Impact of advance care planning on end-of-life management

_Purpose of review_ The aim of this review is to critically appraise the recent evidence on different aspects of impact of advance care planning (ACP) in palliative care and to reflect on further implications on practice and research in the future. _Recent findings_ Evidence about various ACP impacts is rapidly growing and most common outcome measures are still advance directive completion, change in hospital admission rate and patients' and families' views and experiences with ACP. Mainly descriptive studies bring new information of ACP impact for specific groups of patients, their families, settings, countries, contexts, staff and healthcare system as such. It is not yet clear who and when would best conduct ACP, from general practitioners (GPS) to specialists in the hospitals and even lay-navigators for cancer patients; from early ACP conversations to critical ACP in acute events at the end-of-life. The need for ACP impacts high-quality evidence is becoming more urgent because latest future projections are showing higher palliative care needs than previously expected. _Summary_ Recent studies on various ACP impacts reveal variety of outcomes for different patient groups and settings, and are contributing to a wider picture of ACP situation around the world. However, high-quality evidence on ACP impact is still urgently expected in times of growing need for system-level changes for effective ACP implementation

Patient and family caregiver perspectives of Advance Care Planning: qualitative findings from the ACTION cluster randomised controlled trial of an adapted respecting choices intervention

Advance Care Planning (ACP) is widely regarded as a component of good end-of-life care. However, findings from a qualitative international study of patient and family caregiver attitudes and preferences regarding ACP highlight participants’ ambivalence towards confronting the future and the factors underlying their motivation to accept or defer anticipatory planning. They show how ACP impacts on, and can be determined by, relationships between patients and their family caregivers. Although some patients may welcome the chance to engage in ACP a tendency towards either therapeutic optimism or fatalism can limit its perceived appeal or benefit. The focus on individual autonomy as an ethical principle underlying ACP does not resonate with real world settings. Many patients naturally orient to share responsibility and decision making within the network of significant others in which they are embedded, rather than exert unfettered freedom of ‘choice’

‘Someone must do it’: multiple views on family’s role in end-of-life care – an international qualitative study.

Background: Family is a crucial social institution in end-of-life care. Family caregivers are encouraged to take on more responsibility at different times during the illness, providing personal and medical care. Unpaid work can be overburdening, with women often spending more time in care work than men. Objectives: This study explored multiple views on the family’s role in end-of-life care from a critical perspective and a relational autonomy lens, considering gender in a socio-cultural context and applying a relational autonomy framework. It explored patients, relatives and healthcare providers’ points of view. Design: This qualitative study was part of the iLIVE project, involving patients with incurable diseases, their relatives and health carers from hospital and non-hospital sites. Methods: Individual interviews of at least five patients, five relatives and five healthcare providers in each of the 10 participating countries using a semi-structured interview guide based on Giger–Davidhizar–Haff’s model for cultural assessment in end-of-life care. Thematic analysis was performed initially within each country and across the complete dataset. Data sources, including researchers’ field notes, were translated into English for international collaborative analysis. Results: We conducted 158 interviews (57 patients, 48 relatives and 53 healthcare providers). After collaborative analysis, five themes were identified across the countries: family as a finite care resource, families’ active role in decision-making, open communication with the family, care burden and socio-cultural mandates. Families were crucial for providing informal care during severe illness, often acting as the only resource. Patients acknowledged the strain on carers, leading to a conceptual model highlighting socio-cultural influences, relational autonomy, care burden and feminisation of care. Conclusion: Society, health teams and family systems still need to better support the role of family caregivers described across countries. The model implies that family roles in end-of-life care balance relational autonomy with socio-cultural values. Real-world endof- life scenarios do not occur in a wholly individualistic, closed-off atmosphere but in an interpersonal setting. Gender is often prominent, but normative ideas influence the decisions and actions of all involved

Patient and family caregiver perspectives of Advance Care Planning: qualitative findings from the ACTION cluster randomised controlled trial of an adapted respecting choices intervention

Advance Care Planning (ACP) is widely regarded as a component of good end-of-life care. However, findings from a qualitative international study of patient and family caregiver attitudes and preferences regarding ACP highlight participants’ ambivalence towards confronting the future and the factors underlying their motivation to accept or defer anticipatory planning. They show how ACP impacts on, and can be determined by, relationships between patients and their family caregivers. Although some patients may welcome the chance to engage in ACP a tendency towards either therapeutic optimism or fatalism can limit its perceived appeal or benefit. The focus on individual autonomy as an ethical principle underlying ACP does not resonate with real world settings. Many patients naturally orient to share responsibility and decision making within the network of significant others in which they are embedded, rather than exert unfettered freedom of ‘choice’

Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer : a 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial

Background Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. Methods and findings To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015–2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0–3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients’ age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients’ quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score −1.8 versus −0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals. Conclusions Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516

Missing not at random in end of life care studies: multiple imputation and sensitivity analysis on data from the ACTION study

Background: Missing data are common in end-of-life care studies, but there is still relatively little exploration of which is the best method to deal with them, and, in particular, if the missing at random (MAR) assumption is valid or missing not at random (MNAR) mechanisms should be assumed. In this paper we investigated this issue through a sensitivity analysis within the ACTION study, a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial testing advance care planning in patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer. Methods: Multiple imputation procedures under MAR and MNAR assumptions were implemented. Possible violation of the MAR assumption was addressed with reference to variables measuring quality of life and symptoms. The MNAR model assumed that patients with worse health were more likely to have missing questionnaires, making a distinction between single missing items, which were assumed to satisfy the MAR assumption, and missing values due to completely missing questionnaire for which a MNAR mechanism was hypothesized. We explored the sensitivity to possible departures from MAR on gender differences between

Development of an international Core Outcome Set (COS) for best care for the dying person: study protocol

Background: In contrast to typical measures employed to assess outcomes in healthcare such as mortality or recovery rates, it is difficult to define which specific outcomes of care are the most important in caring for dying individuals. Despite a variety of tools employed to assess different dimensions of palliative care, there is no consensus on a set of core outcomes to be measured in the last days of life. In order to optimise decision making in clinical practice and comparability of interventional studies, we aim to identify and propose a set of core outcomes for the care of the dying person. Methods: Following the COMET initiative approach, the proposed study will proceed through four stages to develop a set of core outcomes: In stage 1, a systematic review of the literature will identify outcomes measured in existing peer reviewed literature, as well as outcomes derived through qualitative studies. Grey literature, will also be included. Stage 2 will allow for the identification and determination of patient and proxy defined outcomes of care at the end of life via quantitative and qualitative methods at an international level. In stage 3, from a list of salient outcomes identified through stages 1 and 2, international experts, family members, patients, and patient advocates will be asked to score the importance of the preselected outcomes through a Delphi process. Stage 4 consists of a face-to-face consensus meeting of in

Content analysis of Advance Directives completed by patients with advanced cancer as part of an Advance Care Planning intervention: insights gained from the ACTION trial

Purpose: Writing an Advance Directive (AD) is often seen as a part of Advance Care Planning (ACP). ADs may include specific preferences regarding future care and treatment and information that provides a context for healthcare professionals and relatives in case they have to make decisions for the patient. The aim of this study was to get insight into the content of ADs as completed by patients with advanced cancer who participated in ACP conversations. Methods: A mixed methods study involving content analysis and descriptive statistics was used to describe the content of completed My Preferences forms, an AD used in the intervention arm of the ACTION trial, testing the effectiveness of the ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention. Results: In total, 33% of 442 patients who received the ACTION RC ACP intervention completed a My Preferences form. Document completion varied per country: 10.4% (United Kingdom), 20.6% (Denmark), 29.2% (Belgium), 41.7% (the Netherlands), 61.3% (Italy) and 63.9% (Slovenia). Content analysis showed that ‘maintaining normal life’ and ‘experiencing meaningful relationships’ were important for patients to live well. Fears and worries mainly concerned disease progression, pain or becoming dependent. Patients hoped for prolongation of life and to be looked after by healthcare professionals. Most patients preferred to be resuscitated and 44% of the patients expressed maximizing comfort as their goal of future care. Most patients preferred ‘home’ as final place of care. Conclusions: My Preferences forms provide some insights into patients’ perspectives and preferences. However, understanding the reasoning behind preferences requires conversations with patients