A Randomised Controlled Trial of an Advance Care Planning Intervention for Patients with Incurable Cancer
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: We modified and evaluated an advance care planning (ACP) intervention, which had been shown to improve compliance with patient's end of life (EoL) wishes, in a different patient population.
Methods: Patients with incurable cancer, and a Family Member (FM), were randomised one-to-one to usual care or usual care plus an ACP intervention, between April 2014 and January 2017. Oncologists and participants were non-blinded. ACP was based on the Respecting Patient Choices model, with an offer to provide individualised ranges for typical, best-case and worst-case scenarios for survival time. Seven facilitators (two oncology nurses, two nurses and three allied health professionals) delivered the intervention within 2 weeks of study enrolment. The primary outcome measure, assessed by interviewing the FM 3 months after patient death, was the FM perception that the patient's wishes were discussed, and met.
Results: Six hundred and sixty-five patients from seven Australian metropolitan oncology centres were referred for consideration by their oncologists, 444 (67%) met the study inclusion criteria and were approached by a study researcher. Two hundred and eight patients (47%) and their FM entered the trial as dyads. Fifty-three (46%) dyads in the ACP group and 63 (54%) dyads in the usual-care group had complete primary outcome data (p = 0.16). Seventy-nine patients and 53 FMs attended an ACP discussion. Mean length of discussion was 57 min. FMs from 23 (43%) dyads allocated to ACP and 21 (33%) dyads allocated usual care reported the patient's EoL wishes were discussed and met (difference 10%, 95% CI: -2 to 8, p = 0.27). There were no differences in EoL care received, patient satisfaction with care; FM satisfaction with care or with death; or FM well being. Rates of palliative care referral were high in both groups (97% vs 96%).
Conclusions: A formal ACP intervention did not increase the likelihood that EoL care was consistent with patients' preferences.
Trapman L, Zwakman M, de Graaf E, Dijksman L, Grutters J, Teunissen S Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2024; 42(4):372-381.
PMID: 39401339 PMC: 11869514. DOI: 10.1177/10499091241267914.
Clinicians' Prediction of Survival Is Most Useful for Palliative Care Referral.
Jung E, Hiratsuka Y, Suh S, Yoon S, Kang B, Lee S Palliat Med Rep. 2024; 5(1):365-372.
PMID: 39281186 PMC: 11392678. DOI: 10.1089/pmr.2024.0013.
Tools for tomorrow: a scoping review of patient-facing tools for advance care planning.
Riley S, Voisin C, Stevens E, Bose-Brill S, Moss K Palliat Care Soc Pract. 2024; 18:26323524241263108.
PMID: 39045292 PMC: 11265253. DOI: 10.1177/26323524241263108.
Spending Analysis of Machine Learning-Based Communication Nudges in Oncology.
Patel T, Heintz J, Chen J, LaPergola M, Bilker W, Patel M NEJM AI. 2024; 1(6).
PMID: 39036423 PMC: 11259034. DOI: 10.1056/aioa2300228.
Hasegawa T, Okuyama T, Akechi T Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2024; 54(5):507-515.
PMID: 38336476 PMC: 11075734. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyae006.