Rebecca L Sudore1,2, John Boscardin1,3, Mariko A Feuz1,2, Ryan D McMahan1,2, Mary T Katen1,2, Deborah E Barnes2,3,4. 1. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco. 2. San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
Abstract
Importance: Documentation rates of patients' medical wishes are often low. It is unknown whether easy-to-use, patient-facing advance care planning (ACP) interventions can overcome barriers to planning in busy primary care settings. Objective: To compare the efficacy of an interactive, patient-centered ACP website (PREPARE) with an easy-to-read advance directive (AD) to increase planning documentation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial from April 2013 to July 2016 conducted at multiple primary care clinics at the San Francisco VA Medical Center. Inclusion criteria were age of a least 60 years; at least 2 chronic and/or serious conditions; and 2 or more primary care visits; and 2 or more additional clinic, hospital, or emergency room visits in the last year. Interventions: Participants were randomized to review PREPARE plus an easy-to-read AD or the AD alone. There were no clinician and/or system-level interventions or education. Research staff were blinded for all follow-up measurements. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was new ACP documentation (ie, legal forms and/or discussions) at 9 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported ACP engagement at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months using validated surveys of behavior change process measures (ie, 5-point knowledge, self-efficacy, readiness scales) and action measures (eg, surrogate designation, using a 0-25 scale). We used intention-to-treat, mixed-effects logistic and linear regression, controlling for time, health literacy, race/ethnicity, baseline ACP, and clustering by physician. Results: The mean (SD) age of 414 participants was 71 (8) years, 38 (9%) were women, 83 (20%) had limited literacy, and 179 (43%) were nonwhite. No participant characteristic differed significantly among study arms at baseline. Retention at 6 months was 90%. Advance care planning documentation 6 months after enrollment was higher in the PREPARE arm vs the AD-alone arm (adjusted 35% vs 25%; odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.03-2.51]; P = .04). PREPARE also resulted in higher self-reported ACP engagement at each follow-up, including higher process and action scores; P <.001 at each follow-up). Conclusions and Relevance: Easy-to-use, patient-facing ACP tools, without clinician- and/or system-level interventions, can increase planning documentation 25% to 35%. Combining the PREPARE website with an easy-to-read AD resulted in higher planning documentation than the AD alone, suggesting that PREPARE may increase planning documentation with minimal health care system resources. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01550731.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Documentation rates of patients' medical wishes are often low. It is unknown whether easy-to-use, patient-facing advance care planning (ACP) interventions can overcome barriers to planning in busy primary care settings. Objective: To compare the efficacy of an interactive, patient-centered ACP website (PREPARE) with an easy-to-read advance directive (AD) to increase planning documentation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial from April 2013 to July 2016 conducted at multiple primary care clinics at the San Francisco VA Medical Center. Inclusion criteria were age of a least 60 years; at least 2 chronic and/or serious conditions; and 2 or more primary care visits; and 2 or more additional clinic, hospital, or emergency room visits in the last year. Interventions: Participants were randomized to review PREPARE plus an easy-to-read AD or the AD alone. There were no clinician and/or system-level interventions or education. Research staff were blinded for all follow-up measurements. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was new ACP documentation (ie, legal forms and/or discussions) at 9 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported ACP engagement at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months using validated surveys of behavior change process measures (ie, 5-point knowledge, self-efficacy, readiness scales) and action measures (eg, surrogate designation, using a 0-25 scale). We used intention-to-treat, mixed-effects logistic and linear regression, controlling for time, health literacy, race/ethnicity, baseline ACP, and clustering by physician. Results: The mean (SD) age of 414 participants was 71 (8) years, 38 (9%) were women, 83 (20%) had limited literacy, and 179 (43%) were nonwhite. No participant characteristic differed significantly among study arms at baseline. Retention at 6 months was 90%. Advance care planning documentation 6 months after enrollment was higher in the PREPARE arm vs the AD-alone arm (adjusted 35% vs 25%; odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.03-2.51]; P = .04). PREPARE also resulted in higher self-reported ACP engagement at each follow-up, including higher process and action scores; P <.001 at each follow-up). Conclusions and Relevance: Easy-to-use, patient-facing ACP tools, without clinician- and/or system-level interventions, can increase planning documentation 25% to 35%. Combining the PREPARE website with an easy-to-read AD resulted in higher planning documentation than the AD alone, suggesting that PREPARE may increase planning documentation with minimal health care system resources. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01550731.
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: 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: Daren K Heyland; Doris Barwich; Deb Pichora; Peter Dodek; Francois Lamontagne; John J You; Carolyn Tayler; Pat Porterfield; Tasnim Sinuff; Jessica Simon Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Adam D Schickedanz; Dean Schillinger; C Seth Landefeld; Sara J Knight; Brie A Williams; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: John J You; James Downar; Robert A Fowler; François Lamontagne; Irene W Y Ma; Dev Jayaraman; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Patricia H Strachan; Roy Ilan; Aman P Nijjar; John Neary; John Shik; Kevin Brazil; Amen Patel; Kim Wiebe; Martin Albert; Anita Palepu; Elysée Nouvet; Amanda Roze des Ordons; Nishan Sharma; Amane Abdul-Razzak; Xuran Jiang; Andrew Day; Daren K Heyland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Alison M Bays; Ruth A Engelberg; Anthony L Back; Dee W Ford; Lois Downey; Sarah E Shannon; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Barbara Edlund; Phyllis Christianson; Richard W Arnold; Kim O'Connor; Erin K Kross; Lynn F Reinke; Laura Cecere Feemster; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Stewart C Alexander; James A Tulsky; J Randall Curtis Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Sarah S Nouri; Deborah E Barnes; Aiesha M Volow; Ryan D McMahan; Margot Kushel; Chengshi Jin; John Boscardin; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Rajiv Agarwal; Elyse Shuk; Danielle Romano; Margaux Genoff; Yuelin Li; Eileen M O'Reilly; William Breitbart; Angelo E Volandes; Andrew S Epstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Harriet L Mather; Heather Coats; Kristen Desanto; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Cardinale B Smith; Laura P Gelfman Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; Ann C Long; Robert Y Lee; Cara L McDermott; Ruth A Engelberg; J Randall Curtis Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Anne M Walling; Rebecca L Sudore; Doug Bell; Chi-Hong Tseng; Christine Ritchie; Ron D Hays; Lisa Gibbs; Maryam Rahimi; Javier Sanz; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Leslie W Suen; Sarah Leyde; Kathleen Min; Aiesha Volow; Michael Rabow; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 5.128
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