English and Spanish-speaking vulnerable older adults report many barriers to advance care planning

Improving Patient-Centered Care for End-Stage Renal Disease Patients at a Community Palliative Setting

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a complex medical condition growing fastest in Americans 65 years and older. Despite its chronic nature, fewer than 10% of these patients have had advanced care planning. A chart audit (n = 20) of the palliative patients at a community palliative program revealed that no patient had a conversation about prognostication, 10% (n = 2) about the burden of kidney disease, 30% (n = 6) had coordination of care with the nephrologist, and 35% (n = 7) had engaged in end-of-life planning. This project aimed to increase patient-centered care for ESRD patients to 80% in 90 days. The project utilized the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement model in four 2-week rapid cycles with 2 focus improvement areas. The 2 core interventions were patient screening for preferences and values and providing the right care for palliative management utilizing a checklist. At the end of the project, patient-centered right care for ESRD increased from a baseline of 24% to 94%. Patient engagement scores increased from a baseline of 3.2 to 4.9 on a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 being the highest supporting a shared decision model of care in improving patient-centered right care.

Achieving goal-concordant care: Formal and informal advance care planning for White, Black, and Hispanic older adults

INTRODUCTION

Advance care planning (ACP) aims to ensure that patients receive goal-concordant care (GCC), which is especially important for racially or ethnically minoritized populations at greater risk of poor end-of-life outcomes. However, few studies have evaluated the impact of advance directives (i.e., formal ACP) or goals-of-care conversations (i.e., informal ACP) on such care. This study aimed to examine the relationship between each of formal and informal ACP and goal-concordant end-of-life care among older Americans and to determine whether their impact differed between individuals identified as White, Black, or Hispanic.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2012-2018 data from the biennial Health and Retirement Study. We examined the relationships of interest using two, separate multivariable logistic regression models. Model 1 regressed a proxy report of GCC on formal and informal ACP and sociodemographic and health-related covariates. Model 2 added interaction terms between race/ethnicity and the two types of ACP.

RESULTS

Our sample included 2048 older adults. There were differences in the proportions of White, Black, and Hispanic decedents who received GCC (83.1%, 75.3%, and 71.3%, respectively, p < 0.001) and in the use of each type of ACP by racial/ethnic group. In model 1, informal compared with no informal ACP was associated with higher odds of GCC (adjusted odds ratio = 1.38 [95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.82]). In model 2, Black decedents who had formal ACP were more likely to receive GCC than those who did not, but there were no statistically significant differences between decedents of different racial/ethnic groups who had no ACP, informal ACP only, or both types of ACP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results build on previous work by indicating the importance of incorporating goals-of-care conversations into routine healthcare for older adults and encouraging ACP usage among racially and ethnically minoritized populations who use ACP tools at lower rates.

Complex advance care planning intervention in general practice (ACP-GP): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) is an iterative communication process about patients' preferences for future care. In general practice, there are barriers to ACP at patient, GP, and healthcare-system levels. A complex intervention may be necessary to reduce barriers.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of a complex ACP intervention for patients with chronic, life-limiting illness in general practice (ACP-GP).

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in Belgian general practice.

METHOD

ACP-GP included a patient workbook, GP training, ACP conversations, and a documentation template. The control group received usual care. Outcomes were the 15-item ACP Engagement Survey for patients and the ACP Self-Efficacy scale for GPs. Linear mixed models evaluated differences at 3 months (T1, effectiveness evaluation) and 6 months (T2) post-baseline. Analysis was intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

In total, 35 GPs and 95 patients were randomised. Patient ACP engagement did not differ between the intervention and control group at T1 (baseline-adjusted mean difference = 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.02 to 0.69; P = 0.062) or T2 (baseline-adjusted mean difference = 0.20; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.57; P = 0.28). For GP ACP self-efficacy, there were no significant differences between groups at T1 (baseline-adjusted mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.35; P = 0.11) or at T2 (baseline-adjusted mean difference = 0.11; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.31; P = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

ACP-GP did not improve patient engagement and GP self-efficacy more than usual care. Both groups showed patterns of increase from baseline. Trial procedures and the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased awareness about ACP.

Quality and Satisfaction With Advance Care Planning Conversations Among English- and Spanish-Speaking Older Adults

Background: Little is known about the patient-reported quality of and satisfaction with advance care planning (ACP) conversations with surrogates and clinicians among English- and Spanish-speaking older adults, or the potential disparities associated with ACP communication satisfaction. Objectives: To determine patients' perceived quality of and satisfaction with ACP surrogate/clinician conversations and associated patient characteristics. Design: Cross-sectional baseline data were used from two ACP trials, 2013-2017. Outcomes included self-reported ACP conversation quality ("general" vs. "detailed") and communication satisfaction (5-point Likert scale). Associations were determined by chi-squared and t-tests. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were primary care patients ≥55 years with chronic/serious illness in the United States. Results: Of 1398 patients, mean age was 65.6 years (±7.7), 46% women, 32% Spanish speaking, 34% had limited health literacy, and 589 (42%) reported conversations with surrogates and 216 (15%) with clinicians. Of these, less than half rated the conversations as detailed high quality (clinician: 43%; surrogate: 37%). Five-point communication satisfaction scores were higher with detailed versus general conversations (e.g., surrogates: 4.4 vs. 4.1, p = 0.001; clinicians: 4.4 vs. 4.2, p = 0.18) and more often reported by men versus women [(4.4 (0.8) vs. 4.0 (1.0), p = 0.003]; those with adequate versus limited health literacy [4.4 (0.8) vs. 4.0 (0.9), p = 0.002]; and English versus Spanish speakers [4.5 (0.7) vs. 3.5 (0.9), p < 0.001]. Conclusions: Among English- and Spanish-speaking older adults, ACP conversations were infrequent and most were general in quality. Higher quality detailed conversations resulted in greater communication satisfaction. Interventions are needed to improve conversation quality, particularly for Spanish-speaking patients and those with limited health literacy. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: "Improving Advance Care Planning by Preparing Diverse Seniors for Decision Making (PREPARE)" NCT01990235 and "Preparing Spanish-Speaking Older Adults for Advance Care Planning and Medical Decision Making (PREPARE)" NCT02072941.

Addressing What Matters Aligning care with the priorities of older adults and their caregivers

This article is the second in a series, Supporting Family Caregivers in the 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System, published in collaboration with the AARP Public Policy Institute and originally appearing in the American Journal of Nursing, Volume 122, issue 1, as part of the ongoing Supporting Family Caregivers: No Longer Home Alone series. The 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System (What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility) is an evidence-based framework for assessing and acting on critical issues in the care of older adults across settings and transitions of care. Engaging the health care team, including older adults and their family caregivers, with the 4Ms framework can help to ensure that every older adult gets the best care possible, is not harmed by health care, and is satisfied with the care they receive. The articles in this series present considerations for implementing the 4Ms framework in the inpatient hospital setting and incorporating family caregivers in doing so. Resources for both nurses and family caregivers, including a series of accompanying videos developed by AARP and the Rush Center for Excellence in Aging and funded by The John A. Hartford Foundation, are also provided. Nurses should read the articles first, so they understand how best to help family caregivers. Then they can refer caregivers to the informational tear sheet-Information for Family Caregivers-and instructional videos, encouraging them to ask questions. For additional information, see Resources for Nurses. Cite this article as: Carbonell, E., et al. Addressing What Matters. Am J Nurs 2022; 122(1): 54-58.

Knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions of elderly individuals regarding advance care planning: Questionnaire development and testing

Background

Studies have indicated that the advance care planning knowledge and attitudes of elderly individuals strongly affect their implementation of advance care planning. A measurement with a theoretical base for evaluating elderly individuals’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions regarding advance care planning is lacking.

Objectives

To develop a questionnaire and understand elderly individuals’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions regarding implementing advance care planning.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted. The content validity index, and statistical methods, including discrimination, factor, and reliability analysis, were adopted for psychometric testing. Descriptive statistics mainly presented data analysis.

Results

401 elderly individuals were recruited from a medical center and one senior activity center. The content validity index was approximately 0.71–0.92 for the developed questionnaires, the Kuder–Richardson formula 20 was 0.84 for advance care planning knowledge, and the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86, 0.94, 0.76, and 0.92 for attitudes, behavioral intentions, influencing factors, and subjective norms, respectively. The average score for advance care planning knowledge for elderly individuals was 4.42, with a correct answer rate of 49.1%. They lacked knowledge of advance care planning-related legislation. The mean score for attitudes and behavioral intentions was 14.32 and 3.48, respectively. Elderly individuals agreed that advance care planning has benefits but were worried about the emotional distress caused by advance care planning discussions. Elderly individuals with positive behavioral intentions tend to implement advance care planning. Spouses, children, doctors, and nurses are significant reference people for elderly individuals.

Conclusions

The developed questionnaire exhibits good validity and reliability for understanding elderly individuals’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions concerning advance care planning. Advance care planning materials or decision aids suitable for elderly individuals must be developed to increase their understanding of advance care planning. Additionally, the role of nurses is indispensable in promoting advance care planning among elderly individuals.

Addressing What Matters

This article is the second in a series, Supporting Family Caregivers in the 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System, published in collaboration with the AARP Public Policy Institute as part of the ongoing Supporting Family Caregivers: No Longer Home Alone series. The 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System (What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility) is an evidence-based framework for assessing and acting on critical issues in the care of older adults across settings and transitions of care. Engaging the health care team, including older adults and their family caregivers, with the 4Ms framework can help to ensure that every older adult gets the best care possible, is not harmed by health care, and is satisfied with the care they receive. The articles in this series present considerations for implementing the 4Ms framework in the inpatient hospital setting and incorporating family caregivers in doing so. Resources for both nurses and family caregivers, including a series of accompanying videos developed by AARP and the Rush Center for Excellence in Aging and funded by The John A. Hartford Foundation, are also provided. Nurses should read the articles first, so they understand how best to help family caregivers. Then they can refer caregivers to the informational tear sheet-Information for Family Caregivers-and instructional videos, encouraging them to ask questions. For additional information, see Resources for Nurses.