Scott D Halpern1,2,3,4,5, Dylan S Small1,2,6, Andrea B Troxel2,7,8, Elizabeth Cooney1, Brian Bayes1, Marzana Chowdhury1,3, Heather E Tomko9, Derek C Angus10,11,12, Robert M Arnold13,14,15,16, George Loewenstein2,17, Kevin G Volpp1,2,3,4,18, Douglas B White10,15,19, Cindy L Bryce9,12. 1. Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 3. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 4. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 6. Statistics Department, the Wharton School, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 7. Division of Biostatistics, New York University School of Medicine, New York. 8. Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York. 9. Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 10. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 11. Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 12. Department of Clinical and Translational Science, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 13. Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 14. Institute for Doctor-Patient Communication, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 15. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 16. Palliative and Supportive Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 17. Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 18. The Wharton School, Health Care Management Department, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 19. Program of Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Importance: There is limited evidence regarding how patients make choices in advance directives (ADs) or whether these choices influence subsequent care. Objective: To examine whether default options in ADs influence care choices and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 515 patients who met criteria for having serious illness and agreed to participate. Patients were enrolled at 20 outpatient clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from February 2014 to April 2016 and had a median follow-up of 18 months. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to April 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 3 following ADs: (1) a comfort-promoting plan of care and nonreceipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (comfort AD), (2) a life-extending plan of care and receipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (life-extending AD), or (3) no choices were preselected (standard AD). Main Outcomes and Measures: This trial was powered to rule out a reduction in hospital-free days in the intervention groups. Secondary outcomes included choices in ADs for an overall comfort-oriented approach to care, choices to forgo 4 forms of life support, patients' quality of life, decision conflict, place of death, admissions to hospitals and intensive care units, and costs of inpatient care. Results: Among 515 patients randomized, 10 withdrew consent and 13 were later found to be ineligible, leaving 492 (95.5%) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) sample (median [interquartile range] age, 63 [56-70] years; 279 [56.7%] men; 122 [24.8%] black; 363 [73.8%] with cancer). Of these, 264 (53.7%) returned legally valid ADs and were debriefed about their assigned intervention. Among these, patients completing comfort ADs were more likely to choose comfort care (54 of 85 [63.5%]) than those returning standard ADs (45 of 91 [49.5%]) or life-extending ADs (33 of 88 [37.5%]) (P = .001). Among 492 patients in the mITT sample, 57 of 168 patients [33.9%] who completed the comfort AD, 47 of 165 patients [28.5%] who completed the standard AD, and 35 of 159 patients [22.0%] who completed the life-extending AD chose comfort care (P = .02), with patients not returning ADs coded as not selecting comfort care. In mITT analyses, median (interquartile range) hospital-free days among 168 patients assigned to comfort ADs and 159 patients assigned to life-extending default ADs were each noninferior to those among 165 patients assigned to standard ADs (standard AD: 486 [306-717] days; comfort AD: 554 [296-833] days; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23; P < .001; life-extending AD: 550 [325-783] days; rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P < .001). There were no differences among groups in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, default options in ADs altered the choices seriously ill patients made regarding their future care without changing clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02017548.
RCT Entities:
Importance: There is limited evidence regarding how patients make choices in advance directives (ADs) or whether these choices influence subsequent care. Objective: To examine whether default options in ADs influence care choices and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 515 patients who met criteria for having serious illness and agreed to participate. Patients were enrolled at 20 outpatient clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from February 2014 to April 2016 and had a median follow-up of 18 months. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to April 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 3 following ADs: (1) a comfort-promoting plan of care and nonreceipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (comfort AD), (2) a life-extending plan of care and receipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (life-extending AD), or (3) no choices were preselected (standard AD). Main Outcomes and Measures: This trial was powered to rule out a reduction in hospital-free days in the intervention groups. Secondary outcomes included choices in ADs for an overall comfort-oriented approach to care, choices to forgo 4 forms of life support, patients' quality of life, decision conflict, place of death, admissions to hospitals and intensive care units, and costs of inpatient care. Results: Among 515 patients randomized, 10 withdrew consent and 13 were later found to be ineligible, leaving 492 (95.5%) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) sample (median [interquartile range] age, 63 [56-70] years; 279 [56.7%] men; 122 [24.8%] black; 363 [73.8%] with cancer). Of these, 264 (53.7%) returned legally valid ADs and were debriefed about their assigned intervention. Among these, patients completing comfort ADs were more likely to choose comfort care (54 of 85 [63.5%]) than those returning standard ADs (45 of 91 [49.5%]) or life-extending ADs (33 of 88 [37.5%]) (P = .001). Among 492 patients in the mITT sample, 57 of 168 patients [33.9%] who completed the comfort AD, 47 of 165 patients [28.5%] who completed the standard AD, and 35 of 159 patients [22.0%] who completed the life-extending AD chose comfort care (P = .02), with patients not returning ADs coded as not selecting comfort care. In mITT analyses, median (interquartile range) hospital-free days among 168 patients assigned to comfort ADs and 159 patients assigned to life-extending default ADs were each noninferior to those among 165 patients assigned to standard ADs (standard AD: 486 [306-717] days; comfort AD: 554 [296-833] days; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23; P < .001; life-extending AD: 550 [325-783] days; rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P < .001). There were no differences among groups in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, default options in ADs altered the choices seriously illpatients made regarding their future care without changing clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02017548.
Authors: John D Parr; Baohui Zhang; Matthew E Nilsson; Alexi Wright; Tracy Balboni; Edmund Duthie; Elizabeth Paulk; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Daniel Kobewka; Daren K Heyland; Peter Dodek; Aman Nijjar; Nick Bansback; Michelle Howard; Peter Munene; Elizabeth Kunkel; Alan Forster; Jamie Brehaut; John J You Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Sofía García-Sanjuán; Manuel Fernández-Alcántara; Violeta Clement-Carbonell; Concepción Petra Campos-Calderón; Núria Orts-Beneito; María José Cabañero-Martínez Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: Catherine L Auriemma; Stephanie P Taylor; Michael O Harhay; Katherine R Courtright; Scott D Halpern Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 30.528