Advance Care Planning in 2024 and Beyond
Rachel Hadler,Rebecca A. Aslakson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15408
2024-06-19
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:Over the last half decade, a previously harmonious general consensus around benefits associated with advance care planning (ACP) has taken a quick turn into dissonance. ACP is a process that supports adults of any age and with any stage of illness to better understand and share their unique values, goals, and preferences for future medical care 1 and is currently beset by controversy. A landmark editorial by Morisson et al 2 published in 2021 highlighted escalating concerns about the limitations of ACP and concluded that "ACP does not improve end-of-life care" and "clinical and research communities should learn from the evidence...and proceed with different approaches for improving care for seriously ill patients." Consequently, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and patients and their families have been debating the ongoing role of ACP in provision of patient-centered and goal-concordant care. 1 ,3 ,4 These debates have centered on conceptual limitations to ACP, such as the limitations of using a static document to delineate evolving treatment preferences and the nonlinear nature of end-of-life care. Focus has shifted from explicit documentation of concrete preferences toward the designation of surrogates and promotion of shared decision-making, particularly ways to better prepare surrogates for "in the moment decision-making." 1 Amidst these heated debates, the study by Colley et al 5 provides a promising new avenue for ACP. In brief, these pilot data suggest that relatively simple changes in perioperative workflow—a combination of patient-facing ACP embedded in the electronic health record (EHR), direct patient engagement by a nonclinician health care navigator, and improved documentation strategies—can yield markedly significant improvements with documentation of clinically meaningful ACP increasing from 15.2% to 72.9% for surgical patients. In a landscape where high rates of surgeon-reported discussions of outcomes and designation of surrogates still yield poor formal documentation of those discussions, 6 such significant and positive results associated with a relatively simple, perioperative, EHR-based, and partially automated ACP intervention are exciting. 5 The findings by Colley et al 5 align with other recent studies to suggest that improving perioperative ACP is feasible and may provide a path forward for integration of palliative care initiatives into the perioperative space. 7 Although the association between perioperative ACP documentation and improvements in delivery of goal-concordant and high-quality palliative and end-of-life care is unclear, these initial positive results are intriguing, particularly as this study by Colley et al 5 is only a pilot; indeed, the team is already embarking on a larger, multicenter trial to further explore this intervention. Many patients with serious illness require surgery as part of a trajectory of treatments that, despite best intentions and practices, can transition over time into disability and impaired quality of life. A relatively simple perioperative intervention that better enables the patient and their family to be ready for later, disease-related in-the-moment decision-making could have significant value. Leveraging perioperative interactions as an opportunity to improve the quality and quantity of patient- and family-centered serious illness care offers a tantalizing path forward for serious illness research. Just as a past focus on advanced directives evolved into a broader receptiveness to ACP, our hope is that through studies like this one by Colley et al, 5 new and innovative approaches, such as integrating discussion into the perioperative period, can improve palliative and end-of-life care for patients who are seriously ill and their families. Published: June 18, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15408 Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Hadler R et al. JAMA Network Open . Corresponding Author: Rebecca A. Aslakson, MD, PhD, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Vermont Medical Center, 111 Colchester Ave, West Pavilion 2-240, Burlington, VT 05401 (rebecca.aslakson@uvmhealth.org). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Hadler reported receiving grants from the Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
medicine, general & internal