Coaches Activating, Reaching, and Engaging Patients to Engage in Advance Care Planning: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Advance care planning (ACP) remains low among patients with advanced cancer. Multilevel interventions compared with clinician-level interventions may be more effective in improving ACP. Objective: To evaluate whether a multilevel intervention could improve clinician-documented ACP compared with a clinician-level intervention alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial, performed from September 12, 2019, through May 12, 2021, included adults with advanced genitourinary cancers at an academic, tertiary hospital. Data analysis was performed by intention to treat from May 1 to August 10, 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to a 6-month patient-level lay health worker structured ACP education along with a clinician-level intervention composed of 3-hour ACP training and integration of a structured electronic health record documentation template (intervention group) or to the clinician-level intervention alone (control group). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was ACP documentation in the electronic health record by the oncology clinician within 12 months after randomization. Secondary, exploratory outcomes included shared decision-making, palliative care use, hospice use, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations within 12 months after randomization. Results: Among 402 participants enrolled in the study, median age was 71 years (range, 21-102 years); 361 (89.8%) identified as male. More intervention group participants had oncology clinician-documented ACP than control group participants (82 [37.8%] vs 40 [21.6%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.29; 95% CI, 1.44-3.64). At 12-month follow-up, more intervention than control group participants had palliative care (72 [33.2%] vs 25 [13.5%]; OR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.91-5.28) and hospice use (49 [22.6%] vs 19 [10.3%]; OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.44-4.51). There were no differences in the proportion of participants between groups with an emergency department visit (65 [30.0%] vs 61 [33.0%]; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.33) or hospitalization (89 [41.0%] vs 85 [46.0%]; OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.55-1.22). Intervention group participants had fewer hospitalizations than control group participants (mean [SD] number of hospitalizations per year, 0.87 [1.60] vs 1.04 [1.77]) and a lower risk of hospitalization (incidence rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a multilevel intervention improved oncology clinician-documented ACP compared with a clinician-level intervention alone for patients with genitourinary cancer. The intervention is one approach to effectively increase ACP among patients with cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03856463.

Computing the Cost of Care per Patient per Day for Patients With Metastatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

PURPOSE: Patients with well-differentiated, low-grade metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) usually have a long median survival and require complex, expensive care over many years at multidisciplinary centers. The cost burden for patients and institutions serves as a barrier to care. Understanding the drivers of these costs and whether intense monitoring adds value will help to optimize value-based care. METHODS: We adapted the cost of care per patient per day (CCPD) validated methodology to measure cost while accounting for varying follow-up duration. We queried the Stanford NEN Database, which aggregates data from the electronic health record and other electronic sources, to study patients with metastatic NENs receiving regular care at Stanford. Current Procedural Terminology codes for services incurred during the monitoring period for each patient were mapped to the corresponding cost conversion factor and date in the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS: Two hundred two patients between 2010 and 2017 were studied with a mean CCPD of $119.11 in US dollars (USD); NEN-specific systemic therapy made up 55% of this cost. Somatostatin analogs were the costliest systemic therapy. Systemic therapy was the driver of cost differences among patients with various primary tumor types, stage of disease, tumor differentiation and grade, and functional hormone status. Patients in the most expensive CCPD group did not have a significant survival benefit (P = .66). CONCLUSION: The CCPD methodology was effective in studying cancer care value in NENs. Systemic therapy, specifically somatostatin analogs, was the primary driver of cost, and intense monitoring and higher-cost care did not improve survival outcomes.

The physician's experience of changing clinical practice: a struggle to unlearn.

BACKGROUND: Changing clinical practice is a difficult process, best illustrated by the time lag between evidence and use in practice and the extensive use of low-value care. Existing models mostly focus on the barriers to learning and implementing new knowledge. Changing clinical practice, however, includes not only the learning of new practices but also unlearning old and outmoded knowledge. There exists sparse literature regarding the unlearning that takes place at a physician level. Our research objective was to elucidate the experience of trying to abandon an outmoded clinical practice and its relation to learning a new one. METHODS: We used a grounded theory-based qualitative approach to conduct our study. We conducted 30-min in-person interviews with 15 primary care physicians at the Cleveland VA Medical Center and its clinics. We used a semi-structured interview guide to standardize the interviews. RESULTS: Our two findings include (1) practice change disturbs the status quo equilibrium. Establishing a new equilibrium that incorporates the change may be a struggle; and (2) part of the struggle to establish a new equilibrium incorporating a practice change involves both the "evidence" itself and tensions between evidence and context. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence-based support for many of the empirical unlearning models that have been adapted to healthcare. Our findings differ from these empirical models in that they refute the static and unidirectional nature of change that previous models imply. Rather, our findings suggest that clinical practice is in a constant flux of change; each instance of unlearning and learning is merely a punctuation mark in this spectrum of change. We suggest that physician unlearning models be modified to reflect the constantly changing nature of clinical practice and demonstrate that change is a multi-directional process.