Medline ® Abstracts for References 4,34,37
of 'Advance care planning and advance directives'
Hope for the future: achieving the original intent of advance directives.
Hickman SE, Hammes BJ, Moss AH, Tolle SW
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 Nov;Spec No:S26-30.
Quality of advance care planning policy and practice in residential aged care facilities in Australia
Silvester W, Fullam RF, Parslow RA, et al
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2012;
Effect of the PREPARE Website vs an Easy-to-Read Advance Directive on Advance Care Planning Documentation and Engagement Among Veterans: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Sudore RL, Boscardin J, Feuz MA, McMahan RD, Katen MT, Barnes DE
JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(8):1102.
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.
Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.