Search

Objectives: A key objective of advance care planning (ACP) is improving surrogates' knowledge of patients' treatment goals. Little is known about whether ACP outside of a trial accomplishes this. The objective was to examine patient and surrogate reports of ACP engagement and associations with surrogate knowledge of goals., Design: Cohort study SETTING: Primary care in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center., Participants: 350 community-dwelling veterans age ≥55 years and the individual they would choose to make medical decisions on their behalf, interviewed separately., Measurements: Treatment goals were assessed by veterans' ratings of 3 health states: severe physical disability, cognitive disability, and pain, as an acceptable or unacceptable result of treatment for severe illness. Surrogates had knowledge if they correctly predicted all 3 responses. Veterans and surrogates were asked about living will and health care proxy completion and communication about life-sustaining treatment and quality versus quantity of life (QOL)., Results: Over 40% of dyads agreed that the veteran had not completed a living will or health care proxy and that there was no QOL communication. For each activity, sizeable proportions (18-34%) disagreed about participation. In dyads who agreed QOL communication had occurred, 30% of surrogates had knowledge, compared to 21% in dyads who agreed communication had not occurred and 15% in dyads who disagreed (P = .01). This relationship persisted in multivariable analysis. Agreement about other ACP activities was not associated with knowledge., Conclusion: Disagreement about ACP participation was common. Agreement about communication regarding QOL was modestly associated with surrogate knowledge of treatment goals. Eliciting surrogates' perspectives is critical to ACP. Even dyads who agree about participation may need additional support for successful engagement., (© 2017, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2017, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Objectives: To understand the perspectives of both patients and the person who would make medical decisions for them if they were unable (surrogates) on their participation in advance care planning (ACP)., Design: Qualitative cross-sectional study., Setting: Community., Participants: Thirty-one veterans age 55 years and older and their surrogates., Measurements: In interviews conducted with both the veteran and surrogate, they were asked to discuss their participation in four ACP activities: communication about life-sustaining treatment, communication about views on quality of life, completion of a living will, and appointment of a healthcare proxy. They were asked about barriers to and facilitators of ACP engagement. When they did not agree about engagement, they each provided their perspective on what they believed had or had not occurred., Results: Many of the same barriers to and facilitators of engagement were discussed by both patients and surrogates. These included difficulty thinking about dying, differences in values, and experiences with others that demonstrated the ability of ACP to decrease burden or avoid conflict. Reasons for disagreements in perceptions about whether communication had occurred included surrogates' need for more detailed information, surrogates' lack of readiness to hear what the patient was saying, and surrogates' reliance on what they know about the patient. For some dyads, participation in the study prompted additional communication, resulting in a better shared understanding of ACP engagement., Conclusion: Surrogates can both impede and facilitate engagement in ACP, and they can hold different perceptions from patients regarding this engagement. Efforts to promote ACP may be most successful if they assess and address both patients' and surrogates' attitudes and help to facilitate clear communication between them., (© 2016, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2016, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Objectives: To design a tool for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to inform individuals of their individual stroke and bleeding risks, assist in clarifying priorities, and promote communication., Design: Clustered randomized controlled trial., Setting: Primary care clinics., Participants: Individuals with NVAF (N = 135)., Intervention: Completion of tool before regularly scheduled visit., Measurements: Primary outcomes included the 100-point informed and values clarity subscales of the decisional conflict scale (lower scores indicate individual is more informed and has greater clarity). Secondary outcomes included knowledge, patient-clinician communication, and change in treatment., Results: Sixty-nine individuals were enrolled in the intervention group and 66 in the control group. After their visit, intervention participants had lower scores on the informed (mean difference = -11.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -21.1 to -2.7) and values clarity subscales (mean difference = -14.6, 95% CI = -22.6 to -6.6). Greater proportions of intervention participants knew medications for reducing stroke risk (61% vs 31%, P < .001) and side effects (49% vs 37%, P = .07). Stroke (71% vs 12%) and bleeding risk (69% vs 20%) were discussed more frequently in the intervention than control group (P < .001). Five intervention participants expressed a preference for medication that was not concordant with their current treatment plan. There was no change in treatment plan in either group., Conclusion: The tool was effective in improving perceived and actual knowledge and values clarity and in increasing physician-patient communication but did not change treatment., (© 2012, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2012, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Objective: To develop measures representing key constructs of the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of behavior change as applied to advance care planning (ACP) and to examine whether associations between these measures replicate the relationships posited by the TTM., Methods: Sequential scale development techniques were used to develop measures for Decisional Balance (Pros and Cons of behavior change), ACP Values/Beliefs (religious beliefs and medical misconceptions serving as barriers to participation), Processes of Change (behavioral and cognitive processes used to foster participation) based on responses of 304 persons age≥65 years., Results: Items for each scale/subscale demonstrated high factor loading (>.5) and good to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α .76-.93). Results of MANOVA examining scores on the Pros, Cons, ACP Values/Beliefs, and POC subscales by stage of change for each of the six behaviors were significant, Wilks'λ=.555-.809, η(2)=.068-.178, p≤.001 for all models., Conclusion: Core constructs of the TTM as applied to ACP can be measured with high reliability and validity., Practice Implications: Cross-sectional relationships between these constructs and stage of behavior change support the use of TTM-tailored interventions to change perceptions of the Pros and Cons of participation in ACP and promote the use of certain Processes of Change in order to promote older persons' engagement in ACP., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Objectives: To examine agreement between older persons and their surrogates regarding participation in advance care planning (ACP)., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting: Community., Participants: Persons aged 65 and older and the individual they identified as most likely to make treatment decisions on their behalf., Measurements: Older persons were asked about participation in four activities: completion of living will, completion of healthcare proxy, communication regarding views about life-sustaining treatment, and communication regarding views about quality versus quantity of life. Surrogates were asked whether they believed the older person had completed these activities., Results: Of 216 pairs, 81% agreed about whether a living will had been completed (κ=0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.72). Only 68% of pairs agreed about whether a healthcare proxy had been completed (κ=0.39, 95% CI 0.29-0.50), 64% agreed about whether they had communicated regarding life-sustaining treatment (κ=0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.35), and 62% agreed about whether they had communicated regarding quality versus quantity of life (κ=0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.35)., Conclusion: Although agreement between older persons and their surrogates regarding living will completion was good, agreement about participation in other aspects of ACP was fair to poor. Additional study is necessary to determine who is providing the most accurate report of objective ACP components and whether agreement regarding participation in ACP is associated with greater shared understanding of patient preferences., (© 2011, Copyright the Authors. Journal compilation © 2011, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Clinicians are caring for an increasing number of older patients with multiple diseases in the face of uncertainty concerning the benefits and harms associated with guideline-directed interventions. Understanding how primary care clinicians approach treatment decision making for these patients is critical to the design of interventions to improve the decision-making process., Methods: Focus groups were conducted with 40 primary care clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) in academic, community, and Veterans Affairs-affiliated primary care practices. Participants were given open-ended questions about their approach to treatment decision making for older persons with multiple medical conditions. Responses were organized into themes using qualitative content analysis., Results: The participants were concerned about their patients' ability to adhere to complex regimens derived from guideline-directed care. There was variability in beliefs regarding, and approaches to balancing, the benefits and harms of guideline-directed care. There was also variability regarding how the participants involved patients in the process of decision making, with clinicians describing conflicts between their own and their patients' goals. The participants listed a number of barriers to making good treatment decisions, including the lack of outcome data, the role of specialists, patient and family expectations, and insufficient time and reimbursement., Conclusions: The experiences of practicing clinicians suggest that they struggle with the uncertainties of applying disease-specific guidelines to their older patients with multiple conditions. To improve decision making, they need more data, alternative guidelines, approaches to reconciling their own and their patients' priorities, the support of their subspecialist colleagues, and an altered reimbursement system.

Objective: To develop and test a simple tool to elicit the preferences of older persons based on prioritization of universal health outcomes. Methods: Persons age ≥65 participating in a larger study were asked to rank 4 outcomes on a visual analogue scale: (1) maintaining independence, (2) staying alive, (3) reducing/eliminating pain, (4) reducing/eliminating other symptoms. Results: Interviewers rated 73% of the 81 participants as having good to excellent understanding, and cognitive interviews demonstrated the tool captured how participants thought about trade-offs. Test-retest reliability was fair to poor for ranking most of the outcomes as either most or least important (kappa .28–1.0). Patient characteristics associated with ranking “keeping you alive” as most important have been shown to be associated with a preference for life-sustaining treatment, a related construct. There was substantial variability in the outcome ranked as most important. Conclusions: The task of ranking 4 universal health outcomes was well understood, captured what was important when considering trade-offs, and demonstrated content validity. However, test-retest reliability was fair to poor. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]