Use of Advance Care Planning Codes Among Transgender Medicare Beneficiaries

Advance care planning as perceived by marginalized populations: Willing to engage and facing obstacles

BACKGROUND

Health disparities exist in end-of-life (EOL) care. Individuals and communities that are marginalized due to their race, ethnicity, income, geographic location, language, or cultural background experience systemic barriers to access and receive lower quality EOL care. Advance care planning (ACP) prepares patients and their caregivers for EOL decision-making for the purpose of promoting high-quality EOL care. Low engagement in ACP among marginalized populations is thought to have contributed to disparity in EOL care. To advance health equity and deliver care that aligns with the goals and values of each individual, there is a need to improve ACP for marginalized populations.

AIM

To describe how patients from marginalized populations experience and perceive ACP.

METHODS

We used an interpretive phenomenological approach with semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants were recruited from four primary care clinics and one nursing home in a US Pacific Northwest city. Thirty patients from marginalized populations with serious illness participated in individual interviews between January and December 2021. Participants were asked to describe their experiences and perceptions about ACP during the interviews.

RESULTS

The mean age of 30 participants was 69.5; 19 (63%) were women; 12 (40%) identified as Asian/Pacific Islanders, 10 (33%) as Black; and 9 (30%) were non-native English speakers. Our three key findings were: 1) patients from marginalized populations are willing to engage in ACP; 2) there were multiple obstacles to engaging in ACP; and 3) meaningful ACP conversations could happen when clinicians listen. Although participants from marginalized populations were willing to engage in ACP, a fragmented and restrictive healthcare system and clinicians' biased behaviors or lack of interest in knowing their patients were obstacles. Participants who felt their clinicians took time and listened were encouraged to engage in ACP.

CONCLUSION

Patients from marginalized populations are willing to engage in ACP conversations despite a common belief otherwise. However, obstacles to meaningful ACP conversations with healthcare providers exist. Clinicians need to be aware of these obstacles and listen to build trust and engage marginalized patients in mutually meaningful ACP conversations.

Advance Care Planning in Serious Illness: A Narrative Review

CONTEXT

Advance care planning (ACP) intends to support person-centered medical decision-making by eliciting patient preferences. Research has not identified significant associations between ACP and goal-concordant end-of-life care, leading to justified scientific debate regarding ACP utility.

OBJECTIVE

To delineate ACP's potential benefits and missed opportunities and identify an evidence-informed, clinically relevant path ahead for ACP in serious illness.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review merging the best available ACP empirical data, grey literature, and emergent scholarly discourse using a snowball search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar (2000-2022). Findings were informed by our team's interprofessional clinical and research expertise in serious illness care.

RESULTS

Early ACP practices were largely tied to mandated document completion, potentially failing to capture the holistic preferences of patients and surrogates. ACP models focused on serious illness communication rather than documentation show promising patient and clinician results. Ideally, ACP would lead to goal-concordant care even amid the unpredictability of serious illness trajectories. But ACP might also provide a false sense of security that patients' wishes will be honored and revisited at end-of-life. An iterative, 'building block' framework to integrate ACP throughout serious illness is provided alongside clinical practice, research, and policy recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

We advocate a balanced approach to ACP, recognizing empirical deficits while acknowledging potential benefits and ethical imperatives (e.g., fostering clinician-patient trust and shared decision-making). We support prioritizing patient/surrogate-centered outcomes with more robust measures to account for interpersonal clinician-patient variables that likely inform ACP efficacy and may better evaluate information gleaned during serious illness encounters.