Dataset Information

Advance care planning in primary care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer: feasibility randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Advance (anticipatory) care planning (ACP) requires discussions between patients and healthcare professionals about planning for future deterioration in health. ACP improves care coordination but uptake is limited and often deferred.

Aim

To assess the feasibility and acceptability to patients, carers, and GPs of a primary care ACP intervention for people with incurable oesophageal, gastric, or pancreatic cancer.

Design and setting

A 12-month feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a Scottish Cancer Network.

Method

Patients aged ≥18 years starting palliative oncology treatment were randomised 1:1 to an ACP intervention or standard care. Patients in the intervention group received an oncologist letter supporting them to request a GP review along with a patient information leaflet about ACP. Pre-specified analyses with masking included trial recruitment and retention, ACP completion, and quality-of-life questionnaires (EuroQol EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP Supportive Care Measure) at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Qualitative interviews with purposive sampling explored patient, carer, and GP experiences.

Results

Of 99 eligible participants (269 screened), 46% were recruited (n = 46) and randomised; 25 to intervention and 21 to control. By 12 weeks, 45% (n = 9/20) of the individuals in the intervention and 59% (n = 10/17) in the control group had a documented ACP plan. By 24 weeks, 30% (n = 14) had died; in the remaining participants quality of life was maintained at 24 weeks except for physical symptoms. Social norms associating ACP with dying were prevalent among 23 participants interviewed. No psychological or clinical harms were identified.

Conclusion

An RCT of ACP for people with incurable cancer in primary care is feasible. Patient, carer, and GP attitudes and behaviours determined acceptability and timing of care planning.

SUBMITTER: Canny A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9242676 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce.Methods and findingsTo test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015-2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0-3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients' quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals.ConclusionsOur results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.

Project description:BackgroundTo assure patient-centred end-of-life care, palliative interventions need to account for patients' preferences. Advance care planning (ACP) is a structured approach that allows patients, relatives and physicians to discuss end-of-life decisions. Although ACP can improve several patient related outcomes, the implementation of ACP remains difficult. The col-ACP-study (collaborative advance care planning) will investigate a new ACP procedure (col-ACP-intervention (German: Hand-in-Hand Intervention)) in palliative cancer patients and their relatives that addresses individual values and targets barriers of communication before an ACP process.MethodsIn a randomised controlled trial, 270 cancer patients without curative treatment options and their relatives will receive either 1) col-ACP 2) a supportive intervention (active control group) or 3) standard medical care (TAU). col-ACP comprises two steps: a) addressing various barriers of patients and relatives that discourage them from discussing end-of-life issues followed by b) a regular, structured ACP procedure. The col-ACP-intervention consists of 6 sessions. Primary endpoint is the patients' quality of life 16 weeks after randomisation. Secondary endpoints include measurements of distress; depression; communication barriers; caregivers' quality of life; existence of ACP or advance directives; the consistence of end of life care; and others. Patients will be followed up for 13 months. Multivariate analyses will be carried out. Qualitative evaluation of the intervention will be conducted.DiscussionAugmentation of a regular ACP program by a structured psycho-oncological intervention is an innovative approach to target barriers of communication about end-of-life issues. Study findings will help to understand the value of such a combined intervention in palliative care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03387436 (Date of registration: 01/02/2018, retrospectively registered.

Project description:IntroductionDespite positive health outcomes associated with advance care planning (ACP), little research has investigated the impact of ACP in surgical populations. Our goal is to evaluate how an ACP intervention video impacts the patient centredness and ACP of the patient-surgeon conversation during the presurgical consent visit. We hypothesise that patients who view the intervention will engage in a more patient-centred communication with their surgeons compared with patients who view a control video.Methods and analysisRandomised controlled superiority trial of an ACP video with two study arms (intervention ACP video and control video) and four visits (baseline, presurgical consent, postoperative 1 week and postoperative 1 month). Surgeons, patients, principal investigator and analysts are blinded to the randomisation assignment.SettingSingle, academic, inner city and tertiary care hospital. Data collection began July 16, 2015 and continues to March 2017.ParticipantsPatients recruited from nine surgical oncology clinics who are undergoing major cancer surgery.InterventionsIn the intervention arm, patients view a patient preparedness video developed through extensive engagement with patients, surgeons and other stakeholders. Patients randomised to the control arm viewed an informational video about the hospital surgical programme.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary Outcome: Patient centredness and ACP of patient-surgeon conversations during the presurgical consent visit as measured through the Roter Interaction Analysis System.Secondary outcomespatient Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score; patient goals of care; patient, companion and surgeon satisfaction; video helpfulness; medical decision maker designation; and the frequency patients watch the video. Intent-to-treat analysis will be used to assess the impact of video assignment on outcomes. Sensitivity analyses will assess whether there are differential effects contingent on patient or surgeon characteristics.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine institutional review board and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02489799, First received: July 1, 2015).Trial registration numberclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02489799.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a video decision support tool on the preferences for future medical care in older people if they develop advanced dementia, and the stability of those preferences after six weeks.DesignRandomised controlled trial conducted between 1 September 2007 and 30 May 2008. Setting Four primary care clinics (two geriatric and two adult medicine) affiliated with three academic medical centres in Boston.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 200 older people (>or=65 years) living in the community with previously scheduled appointments at one of the clinics. Mean age was 75 and 58% were women.InterventionVerbal narrative alone (n=106) or with a video decision support tool (n=94).Main outcome measuresPreferred goal of care: life prolonging care (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation), limited care (admission to hospital, antibiotics, but not cardiopulmonary resuscitation), or comfort care (treatment only to relieve symptoms). Preferences after six weeks. The principal category for analysis was the difference in proportions of participants in each group who preferred comfort care.ResultsAmong participants receiving the verbal narrative alone, 68 (64%) chose comfort care, 20 (19%) chose limited care, 15 (14%) chose life prolonging care, and three (3%) were uncertain. In the video group, 81 (86%) chose comfort care, eight (9%) chose limited care, four (4%) chose life prolonging care, and one (1%) was uncertain (chi(2)=13.0, df=3, P=0.003). Among all participants the factors associated with a greater likelihood of opting for comfort care were being a college graduate or higher, good or better health status, greater health literacy, white race, and randomisation to the video arm. In multivariable analysis, participants in the video group were more likely to prefer comfort care than those in the verbal group (adjusted odds ratio 3.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 8.6). Participants were re-interviewed after six weeks. Among the 94/106 (89%) participants re-interviewed in the verbal group, 27 (29%) changed their preferences (kappa=0.35). Among the 84/94 (89%) participants re-interviewed in the video group, five (6%) changed their preferences (kappa=0.79) (P<0.001 for difference).ConclusionOlder people who view a video depiction of a patient with advanced dementia after hearing a verbal description of the condition are more likely to opt for comfort as their goal of care compared with those who solely listen to a verbal description. They also have more stable preferences over time.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00704886.