Advance Care Planning for frail older adults: Findings on costs in a cluster randomised controlled trial

Hospital-initiated palliative care interventions for adults with frailty: findings from a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Adults with frailty have palliative care needs [1] but have disproportionately less access to palliative care services [2]. Frailty affects ~4000 patients admitted to hospital per day in the UK [3], making the hospital admission a unique opportunity to assess palliative care needs and deliver interventions.

OBJECTIVES

Synthesise the evidence regarding hospital palliative care (HPC) for patients with frailty. Narratively analyse the evidence regarding methods used to identify palliative care needs; types of palliative care interventions studied; and whether HPC improves outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis of experimental, observational and systematic review articles investigating palliative care interventions for hospitalised adults aged ≥65 years with frailty. Electronic search of five databases from database inception to 30 January 2023. Included studies analysed using narrative synthesis according to Popay et al [4].

RESULTS

15 465 titles retrieved, 12 included. Three studies detailed how they identified palliative care needs; all three used prognostication e.g. the 'surprise question'. Most papers (10/12) investigated specialist palliative care interventions. These interventions addressed a wider range of care needs than non-specialist interventions. Evidence suggested an improvement in some symptom burden and healthcare utilisation outcomes following HPC.

CONCLUSION

Prognostication was the main method of identifying palliative care needs, rather than individuals' specific needs. Specialist palliative care interventions were more holistic, indicating that non-specialist palliative care approaches may benefit from specialist team input. Despite suggestions of improvement in some outcomes with palliative care, heterogenous evidence prevented establishment of conclusive effects.

Spending Analysis of Machine Learning-Based Communication Nudges in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Serious illness conversations (SICs) in the outpatient setting may improve mood and quality of life among patients with cancer and decrease aggressive end-of-life care. Interventions informed by behavioral economics may increase rates of SICs between oncology clinicians and patients, but the impact of these interventions on end-of-life spending is unknown.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized, controlled trial that involved nine medical oncology practices and their high-risk patients at a large academic institution between June 2019 and April 2020. The study included 1187 patients who were identified by a machine-learning algorithm as high risk of 180-day mortality and who died by December 2020. The patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (controls) or to a behavioral intervention designed to increase clinician-initiated SICs. We abstracted spending - defined as inflation-adjusted costs for acute care (inpatient plus emergency room), office/outpatient care, intravenous systemic therapy, other therapy (e.g., radiation), long-term care, and hospice - from the institution's accounting system, and we captured spending at inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy settings. To evaluate intervention impacts on spending, we used a two-part model, first using logistic regression to model zero versus nonzero spending and second using generalized linear mixed models with gamma distribution and log-link function to model daily mean spending in the last 180days of life. Models were adjusted for clinic and wedge fixed effects, and they were clustered at the oncologist level. For all patients with at least one SIC within 6 months of death, we also calculated their mean daily spending before and after SIC.

RESULTS

Median age at death was 68years (interquartile range, 15.5), 317 patients (27%) were Black or of ethnicities other than white, and 448 patients (38%) had an SIC. The intervention was associated with lower unadjusted mean daily spending in the last 6 months of life for the intervention group versus controls ($377.96 vs. $449.92; adjusted mean difference, -$75.33; 95% confidence interval, -$136.42 to -$14.23; P=0.02), translating to $13,747 total adjusted savings per decedent and $13 million in cumulative savings across all decedents in the intervention group. Compared with controls, patients in the intervention group incurred lower mean daily spending for systemic therapy (adjusted difference, -$44.59; P=0.001), office/outpatient care (-$9.62; P=0.001), and other therapy (-$8.65; P=0.04). The intervention was not associated with differences in end-of-life spending for acute care, long-term care, or hospice. Results were consistent for spending in the last 1 and 3 months of life and after adjusting for age, race, and ethnicity. For patients with SICs, mean daily spending decreased by $37.92 following the first SIC ($329.87 vs. $291.95).

CONCLUSIONS

A machine learning-based, behaviorally informed intervention to prompt SICs led to end-of-life savings among patients with cancer, driven by decreased systemic therapy and outpatient spending. (Funded by the Penn Center for Precision Medicine and the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03984773.).

Healthcare use and healthcare costs for patients with advanced cancer; the international ACTION cluster-randomised trial on advance care planning

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning supports patients to reflect on and discuss preferences for future treatment and care. Studies of the impact of advance care planning on healthcare use and healthcare costs are scarce.

AIM

To determine the impact on healthcare use and costs of an advance care planning intervention across six European countries.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomised trial, registered as ISRCTN63110516, of advance care planning conversations supported by certified facilitators.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from 23 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. Data on healthcare use were collected from hospital medical files during 12 months after inclusion.

RESULTS

Patients with a good performance status were underrepresented in the intervention group (p< 0.001). Intervention and control patients spent on average 9 versus 8 days in hospital (p = 0.07) and the average number of X-rays was 1.9 in both groups. Fewer intervention than control patients received systemic cancer treatment; 79% versus 89%, respectively (p< 0.001). Total average costs of hospital care during 12 months follow-up were €32,700 for intervention versus €40,700 for control patients (p = 0.04 with bootstrap analyses). Multivariable multilevel models showed that lower average costs of care in the intervention group related to differences between study groups in country, religion and WHO-status. No effect of the intervention on differences in costs between study groups was observed (p = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower care costs as observed in the intervention group were mainly related to patients' characteristics. A definite impact of the intervention itself could not be established.

What is the evidence for efficacy of advance care planning in improving patient outcomes? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objectives

To conduct an up-to-date systematic review of all randomised controlled trials assessing efficacy of advance care planning (ACP) in improving patient outcomes, healthcare use/costs and documentation.

Design

Narrative synthesis conducted for randomised controlled trials. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases) for English-language randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials on 11 May 2020 and updated it on 12 May 2021 using the same search strategy. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer.

Results

We reviewed 132 eligible trials published between 1992 and May 2021; 64% were high-quality. We categorised study outcomes as patient (distal and proximal), healthcare use and process outcomes. There was mixed evidence that ACP interventions improved distal patient outcomes including end-of-life care consistent with preferences (25%; 3/12 with improvement), quality of life (0/14 studies), mental health (21%; 4/19) and home deaths (25%; 1/4), or that it reduced healthcare use/costs (18%; 4/22 studies). However, we found more consistent evidence that ACP interventions improve proximal patient outcomes including quality of patient–physician communication (68%; 13/19), preference for comfort care (70%; 16/23), decisional conflict (64%; 9/14) and patient-caregiver congruence in preference (82%; 18/22) and that it improved ACP documentation (a process outcome; 63%; 34/54).

Conclusion

This review provides the most comprehensive evidence to date regarding the efficacy of ACP on key patient outcomes and healthcare use/costs. Findings suggest a need to rethink the main purpose and outcomes of ACP.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020184080.

Health Care Utilization and Out-of-Pocket Payments among Elderly with Cognitive Frailty in Malaysia

Background: Cognitive frailty (CF) as a potential risk factor for dementia, functional disability, poor quality of life, and mortality. The aim of this study was to explore the health care-related utilization and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, sociodemographic characteristics, and comorbidities among elderly Malaysians with CF. Methods: A cross-sectional study targeting elderly Malaysian aged ≥65 years was conducted. The study included all participants of the fourth phase of the Malaysian representative Long-Term-Research-Grant-Scheme Towards-Useful-Aging (LRGS-TUA) community-based study. A structured and validated interview questionnaire was used. Results: In total, 1006 elderly were interviewed, with a 66.18% response rate. Only 730 respondents met the inclusion criteria. Of the eligible respondents, the CF prevalence was 4.5%. Around 60.6% of the participants with CF had utilized outpatient care at government clinics within the past 6 months. The estimated mean total OOP payments for CF during the past 6 months was 84 Malaysian Ringgit (RM) (SD 96.0). Conclusions: CF among elderly Malaysians is within the internationally recognized range of prevalence. The OOP payments for seeking health care among CF elderly are not different from that of other elderly categories. There is a high possibility of underutilization of the health care services of CF cases while they are still needy.

Identifying older adults with frailty approaching end-of-life: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

People with frailty may have specific needs for end-of-life care, but there is no consensus on how to identify these people in a timely way, or whether they will benefit from intervention.

AIM

To synthesise evidence on identification of older people with frailty approaching end-of-life, and whether associated intervention improves outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020462624).

DATA SOURCES

Six databases were searched, with no date restrictions, for articles reporting prognostic or intervention studies. Key inclusion criteria were adults aged 65 and over, identified as frail via an established measure. End-of-life was defined as the final 12 months. Key exclusion criteria were proxy definitions of frailty, or studies involving people with cancer, even if also frail.

RESULTS

Three articles met the inclusion criteria. Strongest evidence came from one study in English primary care, which showed distinct trajectories in electronic Frailty Index scores in the last 12 months of life, associated with increased risk of death. We found no studies evaluating established clinical tools (e.g. Gold Standards Framework) with existing frail populations. We found no intervention studies; the literature on advance care planning with people with frailty has relied on proxy definitions of frailty.

CONCLUSION

Clear implications for policy and practice are hindered by the lack of studies using an established approach to assessing frailty. Future end-of-life research needs to use explicit approaches to the measurement and reporting of frailty, and address the evidence gap on interventions. A focus on models of care that incorporate a palliative approach is essential.

Understanding what is important to older people living with frailty in relation to advance care planning

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) provides opportunities for people to make decisions about future care. Internationally, the approach to this varies. Older people living with frailty could considerably benefit from discussing and undertaking advance care planning. However, this has not traditionally been a particular focus of their care.

AIM

To provide recommendations to support nurses and health professionals to undertake ACP conversations with older people living with frailty through a review of contemporary literature.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: CINAHL, British Nursing Index and the Cochrane Library. Information about the process and outcome of undertaking an ACP conversation with older people living with frailty was extracted and categorised in relation to care setting.

FINDINGS

A total of 69 papers were identified, of which eight met the inclusion criteria. The importance of preparation before starting an ACP conversation was highlighted, as well as key considerations when undertaking such a conversation. From these papers five clinical recommendations, one policy recommendation and two research recommendations are made.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining and improving wellness is important to older people living with frailty. In order that conversations about ACP are acceptable and meaningful to older people living with frailty, they should include: the opportunity to discuss both 'current' and 'future' care; be focused on their goals of care; and, to be offered routinely to the older person.

[Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions]

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Advance care planning (ACP) has shown benefit in some, but not all, studies. It is important to understand the utility of ACP. We conducted a scoping review to identify promising interventions and outcomes.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

MEASUREMENTS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for ACP randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2010, to March 3, 2020. We used standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses methods to chart study characteristics, including a standardized ACP Outcome Framework: Process (e.g., readiness), Action (e.g., communication), Quality of Care (e.g., satisfaction), Health Status (e.g., anxiety), and Healthcare Utilization. Differences between arms of P < .05 were deemed positive.

RESULTS

Of 1,464 articles, 69 met eligibility; 94% were rated high quality. There were variable definitions, age criteria (≥18 to ≥80 years), diseases (e.g., dementia and cancer), and settings (e.g., outpatient and inpatient). Interventions included facilitated discussions (42%), video only (20%), interactive, multimedia (17%), written only (12%), and clinician training (9%). For written only, 75% of primary outcomes were positive, as were 69% for multimedia programs; 67% for facilitated discussions, 59% for video only, and 57% for clinician training. Overall, 72% of Process and 86% of Action outcomes were positive. For Quality of Care, 88% of outcomes were positive for patient-surrogate/clinician congruence, 100% for patients/surrogate/clinician satisfaction with communication, and 75% for surrogate satisfaction with patients' care, but not for goal concordance. For Health Status outcomes, 100% were positive for reducing surrogate/clinician distress, but not for patient quality of life. Healthcare Utilization data were mixed.

CONCLUSION

ACP is complex, and trial characteristics were heterogeneous. Outcomes for all ACP interventions were predominantly positive, as were Process and Action outcomes. Although some Quality of Care and Health Status outcomes were mixed, increased patient/surrogate satisfaction with communication and care and decreased surrogate/clinician distress were positive. Further research is needed to appropriately tailor interventions and outcomes for local contexts, set appropriate expectations of ACP outcomes, and standardize across studies.