Advance Care Planning in Australia: Progress in research and implementation.

Advance Care Planning in Australia has its foundations in the Respecting Patient Choices model, which was initially implemented in one state. The Australian population is diverse, ageing and geographically dispersed, with health and aged care services provided by a range of different organisations and regulated at different levels. Key challenges in ACP implementation include discomfort with ACP discussion, inconsistent legislation and ACP documentation across jurisdictions, poor quality control of ACP documents and difficulties accessing ACP documents at the point of care. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a range of issues but also led to some innovative practices which have continued after the relaxation of public health restrictions. Ongoing implementation work focuses on meeting the needs of diverse communities and sectors in ACP, while seeking an overall coherence in policy and standardisation of practice through high-level best-practice principles, quality standards and policy frameworks.

A whole-of-community program of advance care planning for end-of-life care.

Since 2015 a whole-of-community program to promote advance care planning (ACP) within one Queensland Hospital and Health Service (HHS) catchment has spread statewide, financed by Queensland Health (QH) agencies and led by the Statewide Office of Advance Care Planning (SOACP). The program aims to identify ACP-eligible patients, invite and finalise ACP discussions, and ensure documented care preferences are easily retrievable by clinicians to guide future care if a person loses capacity. The SOACP established a digital infrastructure whereby quality-audited ACP documents are uploaded to a software platform accessible to all QH clinicians, private medical specialists, ambulance paramedics, general practitioners (GPs), and registered nurses, including those in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). The SOACP also hosts a website providing resources for clinicians and patients, delivers educational events and mentorship to GPs and hospital and RACF staff, and employs ACP facilitators working across all QH HHSs. The program has seen yearly increases in the numbers of ACP documents uploaded from around the state, with up to 79% of eligible patients in some hospitals receiving ACP, significant ACP uptake in RACFs, and acceptance by GPs to engage in ACP. Audits reveal high concordance between stated preferences and hospital care received, and ACP patients, compared to matched non-ACP controls, more frequently die out of hospital, have fewer inpatient days during their last 6 months of life, and receive less invasive care, with similar results seen among same-patient cohorts post-ACP. Barriers and enablers to ACP have been identified which will inform program evolution.

Risk of 12-month mortality among hospital inpatients using the surprise question and SPICT criteria: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: People with serious life-limiting disease benefit from advance care planning, but require active identification. This study applied the Gold Standards Framework Proactive Identification Guidance (GSF-PIG) to a general hospital population to describe high-risk patients and explore prognostic performance for 12-month mortality. METHODS: Prospective cohort study conducted in a metropolitan teaching hospital in Australia. Hospital inpatients on a single day aged 18 years and older were eligible, excluding maternity and neonatal, mental health and day treatment patients. Data sources included medical record and structured questions for medical and nursing staff. High-risk was predefined as positive response to the surprise question (SQ) plus two or more SPICT indicators of general deterioration. Descriptive variables included demographics, frailty and functional measures, treating team, advance care planning documentation and hospital utilisation. Primary outcome for prognostic performance was 12-month mortality. RESULTS: We identified 540 eligible inpatients on the study day and 513 had complete data (mean age 60, 54% male, 30% living alone, 19% elective admissions). Of these, 191 (37%) were high-risk; they were older, frailer, more dependent and had been in hospital longer than low-risk participants. Within 12 months, 92 participants (18%) died (72/191(38%) high-risk versus 20/322(6%) low-risk, P<0.001), providing sensitivity 78%, specificity 72%, positive predictive value 38% and negative predictive value 94%. SQ alone provided higher sensitivity, adding advanced disease indicators improved specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The GSF-PIG approach identified a large minority of hospital inpatients who might benefit from advance care planning. Future studies are needed to investigate the feasibility, cost and impact of screening in hospitals.