The Value of Advance Care Planning for Spokespersons of Patients With Advanced Illness.

CONTEXT: Advance Care Planning (ACP) has fallen under scrutiny primarily because research has not consistently demonstrated patient-focused benefits. OBJECTIVES: To better understand how spokespersons regard, engage with, and find value in ACP during decision-making for their loved ones. METHODS: This qualitative analysis was part of a randomized controlled trial involving spokespersons of patients with advanced illness who had completed ACP. After making a medical decision on behalf of their loved one (or that loved one's death), semi-structured interviews explored spokespersons' experience of decision-making and if (and how) ACP played a role. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. RESULTS: From 120 interviews, five themes emerged: 1) Written advance directives (ADs) helped increase spokespersons' confidence that decisions were aligned with patient wishes (serving as a physical reminder of previous discussions and increasing clarity during decision-making and family conflict); 2) Iterative discussions involving ACP facilitated "In the moment" decision-making; 3) ADs and ACP conversations helped spokespersons feel more prepared for future decisions; 4) Spokespersons sometimes felt there was "no choice" regarding their loved one's medical care; and 5) Regrets and second-guessing were the most common negative emotions experienced by spokespersons. CONCLUSION: Considering the recent debate about the utility of ACP and ADs, this analysis highlights the value of ACP for spokespersons involved in surrogate decision-making. Reframing the goals of ACP in terms of their benefit for spokespersons (and identifying appropriate outcome measures) may provide additional perspective on the utility of ACP.

Comparing two advance care planning conversation activities to motivate advance directive completion in underserved communities across the USA: The Project Talk Trial study protocol for a cluster, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process involving conversations between patients, loved ones, and healthcare providers that consider patient preferences for the types of medical therapies received at the end of life. Underserved populations, including Black, Hispanic, rural, and low-income communities are less likely to engage in ACP than other communities, a health inequity that results in lower-quality care and reduced hospice utilization. The purpose of this trial is to compare efficacy of two interventions intended to motivate ACP (particularly advance directive completion) for those living in underserved communities. METHODS: This 3-armed cluster, randomized controlled mixed methods design is being conducted in 75 community venues in underserved communities across the USA. The goal of the trial is to compare the efficacy of two interventions at motivating ACP. Arm 1 uses an end-of-life conversation game (Hello); Arm 2 uses a nationally utilized workshop format for ACP conversations (The Conversation Project); and Arm 3 uses an attention control game (TableTopics). Events are held in partnership with 75 local community-based host organizations and will involve 1500 participants (n=20 per event). The primary outcome is completion of a visually verified advance directive at 6 months post-event. Primary analyses compare efficacy of each intervention to each other and the control arm. Secondary mixed methods outcomes include (a) other ACP behaviors and engagement; (b) communication quality; (c) impact of sociocultural environment on ACP (via qualitative interviews); and (d) implementation and sustainability. Subgroup analyses examine outcomes for Black, Hispanic, and rural groups in particular. DISCUSSION: This trial will add to the evidence base behind various conversational ACP interventions, examine potential mechanisms of action for such interventions, and provide qualitative data to better understand the sociocultural environment of how community-based ACP interventions are experienced by underserved populations. Results will also provide important data for future researchers to learn whether visual verification of advance directives is necessary or whether reliance on self-reported outcomes is of comparable value. Data from this study will inform ways to effectively motivate underserved communities to participate in advance care planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04612738. Registered on October 12, 2020. All information from the WHO Trial Registration Data Set can be found within the protocol.