This article provides an approach to advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care communication in older adults with cardiovascular disease and multi-morbidity. The goal of ACP is to ensure that the medical care patients receive is aligned with their values and preferences. In this article, the authors outline common benefits and challenges to ACP for older adults with cardiovascular disease and multimorbidity. Recognizing that these patients experience diverse disease trajectories and receive care in multiple health care settings, the authors provide practical steps for multidisciplinary teams to integrate ACP into brief clinic encounters.

Healthcare providers will be caring for more patients with financial incapacity as our population ages and as the prevalence of cognitive impairment increases. Providing education about advance financial planning, assessing financial capacity, and offering practical guidance to patients and families who are dealing with financial incapacity are key tasks in the care of older adults with impaired cognition. Providers should also be familiar with experts who can help assess patients' cognition in all domains, including financial capacity. Finally, clinicians must be alert for signs of financial abuse and be prepared to report suspected abuse to the appropriate authorities. Copyright © 2012 American Society on Aging.

Key components of advance care planning (ACP) for the elderly include choosing a surrogate decision maker, identifying personal values, communicating with surrogates and clinicians, documenting wishes in advance directives, and translating values and preferences for future medical care into medical orders. ACP often involves multiple brief discussions over time. This article outlines common benefits and barriers to ACP in primary care, and provides practical approaches to integrating key ACP components into primary care for older adults. Opportunities for multidisciplinary teams to incorporate ACP into brief clinic visits are highlighted.

The importance of advance care planning (ACP) has been increasingly recognized by health systems. However, 46%-76% of patients report engaging in ACP with lawyers, whereas only a minority report doing so with physicians. In the U.S., ACP with lawyers focuses on advance directive documents, naturally occurs outside of health care contexts, and is often uninformed by the clinical context, such as one's prognosis and clinical trajectory. These forms are regularly stored at home or at a lawyer's office and not available at the bedside when needed in a medical crisis. Yet, in contrast to clinicians, lawyers hold sophisticated knowledge about their states' advance directive law. Lawyers may also understand clients' socioeconomic context and plans more broadly, which are known to be critical for contextualizing and personalizing patient care but are often not well captured in health care. Aligning medical and legal approaches to ACP is important to ensuring the quality and value of those efforts. As an important first step toward this goal, we convened an interprofessional panel of medical and legal experts to elucidate the state of medical-legal ACP and begin to identify strategies to improve and align practices within and across professions. This article describes the historical disconnects between the medical and legal practice of ACP, recommendations and products of the interprofessional panel, and recommendations for future medical-legal collaboration.

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.

Background

Interprofessional health care team members consider advance care planning (ACP) to be important, yet gaps remain in systematic clinical routines to support ACP. A clearer understanding of the interprofessional team members' perspectives on ACP clinical routines in diverse settings is needed.

Methods

One hundred eighteen health care team members from community-based clinics, long-term care facilities, academic clinics, federally qualified health centers, and hospitals participated in a 35-question, cross-sectional online survey to assess clinical routines, workflow processes, and policies relating to ACP.

Results

Respondents were 53% physicians, 18% advanced practice nurses, 11% nurses, and 18% other interprofessional team members including administrators, chaplains, social workers, and others. Regarding clinical routines, respondents reported that several interprofessional team members play a role in facilitating ACP (ie, physician, social worker, nurse, others). Most (62%) settings did not have, or did not know of, policies related to ACP documentation. Only 14% of settings had a patient education program. Two-thirds of the respondents said that addressing ACP is a high priority and 85% felt that nonphysicians could have ACP conversations with appropriate training. The clinical resources needed to improve clinical routines included training for providers and staff, dedicated staff to facilitate ACP, and availability of patient/family educational materials.

Conclusion

Although interprofessional health care team members consider ACP a priority and several team members may be involved, clinical settings lack systematic clinical routines to support ACP. Patient educational materials, interprofessional team training, and policies to support ACP clinical workflows that do not rely solely on physicians could improve ACP across diverse clinical settings.

Older homeless-experienced adults have low engagement in advance care planning (ACP) despite high morbidity and mortality. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of 350 homeless-experienced adults aged 50 and older in Oakland, California. We assessed the prevalence of potential surrogate decision-makers, ACP contemplation, discussions, and ACP documentation (surrogate designation, advance directives). We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with ACP discussions and documentation. The median age of the cohort was 59 (range 52-82), 75.2% were male, and 82.1% were black. Sixty-one percent reported a potential surrogate, 21.5% had discussed ACP, and 19.0% reported ACP documentation. In multivariable models, having 1 to 5 confidants versus none (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=5.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.7-20.0), 3 or more chronic conditions versus none (aOR=2.3, 95% CI=0.9-5.6), and a recent primary care visit (aOR=2.1, 95% CI=1.0-4.4) were associated with higher odds of ACP discussions and each additional 5 years of homelessness (aOR=0.7, 95% CI=0.5-0.9) with lower odds. Having 1 to 5 confidants (aOR=5.0, 95% CI=1.4-17.5), being black (aOR=5.5, 95% CI=1.5-19.5), and having adequate versus limited literacy (aOR=7.0, 95% CI=1.5-32.4) were associated with higher odds of ACP documentation and illicit drug use (aOR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1-0.9) with lower odds. Although the majority of older homeless-experienced adults have a potential surrogate, few have discussed or documented their ACP wishes; the odds of both were greater with larger social networks. Future interventions must be customized for individuals with limited social networks and address the instability of homelessness, health literacy, and the constraints of safety-net healthcare settings.

Context

Culturally diverse older adults may prefer varying control over medical decisions. Decision control preferences (DCPs) may profoundly affect advance care planning (ACP) and communication.

Objectives

To determine the DCPs of diverse, older adults and whether DCPs are associated with participant characteristics, ACP, and communication satisfaction.

Methods

A total of 146 participants were recruited from clinics and senior centers in San Francisco. We assessed DCPs using the control preferences scale: doctor makes all decisions (low), shares with doctor (medium), makes own decisions (high). We assessed associations between DCPs and demographics; prior advance directives; ability to make in-the-moment goals of care decisions; self-efficacy, readiness, and prior asked questions; and satisfaction with patient-doctor communication (on a five-point Likert scale), using Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance.

Results

Mean age was 71 ± 10 years, 53% were non-white, 47% completed an advance directive, and 70% made goals of care decisions. Of the sample, 18% had low DCPs, 33% medium, and 49% high. Older age was the only characteristic associated with DCPs (low: 75 ± 11 years, medium: 69 ± 10 years, high: 70 ± 9 years, P = 0.003). DCPs were not associated with ACP, in-the-moment decisions, or communication satisfaction. Readiness was the only question-asking behavior associated (low: 3.8 ± 1.2, medium: 4.1 ± 1.2, high: 4.3 ± 1.2, P = 0.05).

Conclusion

Nearly one-fifth of diverse, older adults want doctors to make their medical decisions. Older age and lower readiness to ask questions were the only demographic variables significantly associated with low DCPs. Yet, older adults with low DCPs still engaged in ACP, asked questions, and reported communication satisfaction. Clinicians can encourage ACP and questions for all patients, but should assess DCPs to provide the desired amount of decision support.