Search

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is a process with the overall aim to enhance care in concordance with patients’ preferences. Key elements of ACP are to enable persons to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these with family and health care professionals, and to document and review these if appropriate. ACP is usually conducted through personal conversations between a health care professional, a patient, and—if appropriate—family members. Although Web-based ACP programs have the potential to support patients in ACP, their effectiveness is unknown. ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of Web-based, interactive, and person-centered ACP programs. MethodsWe systematically searched for quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating Web-based, interactive, and person-centered ACP programs in seven databases including EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar. Data on the characteristics of the ACP programs’ content (using a predefined list of 10 key elements of ACP), feasibility, and effectiveness were extracted using a predesigned form. ResultsOf 3434 titles and abstracts, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 11 Web-based ACP programs—10 were developed in the United States and one in Ireland. Studied populations ranged from healthy adults to patients with serious conditions. Programs typically contained the exploration of goals and values (8 programs), exploration of preferences for treatment and care (11 programs), guidance for communication about these preferences with health care professionals or relatives (10 programs), and the possibility to generate a document in which preferences can be recorded (8 programs). Reportedly, participants were satisfied with the ACP programs (11/11 studies), considering them as easy to use (8/8 studies) and not burdensome (7/8 studies). Designs of 13 studies allowed evaluating the effectiveness of five programs. They showed that ACP programs significantly increased ACP knowledge (8/8 studies), improved communication between patients and their relatives or health care professionals (6/6 studies), increased ACP documentation (6/6 studies), and improved concordance between care as preferred by the patients and the decisions of clinicians and health care representatives (2/3 studies). ConclusionsWeb-based, interactive, and person-centered ACP programs were mainly developed and evaluated in the United States. They contained the key elements of ACP, such as discussing and documenting goals and preferences for future care. As participants considered programs as easy to use and not burdensome, they appeared to be feasible. Among the 13 studies that measured the effectiveness of programs, improvement in ACP knowledge, communication, and documentation was reported. The concordance between preferred and received care is yet understudied. Studies with high-quality study designs in different health care settings are warranted to further establish the feasibility and effectiveness of Web-based ACP programs.

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) enables people to define, discuss, and record preferences for treatment and care. Measures of ACP behavior are lacking in the Netherlands. We aimed to translate, culturally adapt and validate the 34-item ACP Engagement Survey into Dutch.MethodsFollowing validation guidelines, we tested content validity, internal consistency, reproducibility, construct validity, interpretability and criterion validity among persons with and without chronic disease.ResultsForward-backward translation indicated the need of only minor adaptations. Two hundred thirty-two persons completed baseline and retest surveys; 121 were aged ≥60 years. Persons with chronic disease (n = 151) considered the survey more valuable than those without (66 vs. 59, p

ContextStandardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes.MethodsThis study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from five international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In five Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a seven-point "not-at-all" to "extremely important" scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists' input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings.ResultsOrganizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and health care (e.g., utilization). The top five outcomes included 1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); 2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); 3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); 4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and 5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether "care consistent with goals" can be reliably measured.ConclusionA large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly "care consistent with goals."

Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly implemented in oncology and beyond, but a definition of ACP and recommendations concerning its use are lacking. We used a formal Delphi consensus process to help develop a definition of ACP and provide recommendations for its application. Of the 109 experts (82 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 11 from Australia) who rated the ACP definitions and its 41 recommendations, agreement for each definition or recommendation was between 68-100%. ACP was defined as the ability to enable individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and health-care providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate. Recommendations included the adaptation of ACP based on the readiness of the individual; targeting ACP content as the individual's health condition worsens; and, using trained non-physician facilitators to support the ACP process. We present a list of outcome measures to enable the pooling and comparison of results of ACP studies. We believe that our recommendations can provide guidance for clinical practice, ACP policy, and research.

ContextDespite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.MethodsWe convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.ResultsPanelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

Abstract Background Little is known about pressure from patients or relatives on physician’s decision making of continuous palliative sedation. We aim to describe experienced pressure by general practitioners (GPs) in cases of continuous sedation after the introduction of the Dutch practice guideline, using a questionnaire survey. Methods A sample of 918 Dutch GPs were invited to fill out a questionnaire about their last patient under continuous sedation. Cases in which GPs experienced pressure from the patient, relatives or other persons were compared to those without pressure. Results 399 of 918 invite GPs (43%) returned the questionnaire and 250 provided detailed information about their most recent case of continuous sedation. Forty-one GPs (16%) indicated to have experienced pressure from the patient, relatives or colleagues. In GPs younger than 50, guideline knowledge was not related to experienced pressure, whereas in older GPs, 15% with and 36% without guideline knowledge reported pressure. GPs experienced pressure more often when patients had psychological symptoms (compared to physical symptoms only) and when patients had a longer estimated life expectancy. A euthanasia request of the patient coincided with a higher prevalence of pressure for GPs without, but not for GPs with previous experience with euthanasia. GPs who experienced pressure had consulted a palliative consultation team more often than GPs who did not experience pressure. Conclusion One in six GPs felt pressure from patients or relatives to start sedation. This pressure was related to guideline knowledge, especially in older GPs, longer life expectancy and the presence of a euthanasia request, especially for GPs without previous experience of euthanasia.

Objective: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators can treat life-threatening arrhythmias, but may negatively influence the last phase of life if not deactivated. Advance care planning conversations can prepare patients for future decision-making about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. This study aimed at gaining insight in the experiences of patients with advance care planning conversations about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.Methods: In this qualitative study, we held five focus groups with 41 patients in total. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed thematically, using the constant comparative method, whereby themes emerging from the data are compared with previously emerged themes.Results: Most patients could imagine deciding to have their implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivated, for instance because the benefits of an active device no longer outweigh the harm of unwanted shocks, when having another life-limiting illness, or when relatives would think this would be in their best interest. Some patients expressed a need for advance care planning conversations with a healthcare professional about deactivation, but few had had these. Others did not, saying they solely focused on living. Some patients were hesitant to record their preferences about deactivation in advance care directives, because they were unsure whether their current preferences would reflect future preferences.Conclusions: Although patients expressed a need for more information, advance care planning conversations about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation seemed to be uncommon. Deactivation should be more frequently addressed by healthcare professionals, tailored to the disease stage of the patient and readiness to discuss this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]