason R Frank; Lisa M Fischer; Warren J Cheung Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2019-09-16
Authors: J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Deborah Ejem; Andres Azuero; Richard A Taylor; Gabrielle B Rocque; Yasemin Turkman; Moneka A Thompson; Sara J Knight; Michelle Y Martin; Marie A Bakitas Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Brian M Bakke; Mariko A Feuz; Ryan D McMahan; Deborah E Barnes; Brookelle Li; Aiesha M Volow; Jana Powell; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Maureen E Lyon; Sarah Caceres; Rachel K Scott; Debra Benator; Linda Briggs; Isabella Greenberg; Lawrence J D'Angelo; Yao I Cheng; Jichuan Wang Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: Linda H Phung; Deborah E Barnes; Aiesha M Volow; Brookelle H Li; Nikita R Shirsat; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 7.538