Search

Background: Patient identification is an important step for advance care planning (ACP) discussions., Objectives: We conducted a scoping review to identify prognostic indices potentially useful for initiating ACP., Methods: We included studies that developed and/or validated a multivariable prognostic index for all-cause mortality between 6 months and 5 years in community-dwelling adults. PubMed was searched in October 2018 for articles meeting our search criteria. If a systematic review was identified from the search, we checked for additional eligible articles in its references. We abstracted data on population studied, discrimination, calibration, where to find the index, and variables included. Each index was further assessed for clinical usability., Results: We identified 18 articles with a total of 17 unique prognostic indices after screening 9154 titles. The majority of indices (88%) had c-statistics greater than or equal to 0.70. Only 1 index was externally validated. Ten indices, 8 developed in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom, were considered clinically usable., Conclusion: Of the 17 unique prognostic indices, 10 may be useful for implementation in the primary care setting to identify patients who may benefit from ACP discussions. An index classified as "clinically usable" may not be easy to use because of a large number of variables that are not routinely collected and the need to program the index into the electronic medical record., Competing Interests: Conflict of interests: None., (© Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: For many patients, primary care is an appropriate setting for advance care planning (ACP). ACP focuses on what matters most to patients and ensuring health care supports patient-defined goals. ACP may involve interactions between a clinician and a patient, but for seriously ill patients ACP could be managed by a team. Methods: We are conducting a cluster randomized trial comparing team-based to clinician-focused ACP using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in 42 practices recruited from 7 practice-based research networks (PBRNs). Practices were randomized to one of the two models. Patients are referred to the study after engaging in ACP in primary care. Our target enrollment is 1260 subjects. Patient data are collected at enrollment, six months and one year. Primary outcomes are patient-reported goal-concordant care and days at home. Secondary outcomes include additional patient measures, clinician/team experience, and practice-level measures of SICP implementation. Study Implementation: This trial was designed and is conducted by the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC), a consortium of PBRNs focused on integrating engagement with patients, families, and other stakeholders into primary care research and practice. The trial pairs a comparative effectiveness study with implementation of a new program and is designed to balance fidelity to the assigned model with flexibility to allow each practice to adapt implementation to their environment and priorities. Our dissemination will report the results of comparing the two models and the implementation experience of the practices to create guidance for the spread of ACP in primary care.