Search

PurposeOnline programs may help to engage patients in advance care planning in outpatient settings. We sought to implement an online advance care planning program, PREPARE (Prepare for Your Care; http://www.prepareforyourcare.org), at home and evaluate the changes in advance care planning engagement among patients attending outpatient clinics.MethodsWe undertook a prospective before-and-after study in 15 primary care clinics and 2 outpatient cancer centers in Canada. Patients were aged 50 years or older (primary care) or 18 years or older (cancer care) and free of cognitive impairment. They used the PREPARE website over 6 weeks, with reminders sent at 2 or 4 weeks. We used the 55-item Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey, which measures behavior change processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, readiness) on 5-point scales and actions relating to substitute decision makers, quality of life, flexibility for the decision maker, and asking doctors questions on an overall scale from 0 to 21; higher scores indicate greater engagement.ResultsIn total, 315 patients were screened and 172 enrolled, of whom 75% completed the study (mean age = 65.6 years, 51% female, 35% had cancer). The mean behavior change process score was 2.9 (SD 0.8) at baseline and 3.5 (SD 0.8) at follow-up (mean change = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.49-0.73); the mean action measure score was 4.0 (SD 4.9) at baseline and 5.2 (SD 5.4) at follow-up (mean change = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.54-1.77). The effect size was moderate (0.75) for the former and small (0.23) for the latter. Findings were similar in both primary care and cancer care populations.ConclusionsImplementation of the online PREPARE program in primary care and cancer care clinics increased advance care planning engagement among patients.

Background: The core to successful advance care planning (ACP) facilitation is helping people determine their values, beliefs and wishes, and understand substitute decision-making. Recognizing the potential for community members to support public awareness and education we developed a model of ACP education, whereby peer facilitators associated with community organizations host workshops that educate and assist members of the public with ACP. Objectives: Describe the development and evaluation of the model for community-led peer-facilitated ACP workshops for the public. Design: Descriptive mixed methods. Methods: A training curriculum and program model were co-developed with two community organizations that had been successful in delivering ACP workshops independently in their communities. Herein we describe a mixed-methods evaluation of three cycles of implementation and improvement of the model. Results: The model centers on three key concepts; the right content (based around three steps Think, Talk, Plan), the right facilitator, and the right approach. A suite of tools was designed to support the three groups involved in the delivery of the ACP workshops: the public participants, the peer facilitators, and the community-based organizations. The peer-facilitator training addresses the facilitator's learning needs of ACP content knowledge, facilitation skills, and understanding change behavior. Training evaluation data from 106 facilitators confirmed that the curriculum prepared them to facilitate the workshops. Qualitative data revealed that support from organizations with established reputations in their community is critical, with mentoring from more experienced facilitators beneficial. Conclusion: Our model demonstrates the potential of community-led, peer-facilitated ACP initiatives to enhance the capacity of community to upstream ACP conversations. Reaching a broader audience and creating a supportive, inclusive environment for individuals to comfortably learn about ACP can drive the much-needed culture shift to normalize ACP. Meaningful community engagement, empowerment, and partnerships are essential for the successful development and widespread impact of these initiatives. Plain language summary: A model for community-led peer-facilitated advance care planning workshops for the public Why was this study done? Advance care planning (ACP) allows people to reflect on and share their personal values, goals and preferences as they relate to their future healthcare. Despite the benefits of doing ACP, the number of people who have engaged in ACP remains low. Traditionally, most ways of supporting people to engage in ACP have involved healthcare providers. In British Columbia, two community-based organizations had developed successful peer-facilitated workshops to engage and educate the public. In these workshops, non-expert members of the community (peer-facilitators) conduct interactive workshops that help members of the public understand and begin ACP. What did the researchers do? We partnered with these two organizations to develop a training curriculum and other materials required to spread this approach to other community organizations throughout the province. The model is based on three key concepts: the right content, the right facilitator, and the right approach. The materials include a suite of tools for three groups: the public participants, the peer-facilitators and the organizations. What did the researchers find? The training and suite of tools we developed successfully prepared community members ("peers") associated with community organizations to facilitate ACP workshops for the public. Support from community organizations is essential, and mentoring from more experienced facilitators is beneficial. What do the findings mean? As a provincial organization we were able to successfully partner with community organizations to develop a model and spread the workshops provincially and confirm they were acceptable and effective, improving public access to information about advance care planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the established benefits of Advance Care Planning (ACP), engagement remains low in British Columbia. Since 2016, a growing number of community‐based nonprofits have offered ACP education. To date, no study has focused on the perspectives of nonprofits on ACP in British Columbia. Objective: This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitating actions to ACP as perceived by British Columbian nonprofits. Design: A mixed‐methods design was used. Data were collected through online surveys and telephone interviews. Setting and Participants: Staff and volunteers from British Columbian nonprofits that are providing or interested in providing public education on ACP were recruited for this study. Results: The lack of public awareness of ACP, the emotional difficulty of the conversation, the complicated ACP process, the belief that ACP is synonymous with completing a medical order form, the challenge of introducing ACP in different cultural contexts and the siloed approach to ACP education were rated as the most important barriers to ACP engagement. The most important facilitating actions were developing clear messages, improving ACP literacy, reframing ACP as part of life planning, simplifying ACP documentation and transfer, integrating ACP conversations into clinical practice and better collaboration between the health system and nonprofits. Discussion: This study identifies numerous opportunities to improve ACP engagement in British Columbia from a community lens. To maximize ACP engagement, community‐led ACP education should be offered in coordination with the health system. Conclusion: Community‐led ACP education as well as collaboration and consultation with nonprofits are part of the solution to the low ACP engagement in British Columbia. Public Contribution: Study participants, including staff and volunteers at nonprofits, are members of the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People who engage in advance care planning (ACP) are more likely to receive health care that is concordant with their goals at the end of life. Little discussion of ACP occurs in primary care.Objective: The objective of this study was to describe primary care clinicians' perspectives on having ACP conversations with their patients.Methods: We conducted a survey of family physicians and non-physician clinicians in primary care in 2014-2015. We compared family physicians and non-physician clinicians on willingness, confidence, participation and acceptability for other clinicians to engage in six aspects of ACP (initiating, exchanging information, decision coaching, finalizing plans, helping communicate plans with family members and other health professionals) on scales from 0 = not at all/extremely unacceptable to 6 = very/all the time/extremely acceptable.Results: The response rate was 72% (n = 117) among family physicians and 69% (n = 64) among non-physician clinicians. Mean ratings (standard deviation [SD]) of willingness were high (4.5 [1.4] to 5.0 [1.2] for physicians; 3.4 [1.8] to 4.6 [1.6] non-physician clinicians). There was little participation (mean ratings 2.4 [1.7] to 2.7 [1.6] for physicians, 1.0 [1.5] to 1.4 [1.7] for non-physician clinicians). Non-physician clinicians rated confidence statistically significantly lower than physicians for all ACP aspects. Acceptability for non-physician clinician involvement was high in both groups (mean acceptability ratings greater than 4).Conclusion: Current engagement of primary care clinicians in ACP is low. Given the high willingness and acceptability for non-physician clinician involvement, increasing the capacity of non-physician clinicians could enable uptake of ACP in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess primary care patients' engagement in advance care planning (ACP) and predictors of engagement., Design: Cross-sectional survey using a revised version of a validated questionnaire., Setting: Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia., Participants: Convenience sample of 20 family practices that provided a consecutive sample of 810 patients aged 50 years and older., Main Outcome Measures: Engagement in ACP activities, and sociodemographic and health-related predictors of having engaged in ACP activities., Results: Patients had a mean age of 66 years (55.6% women). Two-thirds of patients (68.5%; 555) had thought about the kinds of medical treatments they would want or not want if they were sick and in hospital, 52.8% (n = 428) had talked with someone about what they would want, 32.0% (n = 259) had written down their wishes, 50.4% (n = 408) had named someone to be their substitute decision maker, and 23.0% (n = 186) had engaged in all 4 key ACP activities. Of those patients who had talked to someone about medical treatments wanted or not, 17.5% (n = 75) had talked to their family doctors. Age (adjusted odds ratio per 10-year category of 1.55; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.90; P < .001) was significantly associated with having engaged in all ACP activities., Conclusion: Many patients have engaged in some ACP activities, but few have discussed ACP with their family physicians. Strategies should be implemented in primary care to reduce the barriers to discussing ACP., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To identify barriers to and enablers of advance care planning (ACP) perceived by physicians and other health professionals in primary care., Design: Cross-sectional, self-administered survey., Setting: Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia., Participants: Family physicians (n = 117) and other health professionals (n = 64) in primary care., Main Outcome Measures: Perceived barriers relating to the clinician, characteristics of patients, and system factors, rated on a 7-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 6 (an extreme amount), and enablers reported using an open-ended question., Results: Between November 2014 and June 2015, questionnaires were returned by 72.2% (117 of 162) of family physicians and 68.8% (64 of 93) of the other health professionals. Physicians rated insufficient time, inability to electronically transfer the advance care plan across care settings, decreased interaction with patients near the end of life owing to transfer of care, and patients' difficulty understanding limitations and complications of treatment options as the highest barriers. Other health professionals additionally identified their own lack of knowledge and difficulty accessing the physician as barriers. Themes identified as enablers included greater public engagement, clinician attitudes, creating capacity for clinicians, integrating ACP into practice, and system and policy supports., Conclusion: In primary care, there are barriers to engaging patients in ACP at the patient, provider, and system levels that could potentially be addressed through the informed development of multifaceted interventions., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)