Building the Evidence for Advance Care Planning for Patients Receiving Dialysis
Manjula Kurella Tamura,Laura M. Holdsworth
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.52415
2024-02-01
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:Due to advances in multiple care domains, the survival of patients who receive long-term dialysis for kidney failure has improved over the past 2 decades. 1 ,2 Success has its price, however. In the case of kidney failure, improvements in dialysis survival, coupled with an aging population and limited supply of transplant organs, mean that more patients than ever before are living and dying with kidney failure while receiving dialysis therapy. There is ample evidence that patients receiving dialysis and their surrogates are not prepared for the complex set of decisions they face as they approach the end of life. As a consequence, they receive high-intensity care at the end of life that is potentially unwanted and nonbeneficial. 3 ,4 The value of timely, high-quality advance care planning (ACP) before a health care crisis in this population seems obvious. Done well, ACP facilitates understanding each patient's priorities for living with serious illness and enables patients to plan for future health care decisions. Yet, the promise of ACP has fallen short of its potential, partly due to limited implementation in dialysis practice and ambivalence from clinicians about ACP's effectiveness. Studies show that only half of patients receiving dialysis have engaged in discussions about treatment preferences, and fewer than 1 in 3 have documented their preferences and identified a surrogate decision-maker. 2 Central to effectively implementing a complex practice, such as ACP, is ensuring that the intervention modality and approach are appropriate for the population and context. For example, ACP delivered by clinicians with special training in goals-of-care conversations may be highly efficacious but not scalable and, therefore, have limited impact. An ACP intervention targeted to patients with the highest mortality risk might make the most of limited clinician time. However, this implementation approach runs the risk of missing patients who could benefit from ACP, and it may provoke anxiety if patients feel singled out for the practice. In this issue of JAMA Network Open , Song and colleagues 5 test the effectiveness of an ACP intervention, Sharing the Patient's Illness Representations to Increase Trust (SPIRIT), when delivered at scale in a large and diverse population of patients receiving dialysis. The trial enrolled 426 patient-surrogate dyads from 42 freestanding dialysis clinics in 5 states. Dyads were randomized at the clinic level to usual ACP care, consisting of written information about advance directives from the clinic social worker, vs the SPIRIT ACP intervention. Developed over a series of pilot and efficacy trials, the SPIRIT intervention consists of a guided discussion of the patient's illness experience and values concerning treatments at the end of life. SPIRIT aims to enable patients to set goals and prepare them and their surrogates for the emotional burden of end-of-life decision-making. SPIRIT was delivered during a single session, with an option for a follow-up session 2 weeks later. Each clinic designated 1 or 2 SPIRIT champions who led all SPIRIT sessions after undergoing communication skills training. The reach and uptake of ACP in the trial were impressive: half of all eligible patients enrolled in the trial, and approximately three-fourths of the patient-surrogate dyads assigned to the SPIRIT group completed the second ACP session. Compared with control dyads who received usual ACP care, dyads randomized to SPIRIT had more congruence in goals of care and less decisional conflict at 2 weeks. In addition, dyads receiving SPIRIT experienced an improvement in a composite outcome of dyad congruence and surrogate decision-making confidence. Bereavement outcomes were measured in a subset of 77 surrogates who experienced the death of their loved one after enrollment. Compared with surrogates who received usual ACP care, surrogates who received SPIRIT experienced lower levels of bereavement anxiety. In contrast to the prior efficacy trials, however, SPIRIT did not reduce symptoms of depression or posttraumatic stress. The authors posit SPIRIT's effects on bereavement outcomes were less robust than in prior efficacy studies despite apparently high intervention fidelity due to distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. A post hoc analysis of bereavement outcomes stratified by timing of assessment (pre- vs postpandemic) provides support for this hypothesis, but the small sample precludes a definitive conclusion. A separate possibility is that the fidelity of conversations may have waned after trial activities were interrupted by the pandemic, and pandemic fatigue set in. The study by Song et al 5 is one of the largest trials of ACP in a population of patients receiving dialysis. Like all important studies, it leaves some unanswered questions. To reach a broader population, pragm -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal