Ryan D McMahan1,2, Ismael Tellez1,2, Rebecca L Sudore1,2. 1. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) has shown benefit in some, but not all, studies. It is important to understand the utility of ACP. We conducted a scoping review to identify promising interventions and outcomes. DESIGN: Scoping review. MEASUREMENTS: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for ACP randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2010, to March 3, 2020. We used standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses methods to chart study characteristics, including a standardized ACP Outcome Framework: Process (e.g., readiness), Action (e.g., communication), Quality of Care (e.g., satisfaction), Health Status (e.g., anxiety), and Healthcare Utilization. Differences between arms of P < .05 were deemed positive. RESULTS: Of 1,464 articles, 69 met eligibility; 94% were rated high quality. There were variable definitions, age criteria (≥18 to ≥80 years), diseases (e.g., dementia and cancer), and settings (e.g., outpatient and inpatient). Interventions included facilitated discussions (42%), video only (20%), interactive, multimedia (17%), written only (12%), and clinician training (9%). For written only, 75% of primary outcomes were positive, as were 69% for multimedia programs; 67% for facilitated discussions, 59% for video only, and 57% for clinician training. Overall, 72% of Process and 86% of Action outcomes were positive. For Quality of Care, 88% of outcomes were positive for patient-surrogate/clinician congruence, 100% for patients/surrogate/clinician satisfaction with communication, and 75% for surrogate satisfaction with patients' care, but not for goal concordance. For Health Status outcomes, 100% were positive for reducing surrogate/clinician distress, but not for patient quality of life. Healthcare Utilization data were mixed. CONCLUSION: ACP is complex, and trial characteristics were heterogeneous. Outcomes for all ACP interventions were predominantly positive, as were Process and Action outcomes. Although some Quality of Care and Health Status outcomes were mixed, increased patient/surrogate satisfaction with communication and care and decreased surrogate/clinician distress were positive. Further research is needed to appropriately tailor interventions and outcomes for local contexts, set appropriate expectations of ACP outcomes, and standardize across studies.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) has shown benefit in some, but not all, studies. It is important to understand the utility of ACP. We conducted a scoping review to identify promising interventions and outcomes. DESIGN: Scoping review. MEASUREMENTS: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for ACP randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2010, to March 3, 2020. We used standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses methods to chart study characteristics, including a standardized ACP Outcome Framework: Process (e.g., readiness), Action (e.g., communication), Quality of Care (e.g., satisfaction), Health Status (e.g., anxiety), and Healthcare Utilization. Differences between arms of P < .05 were deemed positive. RESULTS: Of 1,464 articles, 69 met eligibility; 94% were rated high quality. There were variable definitions, age criteria (≥18 to ≥80 years), diseases (e.g., dementia and cancer), and settings (e.g., outpatient and inpatient). Interventions included facilitated discussions (42%), video only (20%), interactive, multimedia (17%), written only (12%), and clinician training (9%). For written only, 75% of primary outcomes were positive, as were 69% for multimedia programs; 67% for facilitated discussions, 59% for video only, and 57% for clinician training. Overall, 72% of Process and 86% of Action outcomes were positive. For Quality of Care, 88% of outcomes were positive for patient-surrogate/clinician congruence, 100% for patients/surrogate/clinician satisfaction with communication, and 75% for surrogate satisfaction with patients' care, but not for goal concordance. For Health Status outcomes, 100% were positive for reducing surrogate/clinician distress, but not for patient quality of life. Healthcare Utilization data were mixed. CONCLUSION: ACP is complex, and trial characteristics were heterogeneous. Outcomes for all ACP interventions were predominantly positive, as were Process and Action outcomes. Although some Quality of Care and Health Status outcomes were mixed, increased patient/surrogate satisfaction with communication and care and decreased surrogate/clinician distress were positive. Further research is needed to appropriately tailor interventions and outcomes for local contexts, set appropriate expectations of ACP outcomes, and standardize across studies.
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Laurie Anne Ferguson; Aretha D Davis; Nathan C Hull; Michael J Green; Yuchiao Chang; Kristy Deep; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Lesley S Castillo; Brie A Williams; Sarah M Hooper; Charles P Sabatino; Lois A Weithorn; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Rhea A Stein; Louise Sharpe; Melanie L Bell; Fran M Boyle; Stewart M Dunn; Stephen J Clarke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kevin Brazil; Gillian Carter; Chris Cardwell; Mike Clarke; Peter Hudson; Katherine Froggatt; Dorry McLaughlin; Peter Passmore; W George Kernohan Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Sarah Nouri; Richard L Street; Deborah E Barnes; Ying Shi; Aiesha M Volow; Brookelle Li; Stewart C Alexander; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Patience Moyo; Lacey Loomer; Joan M Teno; Roee Gutman; Ellen M McCreedy; Emmanuelle Bélanger; Angelo E Volandes; Susan L Mitchell; Vincent Mor Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Terri R Fried; Andrea L Paiva; Colleen A Redding; Lynne Iannone; John R O'Leary; Maria Zenoni; Megan M Risi; Slawomir Mejnartowicz; Joseph S Rossi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Fahad Saeed; Catherine R Butler; Carlyn Clark; Kristen O'Loughlin; Ruth A Engelberg; Paul L Hebert; Danielle C Lavallee; Elizabeth K Vig; Manjula Kurella Tamura; J Randall Curtis; Ann M O'Hare Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 8.237
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: Kara B Dassel; Gail L Towsley; Rebecca L Utz; Lee Ellington; Alexandra Terrill; Debra Scammon; Alycia A Bristol; Amber Thompson; Melody Mickens Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2021-06-23
Authors: David B Simmons; Benjamin H Levi; Michael J Green; In Seo La; Daniella Lipnick; Theresa J Smith; Elizabeth R Thiede; Debra L Wiegand; Lauren Van Scoy Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2021-06-24 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