Search

Advance care planning (ACP) has been recognized as crucial by patients, families, and clinicians; however, different definitions and measurements have led to inconsistencies in practice and mixed evidence in the literature. This narrative review explores ACPs evolution, innovations, and outcomes using thematic analysis to synthesize data from randomized controlled trials, reviews, and editorials. Key findings include (1) ACP has evolved over the past several decades from a sole focus on code status and advance directive (AD) forms to a continuum of care planning over the life course focused on tailored preparation for patients and surrogate decision-makers and (2) ACP measurement has evolved from traditional outcome metrics, such as AD completion, to a comprehensive outcomes framework that includes behavior change theory, systems, implementation science, and a focus on surrogate outcomes. Since the recent development of an ACP consensus definition and outcomes framework, high-quality trials have reported mainly positive outcomes for interventions, especially for surrogates, which aligns with the patient desire to relieve decision-making burden for loved ones. Additionally, measurement of clinically meaningful ACP information, including documented goals of care discussions, is increasingly being integrated into electronic health records (EHR), and emerging, real-time assessments and natural language processing are enhancing ACP evaluation. To make things easier for patients, families, and care teams, clinicians and researchers can use and disseminate these evolved definitions; provide patients validated, easy-to-use tools that prime patients for conversations and decrease health disparities; use easy-to-access clinician training and simple scripts for interdisciplinary team members; and document patients values and preferences in the medical record to capture clinically meaningful ACP so this information is available at the point of care. Future efforts should focus on efficient implementation, expanded reimbursement options, and seamless integration of EHR documentation to ensure ACPs continued evolution to better serve patients and their care partners.

BACKGROUND: Life-sustaining treatment (LST) orders are important communication tools used to ensure preference-concordant care at the end of life. Recent studies reveal concerning rates of discordance between current preferences and documented LST orders, especially in nursing facilities without POLST. Reasons for discordance in facilities using POLST have been explored, however the majority of nursing facilities in the United States do not yet use the POLST form. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study using constant comparative analysis. SETTING: Nursing facilities in Indiana (n = 6) not using POLST. PARTICIPANTS: Residents (n = 15) and surrogate decision-makers of residents without decisional capacity (n = 15) with discordance between current preferences and documented LST orders. MEASUREMENTS: Do not resuscitate, do not hospitalize (DNH), and do not intubate (DNI) orders were extracted from medical charts. Current preferences were elicited using the Respecting Choices Advanced Steps model. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore reasons for discordance between current preferences and LST orders. RESULTS: Reasons for discordance included: (1) inadequate information about the range of available LST options, what each involves, and how to formally communicate preferences; (2) no previous discussion with facility staff; (3) no documentation of previously expressed preferences; and (4) family involvement. CONCLUSION: Reasons for discordance between expressed preferences and LST orders suggest that in facilities without a uniform and systematic LST order documentation strategy like POLST, these conversations may not occur and/or be documented. Staff should be aware that residents and surrogates may have preferences about LSTs that require strategic solicitation and documentation.

Completion of an advance care planning (ACP) process and/or an advance directive should result in patients receiving the care they desire at the end of life. However, three decades of research have shown that is just not the case. ACP has been a front runner in developing the science within palliative care. Some positive outcomes such as lowering levels of surrogate grief may be associated with ACP. Yet, it does not appear that further ACP research will ensure that seriously ill patients will get goal-concordant care. An unfortunate consequence of palliative care research and advocacy so far is the misguided notion of many hospital systems trying to solve their palliative care problems by only implementing an ACP initiative. At best, ACP is but one tool in the collective palliative care toolbox. New tools are needed. Given that we have finite resources, future research should focus more on tools to improve symptom management, better models of care, and systems that will ensure goal-concordant care that meet the needs of the population that the health care system is designed to meet.

BackgroundPOLST is widely used to document the treatment preferences of nursing facility residents as orders, but it is unknown how well previously completed POLST orders reflect current preferences (concordance) and what factors are associated with concordance.ObjectivesTo describe POLST preference concordance and identify factors associated with concordance.DesignChart reviews to document existing POLST orders and interviews to elicit current treatment preferences.SettingPOLST-using nursing facilities (n = 29) in Indiana.ParticipantsNursing facility residents (n = 123) and surrogates of residents without decisional capacity (n = 152).MeasurementsConcordance was determined by comparing existing POLST orders for resuscitation, medical interventions, and artificial nutrition with current treatment preferences. Comfort-focused POLSTs contained orders for do not resuscitate, comfort measures, and no artificial nutrition.ResultsOverall, 55.7% (123/221) of residents and 44.7% (152/340) of surrogates participated (total n = 275). POLST concordance was 44%, but concordance was higher for comfort-focused POLSTs (68%) than for non-comfort-focused POLSTs (27%) (p

BackgroundThe reasons for discordance between advance care planning (ACP) documentation and current preferences are not well understood. The POLST form offers a unique opportunity to learn about the reasons for discordance and concordance that has relevance for POLST as well as ACP generally.DesignQualitative descriptive including constant comparative analysis within and across cases.SettingTwenty-six nursing facilities in Indiana.ParticipantsResidents (n = 36) and surrogate decision-makers of residents without decisional capacity (n = 37).MeasurementsA semi-structured interview guide was used to explore the reasons for discordance or concordance between current preferences and existing POLST forms.FindingsReasons for discordance include: (1) problematic nursing facility practices related to POLST completion; (2) missing key information about POLST treatment decisions; (3) deferring to others; and (4) changes over time. Some participants were unable to explain the discordance due to a lack of insight or inability to remember details of the original POLST conversation. Explanations for concordance include: (1) no change in the resident's medical condition and/or the resident is unlikely to improve; (2) use of the substituted judgment standard for surrogate decision-making; and (3) fixed opinion about what is "right" with little to no insight.ConclusionParticipant explanations for discordance between existing POLST orders and current preferences highlight the importance of adequate structures and processes to support high quality ACP in nursing facilities. Residents with stable or poor health may be more appropriate candidates for POLST than residents with a less clear prognosis, though preferences should be revisited periodically as well as when there is a change in condition to help ensure existing documentation is concordant with current treatment preferences.

ContextIt is especially important that patients are well informed when making high-stakes, preference-sensitive decisions like those on the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. However, there is currently no way to easily evaluate whether patients understand key concepts when making these important decisions.ObjectivesTo develop a POLST knowledge survey.MethodsExpert (n = 62) ratings of key POLST facts were used to select items for a POLST knowledge survey. The survey was administered to nursing facility residents (n = 97) and surrogate decision-makers (n = 112). A subset (n = 135) were re-administered the survey after a standardized advance care planning discussion to assess the scale's responsiveness to change.ResultsThe 19-item survey demonstrated adequate reliability (α = 0.72.). Residents' scores (x = 11.4, standard deviation 3.3) were significantly lower than surrogate scores (x = 14.7, standard deviation 2.5) (P

The article evaluates medical therapies in the nursing home (NH) population in 2024. Topics covered include concerns on the issues of inadequately trained and insufficient staff, high staff turnover, and lack of accountability and transparency, the need for clinical trials in NHs and their possible filling of gaps therein, the challenges in conducting trials, and addressing them through interventions and trial design. Also noted is a framework for realizing a NH clinical trials network.

ObjectivesTo assess the use of the Indiana Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form to record nursing home (NH) resident treatment preferences and associated practices.DesignSurvey.SettingIndiana NHs.ParticipantsStaff responsible for advance care planning in 535 NHs.MeasurementsSurvey about use of the Indiana POST, related policies, and educational activities.MethodsNHs were contacted by telephone or email. Nonresponders were sent a brief postcard survey.ResultsNinety-one percent (n=486) of Indiana NHs participated, and 79% had experience with POST. Of the 65% of NHs that complete POST with residents, 46% reported that half or more residents had a POST form. POST was most often completed at the time of admission (68%). Only 52% of participants were aware of an existing facility policy regarding use of POST; 80% reported general staff education on POST. In the 172 NHs not using POST, reasons for not using it included unfamiliarity with the tool (23%) and lack of facility policies (21%).ConclusionAlmost 3 years after a grassroots campaign to introduce the voluntary Indiana POST program, a majority of NHs were using POST to support resident care. Areas for improvement include creating policies on POST for all NHs, training staff on POST conversations, and considering processes that may enhance the POST conversation, such as finding an optimal time to engage in conversations about treatment preferences other than a potentially rushed admission process.

ImportancePoor communication by health care professionals contributes to physical and psychological suffering in patients living with serious illness. Patients may not fully understand their illness, prognosis, and treatment options or may not receive medical care consistent with their goals. Despite considerable research exploring the role of communication in this setting, many questions remain, and a clear agenda for communication research is lacking.ObservationsThrough a consensus conference and subsequent activities, we reviewed the state of the science, identified key evidence gaps in understanding the impact of communication on patient outcomes, and created an agenda for future research. We considered 7 broad topics: shared decision making, advance care planning, communication training, measuring communication, communication about prognosis, emotion and serious illness communication, and cultural issues. We identified 5 areas in which further research could substantially move the field forward and help enhance patient care: measurement and methodology, including how to determine communication quality; mechanisms of communication, such as identifying the specific clinician behaviors that patients experience as both honest and compassionate, or the role of bias in the clinical encounter; alternative approaches to advance care planning that focus on the quality of serious illness communication and not simply completion of forms; teaching and disseminating communication skills; and approaches, such as economic incentives and other clinician motivators, to change communication behavior.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the urgent need to improve quality of communication between health care professionals and patients living with serious illness through a broad range of research that covers communication skills, tools, patient education, and models of care.

BackgroundPhysician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms are used to document patient treatment preferences as medical orders. Prior research demonstrates that use of POLST alters medical treatments in a way that is consistent with the POLST orders. However, there are minimal data about the quality of POLST decisions, including whether they reflect the current preferences of well-informed patients.ObjectiveEvaluate the quality of POLST decisions.DesignChart abstraction; interviews.SubjectsNursing home residents and healthcare agents of incapacitated nursing home residents (n = 28).MeasurementsCharacteristics of the POLST conversation were assessed. Brief vignettes were used to assess knowledge about how POLST orders guide medical treatment. Current treatment preferences were elicited and compared with the patient's POLST orders to assess discordance.ResultsA majority (59%) of participants recognized the POLST form. Participants were generally accurate in their knowledge of how POLST orders guide treatment concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (68%), antibiotics (74%), and artificial nutrition (79%), but less so for medical interventions (50%). Current treatment preferences were initially discordant with one or more POLST orders for 64% (18/28) of participants, but half of these discordances were resolved with further discussion (e.g., participant agreed with the existing order). Discordance by treatment decision was as follows: CPR (7%), level of medical intervention (18%), antibiotics (21%), and artificial nutrition (11%).ConclusionsDiscordance between current preferences and POLST orders is complex. Interventions are needed to support high-quality POLST decisions that are informed and concordant with current preferences.

Background: National POLST guidance indicates POLST is intended for individuals at risk of life‐threatening clinical events due to serious illness. Even though this patient population includes many, but not all, nursing facility residents, there is evidence that POLST is used broadly in this setting. This study aimed to identify clinician perspectives regarding factors that influence their decision‐making about whether to use POLST with nursing facility residents and to distinguish between inappropriate and appropriate use. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study to explore the experience of nursing facility clinicians using POLST with residents and deciding who is appropriate and inappropriate for POLST. Participants were purposively sampled from multiple states using POLST. Interviews were audio‐recorded and professionally transcribed. We used rapid qualitative analysis to code data and identify themes. Results: We interviewed 28 clinicians from 14 states about how they decided whether to use POLST with nursing facility residents and to distinguish between inappropriate and appropriate use. Four themes emerged as factors driving clinician‐decision‐making POLST use: (1) belief that "everyone is appropriate"; (2) resident and family preferences; (3) resident health status; and (4) policies requiring POLST [Correction added after first online publication on 07 Feb 2024. The word "For" has been changed to "Four" in the previous sentence.]. In most cases, participants cited resident and family preferences for treatment limitations as well as prognosis and clinical assessments in determining when POLST use was appropriate. Factors influencing potentially inappropriate POLST use included nursing facility policies requiring POLST completion that preempted clinical judgments of appropriateness. Conclusions: Findings highlight the disconnect between National POLST guidance and current use of POLST in nursing facilities. Policies requiring POLST use in nursing facilities and the belief that "everyone is appropriate" may impede clinician autonomy and lead to potentially inappropriate POLST use. Given varying approaches to POLST use in nursing facilities, there is a need to refocus attention on the intended population for POLST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding changes in nursing home (NH) resident pain over time would provide a more informed perspective, allowing opportunities to alter the course of illness, plan care, and set priorities. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to identify and characterize clinically meaningful, dynamic pain trajectories in NH residents. Methods: Retrospective longitudinal analysis of NH resident pain scores with a length of stay >100 days (N = 4864). Group‐based trajectory modeling was applied to Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments to identify pain trajectories. Trajectories were then characterized using unadjusted and adjusted cross‐sectional associations between residents' demographic and clinical characteristics and their pain trajectory. Results: We identified four distinct trajectories: (1) consistent pain absence (48.9%), (2) decreasing‐increasing pain presence (21.8%), (3) increasing‐decreasing pain presence (15.3%), and (4) persistent pain presence (14.0%). Demographics of younger age and living in a rural area were associated with the persistent pain presence trajectory. Clinical variables of obesity and intact cognition were associated with being in the persistent pain presence trajectory. A smaller proportion of residents with moderately or severely impaired cognition were in any of the trajectory groups with pain. Conclusions: We identified and characterized four pain trajectories among NH residents, including persistent pain presence which was associated with demographic characteristics (younger, female, rural) and clinical factors (obese, fracture, contracture). Moreover, residents with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or dementia were less likely to be in any of the three trajectories with pain, likely representing the difficulty in evaluating pain in these residents. It is important that NH staff understand, recognize, and respond to the factors associated with the identified pain trajectories to improve mitigation of potentially persistent pain (e.g., hip fracture, contracture) or improve proxy pain assessment skills for residents at risk for under reporting of pain (e.g., Alzheimer's Disease). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]