Volandes, Angelo E.

Importance Many older adults with advanced cancer never communicate goals of care or treatment preferences to their clinicians, raising the risk that care received will not match their values. Scalable models of care may help surmount this barrier. Objective To test whether a combined patient and clinician intervention increased the rate of advance care planning (ACP) documentation in large health care systems. Design, Setting, and Participants This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial using an open cohort design included patients aged 65 years or older with advanced cancer seen at oncology clinics in 3 health care systems located in the US South, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions from April 1, 2020, to November 30, 2022. Data collection ended in 2024. Intervention The intervention involved delivering brief evidence-based patient-facing video decision aids available in 25 languages as well as goals-of-care communication training to oncology clinicians. Patients in the control period received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ACP documentation, which included any electronic health record documentation of a goals-of-care conversation, palliative care, hospice, or limitation of life-sustaining treatments, identified via a validated natural language processing program. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Twenty-nine practices, comprising 13 800 unique eligible patients with a total of 29 357 repeated measurements, were included (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [6.6] years; 52.3% men [15 344 of 29 357 measurements]). The proportion of patients with ACP documentation was greater in the intervention phase compared with the usual care phase (adjusted rate difference, 6.8% [95% CI, 2.8%-10.8%]; P < .001). ACP documentation in the intervention phase occurred among 3980 of 15 754 patients (25.3%) (goals-of-care conversation, 21.4% [3377 of 15 754]; palliative care, 9.6% [1517 of 15 754]; hospice, 5.4% [847 of 15 754]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 7.2% [1128 of 15 754]). In comparison, ACP documentation in the usual care phase occurred among 2834 of 13 603 patients (20.8%) (goals-of-care conversation, 16.8% [2281 of 13 603]; palliative care, 9.5% [1287 of 13 603]; hospice, 5.3% [724 of 13 603]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 8.4% [1149 of 13 603]). Conclusions and Relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial for older adults with advanced cancer, a bundled evidence-based decision aid and communication training intervention increased the proportion of older patients with ACP documentation. This approach offers an innovative paradigm with a clinically meaningful increase in ACP documentation, a widely used quality metric that reflects high-quality patient-centered care delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03609177

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) may help enable reliable, rapid data management for many uses, such as facilitating communication of advance care planning (ACP). However, issues with validity and accuracy of EHRs hinder the use of ACP information for practical applications. Design: We present a cross-sectional pilot study of 433 older adults with cancer from three large health care systems, participating in an ongoing multisite pragmatic trial (4UH3AG060626-02). We compared data extracted from dedicated structured EHR fields for ACP to a chart review of corresponding ACP documentation contained in the medical chart. Results: Structured ACP data existed for 43.2% of patients and varied by site (25.7% −48.9%). Of the identified structured ACP data elements, 59.2% of recorded elements were correct, 23.7% were incorrect, and 17.1% were duplicates with heterogeneity across sites. Conclusion: Structured ACP data in EHRs were frequently incorrect. This represents a problem for patients and their families, as well as quality improvement and research efforts. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03609177.

Objective: Many patients are admitted to the ICU at or near the end of their lives. Consequently, the increasingly common debate regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia holds implications for the practice of critical care medicine. The objective of this article is to explore core ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia from the perspective of healthcare professionals and ethicists on both sides of the debate. Synthesis: We identified four issues highlighting the key areas of ethical tension central to evaluating physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in medical practice: 1) the benefit or harm of death itself, 2) the relationship between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia and withholding or withdrawing life support, 3) the morality of a physician deliberately causing death, and 4) the management of conscientious objection related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the critical care setting. We present areas of common ground and important unresolved differences. Conclusions: We reached differing positions on the first three core ethical questions and achieved unanimity on how critical care clinicians should manage conscientious objections related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The alternative positions presented in this article may serve to promote open and informed dialogue within the critical care community.

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about the optimal use of shared decision making (SDM) to guide palliative and end‐of‐life decisions in the emergency department (ED).ObjectiveThe objective was to convene a working group to develop a set of research questions that, when answered, will substantially advance the ability of clinicians to use SDM to guide palliative and end‐of‐life care decisions in the ED.MethodsParticipants were identified based on expertise in emergency, palliative, or geriatrics care; policy or patient‐advocacy; and spanned physician, nursing, social work, legal, and patient perspectives. Input from the group was elicited using a time‐staggered Delphi process including three teleconferences, an open platform for asynchronous input, and an in‐person meeting to obtain a final round of input from all members and to identify and resolve or describe areas of disagreement.ConclusionKey research questions identified by the group related to which ED patients are likely to benefit from palliative care (PC), what interventions can most effectively promote PC in the ED, what outcomes are most appropriate to assess the impact of these interventions, what is the potential for initiating advance care planning in the ED to help patients define long‐term goals of care, and what policies influence palliative and end‐of‐life care decision making in the ED. Answers to these questions have the potential to substantially improve the quality of care for ED patients with advanced illness.

This article provides an analysis of ‘decision aids’, interventions to support patients facing tough decisions. Interest has increased since the concept of shared decision making has become widely considered to be a means of achieving desirable clinical outcomes. We consider the aims of these interventions and examine assumptions about their use. We propose three categories, interventions that are used in face-to-face encounters, those designed for use outside clinical encounters and those which are mediated, using telephone or other communication media. We propose the following definition: decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options, by considering relevantattributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate and long-term outcomes which have relevant consequences, in ways which help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making, appropriate to their individual situation. Although quality standards have been published for these interventions, we are also cautious about premature closure and consider that the need for short versions for use inside clinical encounters and long versions for external use requires further research. More work is also needed on the use of narrative formats and the translation of theory into practical designs. The interest in decision support interventions for patients heralds a transformation in clinical practice although many important areas remain unresolved.