Does facilitated Advance Care Planning reduce the costs of care near the end of life? Systematic review and ethical considerations

Background: While there is increasing evidence that Advance Care Planning has the potential to strengthen patient autonomy and improve quality of care near the end of life, it remains unclear whether it could also reduce net costs of care. Aim: This study aims to describe the cost implications of Advance Care Planning programmes and discusses ethical conflicts arising in this context. Design: We conducted a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Data sources: We systematically searched the databases PubMed, NHS EED, EURONHEED, Cochrane Library and EconLit. We included empirical studies (no limitation to study type) that investigated the cost implications of Advance Care Planning programmes involving professionally facilitated end-of-life discussions. Results and discussion: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Four of them used a randomised controlled design, one used a before-after design and two were observational studies. Six studies found reductions in costs of care ranging from USD1041 to USD64,827 per patient, depending on the study period and the cost measurement. One study detected no differences in costs. Studies varied considerably regarding the Advance Care Planning intervention, patient selection and costs measured which may explain some of the variations in findings. Normative appraisal: Looking at the impact of Advance Care Planning on costs raises delicate ethical issues. Given the increasing pressure to reduce expenditures, there may be concerns that cost considerations could unduly influence the sensitive communication process, thus jeopardising patient autonomy. Safeguards are proposed to reduce these risks. Conclusion: The limited data indicate net cost savings may be realised with Advance Care Planning. Methodologically robust trials with clearly defined Advance Care Planning interventions are needed to make the costs and returns of Advance Care Planning transparent

Future policy and research for advance care planning in dementia: consensus recommendations from an international Delphi panel of the European Association for Palliative Care

Advance care planning (ACP) is growing in importance in the global agenda for dementia care. The European Association for Palliative Care Taskforce (EAPC) on ACP in Dementia aimed to provide recommendations for policy initiatives and future research. We conducted a four-round Delphi study with a 33-country panel of 107 experts between September 2021 and June 2022 and approval by the EAPC Board. Consensus was achieved on 11 recommendations concerning advance directives’ regulation, equity of access, and dementia inclusive approaches and conversations to express patients’ values. Identified research gaps included the need for an evidence-based dementia-specific practice model that optimises engagement and communication with people with fluctuating and impaired capacity and their families to support their decision making, while also empowering people to adjust their decisions should their goals or preferences change over time. Policy gaps included a lack of health services frameworks for a dementia-inclusive practice. The results highlight the need for evidence and policy development that support inclusive ACP practice models.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Future policy and research for advance care planning in dementia:consensus recommendations from an international Delphi panel of the European Association for Palliative Care

Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly recognised in the global agenda for dementia care. The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) Taskforce on ACP in Dementia aimed to provide recommendations for policy initiatives and future research. We conducted a four-round Delphi study with a 33-country panel of 107 experts between September, 2021, and June, 2022, that was approved by the EAPC Board. Consensus was achieved on 11 recommendations concerning the regulation of advance directives, equity of access, and dementia-inclusive approaches and conversations to express patients' values. Identified research gaps included the need for an evidence-based dementia-specific practice model that optimises engagement and communication with people with fluctuating and impaired capacity and their families to support decision making, while also empowering people to adjust their decisions if their goals or preferences change over time. Policy gaps included insufficient health services frameworks for dementia-inclusive practice. The results highlight the need for more evidence and policy development that support inclusive ACP practice models.</p

A complex regional intervention to implement advance care planning in one town's nursing homes: Protocol of a controlled inter-regional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Advance Care Planning (ACP) is an emerging strategy to ensure that well-reflected, meaningful and clearly documented treatment preferences are available and respected when critical decisions about life-sustaining treatment need to be made for patients unable to consent. In Germany, recent legislation confirms that advance directives (AD) have to be followed if they apply to the medical situation, but implementation of ACP has not yet been described.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In a longitudinal controlled study, we compare 1 intervention region (4 nursing homes [n/hs], altogether 421 residents) with 2 control regions (10 n/hs, altogether 985 residents). Inclusion went from 01.02.09 to 30.06.09, observation lasted until 30.06.10. Primary endpoint is the prevalence of ADs at follow-up, 17 (12) months after the first (last) possible inclusion. Secondary endpoints compare relevance and validity of ADs, process quality, the rate of life-sustaining interventions and, in deceased residents, location of death and intensity of treatment before death. The regional multifaceted intervention on the basis of the US program Respecting Choices^®comprises training of n/h staff as facilitators, training of General Practitioners, education of hospital and ambulance staff, and development of eligible tools, including Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment in case of Emergency (POLST-E).</p> <p><it>Participation data: </it>Of 1406 residents reported to live in the 14 n/hs plus an estimated turnover of 176 residents until the last possible inclusion date, 645 (41%) were willing to participate. Response rates were 38% in the intervention region and 42% in the control region. Non-responder analysis shows an equal distribution of sex and age but a bias towards dependency on nursing care in the responder group. <it>Outcome analysis </it>of this study will become available in the course of 2011.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Implementing an ACP program for the n/hs and related health care providers of a region requires a complex community intervention with the effect of nothing less than a cultural shift in this health care sector. This study is to our knowledge the first to develop a strategy for regional implementation of ACP, and to evaluate its feasibility in a controlled design.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN99887420">ISRCTN99887420</a></p

CRISTOPH – A cluster-randomised intervention study to optimise the treatment of patients with hypertension in General Practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent guidelines for the management of hypertension focus on treating patients according to their global cardiovascular risk (CVR), rather than strictly keeping blood pressure, or other risk factors, below set limit values. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of a simple versus a complex educational intervention implementing this new concept among General Practitioners (GPs).</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>A prospective longitudinal cluster-randomised intervention trial with 94 German GPs consecutively enroling 40 patients each with known hypertension. All GPs then received a written manual specifically developed to transfer the global concept of CVR into daily General Practice. After cluster-randomisation, half of the GPs additionally received a clinical outreach visit, with a trained peer discussing with them the concept of global CVR referring to example study patients from the respective GP. Main outcome measure is the improvement of calculated CVR six months after intervention in the subgroup of patients with high CVR (but no history of cardiovascular disease), defined as 10-year-mortality ≥ 5% employing the European SCORE formula. Secondary outcome measures include the intervention's effect on single risk factors, and on prescription rates of drugs targeting CVR. All outcome measures are separately studied in the three subgroups of patients with 1. high CVR (defined as above), 2. low CVR (SCORE < 5%), and 3. a history of cardiovascular disease. The influence of age, sex, social status, and the perceived quality of the respective doctor-patient-relation on the effects will be examined.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge, no other published intervention study has yet evaluated the impact of educating GPs with the goal to treat patients with hypertension according to their global cardiovascular risk.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN44478543</p