An advance care plan decision support video before major surgery: a patient- and family-centred approach

Exploration of decision aids to support advance care planning: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is a process through which people communicate their goals and preferences for future medical care. Due to the complexity of the decision-making process, decision aids can assist individuals in balancing potential benefits and risks of treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

While decision aids have the potential to better promote advance care planning, their characteristics, content and application effectiveness are unclear and lack systematic review. Therefore, we aimed to explore these three aspects and establish a foundation for future research.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

This scoping review adheres to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR list. Six English-language databases were systematically searched from the time of construction until 1 December 2023. Two researchers conducted the article screening and data extraction, and the extracted data was presented in written tables and narrative summaries.

RESULTS

Of the 1479 titles and abstracts, 20 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Types of decision aids were employed, mainly websites and videos. Decision aid's primary components center around 11 areas, such as furnishing information, exploring treatment and care preferences. The main manifestations were a significant increase in knowledge and improved recognition of patients' target value preferences. Among the aids, websites and videos for advance care planning have relatively high content acceptability and decision-making process satisfaction, but their feasibility has yet to be tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids were varied, with content focused on describing key information and exploring treatment and care preferences. Regarding application effects, the aids successfully facilitated the advance care planning process and improved the quality of participants' decisions. Overall, decision aids are efficient in improving the decision-making process for implementing advance care planning in cancer and geriatric populations. In the future, personalised decision aids should be developed based on continuous optimization of tools' quality and promoted for clinical application.

REPORTING METHOD

The paper has adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines and referenced the PRISMAg-ScR checklist.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This is a review without patient and public contribution.

REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF, Open Science DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know Before Their Patient Undergoes Surgery?

Many seriously ill patients undergo surgical interventions. Palliative care clinicians may not be familiar with the nuances involved in perioperative care, however they can play a valuable role in enabling the delivery of patient-centered and goal-concordant perioperative care. The interval of time surrounding a surgical intervention is fraught with medical, psychosocial, and relational risks, many of which palliative care clinicians may be well-positioned to navigate. A perioperative palliative care consult may involve exploring gaps between clinician and patient expectations, facilitating continuity of symptom management or helping patients to designate a surrogate decision-maker before undergoing anesthesia. Palliative care clinicians may also be called upon to direct discussions around perioperative management of modified code status orders and to engage around the goal-concordance of proposed interventions. This article, written by a team of surgeons and anesthesiologists, many with subspecialty training in palliative medicine and/or ethics, offers ten tips to support palliative care clinicians and facilitate comprehensive discussion as they engage with patients and clinicians considering surgical interventions.

"It Gives Me Peace of Mind So I Can Focus on Healing": Views on Advance Care Planning for Older Surgical Patients

Introduction: The period of time before an elective operation may be an opportune time to engage older adults in advance care planning (ACP). Past interventions have not been readily incorporated into surgical workflows leaving a need for ACP tools that are generalizable, easy to implement, and effective. Design: This is a qualitative study. Setting and Subjects: Older adults with a history of cancer and a recent major operation were recruited through their surgical oncologist at a tertiary medical center in the United States. Interviews were conducted to determine how to adapt the validated PrepareForYourCare.org ACP program with electronic health record prompts for the perioperative setting and openness to introducing ACP during a presurgical visit. We used qualitative content analysis to determine themes. Results: Eight themes were identified: (1) ACP as static and private, (2) people expected a prompt, (3) family trusted to do the "right" thing, (4) lack of relationship or comfort with providers, (5) a team-based approach can be helpful, (6) surgeon's expertise (e.g., prognosis and surgical risk), (7) ACP belongs on the surgical checklist, and (8) patients would welcome a conversation starter. Discussion: Older surgical patients are interested in engaging with ACP, particularly if prompted, and believe it has a place on the preoperative "checklist." Conclusions: To effectively engage patients with ACP, a combination of routine prompts by the health care team and patient-centered follow-up may be required.

Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home (ACEPATH): Codesigning an intervention to improve patient and family caregiver experiences

BACKGROUND

Returning home from the hospital for palliative-focused care is a common transition, but the process can be emotionally distressing and logistically challenging for patients and caregivers. While interventions exist to aid in the transition, none have been developed in partnership with patients and caregivers.

OBJECTIVE

To undergo the initial stages of codesign to create an intervention (Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home [ACEPATH]) to improve the experience of hospital-to-home transitions for adult patients receiving palliative care and their caregiver(s).

METHODS

The codesign process consisted of (1) the development of codesign workshop (CDW) materials to communicate key findings from prior research to CDW participants; (2) CDWs with patients, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs); and (3) low-fidelity prototype testing to review CDW outputs and develop low-fidelity prototypes of interventions. HCPs provided feedback on the viability of low-fidelity prototypes.

RESULTS

Three patients, seven caregivers and five HCPs participated in eight CDWs from July 2022 to March 2023. CDWs resulted in four intervention prototypes: a checklist, quick reference sheets, a patient/caregiver workbook and a transition navigator role. Outputs from CDWs included descriptions of interventions and measures of success. In April 2023, the four prototypes were presented in four low-fidelity prototype sessions to 20 HCPs. Participants in the low-fidelity prototype sessions provided feedback on what the interventions could look like, what problems the interventions were trying to solve and concerns about the interventions.

CONCLUSION

Insights gained from this codesign work will inform high-fidelity prototype testing and the eventual implementation and evaluation of an ACEPATH intervention that aims to improve hospital-to-home transitions for patients receiving a palliative approach to care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and caregivers with lived experience attended CDWs aimed at designing an intervention to improve the transition from hospital to home. Their direct involvement aligns the intervention with patients' and caregivers' needs when transitioning from hospital to home. Furthermore, four patient/caregiver advisors were engaged throughout the project (from grant writing through to manuscript writing) to ensure all stages were patient- and caregiver-centred.

Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Involvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations.

Objective

To determine whether surgeon-palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

From October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients.

Intervention

Surgeon-palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended triggers for palliative care consultation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

Results

In total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon-palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon-palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], -0.07 [0.87] vs -0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99).

Conclusions and Relevance

To date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care-associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309.

The Application of Human-Centered Design Approaches in Health Research and Innovation: A Narrative Review of Current Practices

Background

Human-centered design (HCD) approaches to health care strive to support the development of innovative, effective, and person-centered solutions for health care. Although their use is increasing, there is no integral overview describing the details of HCD methods in health innovations.

Objective

This review aims to explore the current practices of HCD approaches for the development of health innovations, with the aim of providing an overview of the applied methods for participatory and HCD processes and highlighting their shortcomings for further research.

Methods

A narrative review of health research was conducted based on systematic electronic searches in the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts (2000-2020) databases using keywords related to human-centered design, design thinking (DT), and user-centered design (UCD). Abstracts and full-text articles were screened by 2 reviewers independently based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction focused on the methodology used throughout the research process, the choice of methods in different phases of the innovation cycle, and the level of engagement of end users.

Results

This review summarizes the application of HCD practices across various areas of health innovation. All approaches prioritized the user’s needs and the participatory and iterative nature of the design process. The design processes comprised several design cycles during which multiple qualitative and quantitative methods were used in combination with specific design methods. HCD- and DT-based research primarily targeted understanding the research context and defining the problem, whereas UCD-based work focused mainly on the direct generation of solutions. Although UCD approaches involved end users primarily as testers and informants, HCD and DT approaches involved end users most often as design partners.

Conclusions

We have provided an overview of the currently applied methodologies and HCD guidelines to assist health care professionals and design researchers in their methodological choices. HCD-based techniques are challenging to evaluate using traditional biomedical research methods. Previously proposed reporting guidelines are a step forward but would require a level of detail that is incompatible with the current publishing landscape. Hence, further development is needed in this area. Special focus should be placed on the congruence between the chosen methods, design strategy, and achievable outcomes. Furthermore, power dimensions, agency, and intersectionality need to be considered in co-design sessions with multiple stakeholders, especially when including vulnerable groups.

Evaluating health service outcomes of public involvement in health service design in high-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Internationally, it is expected that health services will involve the public in health service design. Evaluation of public involvement has typically focused on the process and experiences for participants. Less is known about outcomes for health services. The aim of this systematic review was to a) identify and synthesise what is known about health service outcomes of public involvement and b) document how outcomes were evaluated.

METHODS

Searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL for studies that reported health service outcomes from public involvement in health service design. The review was limited to high-income countries and studies in English. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in health research. Content analysis was used to determine the outcomes of public involvement in health service design and how outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 93 articles were included. The majority were published in the last 5 years, were qualitative, and were located in the United Kingdom. A range of health service outcomes (discrete products, improvements to health services and system/policy level changes) were reported at various levels (service level, across services, and across organisations). However, evaluations of outcomes were reported in less than half of studies. In studies where outcomes were evaluated, a range of methods were used; most frequent were mixed methods. The quality of study design and reporting was inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

When reporting public involvement in health service design authors outline a range of outcomes for health services, but it is challenging to determine the extent of outcomes due to inadequate descriptions of study design and poor reporting. There is an urgent need for evaluations, including longitudinal study designs and cost-benefit analyses, to fully understand outcomes from public involvement in health service design.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Survival Model With Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Existing prognostic cancer tools include biological and laboratory variables. However, patients often do not know this information, preventing them from using the tools and understanding their prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a prognostic survival model for all cancer types that incorporates information on symptoms and performance status over time.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a retrospective, population-based, prognostic study of data from patients diagnosed with cancer from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2015, in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomly selected for model derivation (60%) and validation (40%). The derivation cohort was used to develop a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model with baseline characteristics under a backward stepwise variable selection process to predict the risk of mortality as a function of time. Covariates included demographic characteristics, clinical information, symptoms and performance status, and health care use. Model performance was assessed on the validation cohort by C statistics and calibration plots. Data analysis was performed from February 6, 2018, to November 6, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Time to death from diagnosis (year 0) recalculated at each of 4 annual survivor marks after diagnosis (up to year 4).

RESULTS

A total of 255 494 patients diagnosed with cancer were identified (135 699 [53.1%] female; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-73 years]). The cohort decreased to 217 055, 184 822, 143 649, and 109 569 patients for each of the 4 years after diagnosis. In the derivation cohort year 0, and the most common cancers were breast (30 855 [20.1%]), lung (19 111 [12.5%]), and prostate (18 404 [12.0%]). A total of 47 614 (31.1%) had stage III or IV disease. The mean (SD) time to death in year 0 was 567 (715) days. After backward stepwise selection in year 0, the following factors were associated with increased risk of death by more than 10%: being hospitalized; having congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; having moderate to high pain; having worse well-being; having functional status in the transitional or end-of-life phase; having any problems with appetite; receiving end-of-life home care; and living in a nursing home. Model discrimination was high for all models (C statistic: 0.902 [year 0], 0.912 [year 1], 0.912 [year 2], 0.909 [year 3], and 0.908 [year 4]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The model accurately predicted changing cancer survival risk over time using clinical, symptom, and performance status data and appears to have the potential to be a useful prognostic tool that can be completed by patients. This knowledge may support earlier integration of palliative care.

A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial of Perioperative Palliative Care Surrounding Cancer Surgery for Patients and Their Family Members (PERIOP-PC)

Background: Despite positive outcomes associated with specialist palliative care (PC) in diverse medical populations, little research has investigated specialist PC in surgical ones. Although cancer surgery is predominantly safe, operations can be extensive and unpredictable perioperative morbidity and mortality persist, particularly for patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Objectives and Hypotheses: Our objective is to complete a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing surgeon-PC co-management with surgeon-alone management among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for upper GI cancers. We hypothesize that perioperative PC will improve patient postsurgical quality of life. This study and design are based on >8 years of engagement and research with patients, family members, and clinicians surrounding major cancer surgery and advance care planning/PC for surgical patients. Methods: Randomized controlled superiority trial with two study arms (surgeon-PC team co-management and surgeon-alone management) and five data collection points over six months. The principal investigator and analysts are blinded to randomization. Setting: Four, geographically diverse, academic tertiary care hospitals. Data collection began December 20, 2018 and continues to December 2020. Participants: Patients recruited from surgical oncology clinics who are undergoing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer. Interventions: In the intervention arm, patients receive care from both their surgical team and a specialist PC team; the PC is provided before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at least monthly until three months postsurgery. Patients randomized to the usual care arm receive care from only the surgical team. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: patient quality of life. Secondary outcomes: patient: symptom experience, spiritual distress, prognostic awareness, health care utilization, and mortality. Caregiver: quality of life, caregiver burden, spiritual distress, and prognostic awareness. Intent-to-treat analysis will be used. Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the institutional review boards of all study sites and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03611309, First received: August 2, 2018).

Integrating Advance Care Planning Videos into Surgical Oncologic Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Preoperative advance care planning (ACP) may benefit patients undergoing major surgery. Objective: To evaluate feasibility, safety, and early effectiveness of video-based ACP in a surgical population. Design: Randomized controlled trial with two study arms. Setting: Single, academic, inner-city tertiary care hospital. Subjects: Patients undergoing major cancer surgery were recruited from nine surgical clinics. Of 106 consecutive potential participants, 103 were eligible and 92 enrolled. Interventions: In the intervention arm, patients viewed an ACP video developed by patients, surgeons, palliative care clinicians, and other stakeholders. In the control arm, patients viewed an informational video about the hospital's surgical program. Measurements: Primary Outcomes-ACP content and patient-centeredness in patient-surgeon preoperative conversation. Secondary outcomes-patient Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score; patient goals of care; patient and surgeon satisfaction; video helpfulness; and medical decision maker designation. Results: Ninety-two patients (target enrollment: 90) were enrolled. The ACP video was successfully integrated with no harm noted. Patient-centeredness was unchanged (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.06, confidence interval [0.87-1.3], p = 0.545), although there were more ACP discussions in the intervention arm (23% intervention vs. 10% control, p = 0.18). While slightly underpowered, study results did not signal that further enrollment would have yielded statistical significance. There were no differences in secondary outcomes other than the intervention video was more helpful (p = 0.007). Conclusions: The ACP video was successfully integrated into surgical care without harm and was thought to be helpful, although video content did not significantly change the ACP content or patient-surgeon communication. Future studies could increase the ACP dose through modifying video content and/or who presents ACP. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02489799.