Feasibility and acceptability of facilitated advance care planning in outpatient clinics: A qualitative study of health-care professionals experience.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a facilitated advance care planning (ACP) intervention implemented in outpatient clinics, as perceived by health-care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: Data from seven focus groups (n = 27) and nine semi-structured interviews with HCPs recruited as part of a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) were analysed using qualitative descriptive methodology. Components of the intervention included HCP education and training, tools to assist HCPs with patient selection, hardcopy information, and ACP documentation, and specialised nurse-facilitators to support HCPs to complete ACP conversations and documentation with patients and caregivers. RESULTS: Health-care professionals working in tertiary outpatient clinics perceived the facilitated ACP intervention as feasible and acceptable. Health-care professionals reported a high level of satisfaction with key elements of the intervention, including the specialised education and training, screening and assessment procedures and ongoing support from the nurse-facilitators. Health-care professionals reported this training and support increased their confidence and ACP knowledge, leading to more frequent ACP discussions with patients and their families. Health-care professionals noted their ability to conduct ACP screening and assessment in clinic was impeded by large clinical caseloads and patient-related factors (e.g., dementia diagnoses, and emotional distress). Additional barriers to ACP implementation identified by HCPs included poor collaboration, constrained time and clinical space, undefined roles and standardised recording procedures for HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitated ACP intervention in outpatient clinics is perceived by HCPs as feasible and acceptable. Addressing barriers and tailoring implementation strategies may improve the delivery of ACP as part of tertiary outpatient care.

Impact of multimorbidity and complex multimorbidity on healthcare utilisation in older Australian adults aged 45 years or more: a large population-based cross-sectional data linkage study.

OBJECTIVES: As life expectancy increases, older people are living longer with multimorbidity (MM, co-occurrence of ≥2 chronic health conditions) and complex multimorbidity (CMM, ≥3 chronic conditions affecting ≥3 different body systems). We assessed the impacts of MM and CMM on healthcare service use in Australia, as little was known about this. DESIGN: Population-based cross-sectional data linkage study. SETTING: New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 248 496 people aged ≥45 years who completed the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study baseline questionnaire. PRIMARY OUTCOME: High average annual healthcare service use (≥2 hospital admissions, ≥11 general practice visits and ≥2 emergency department (ED) visits) during the 3-year baseline period (year before, year of and year after recruitment). METHODS: Baseline questionnaire data were linked with hospital, Medicare claims and ED datasets. Poisson regression models were used to estimate adjusted and unadjusted prevalence ratios for high service use with 95% CIs. Using a count of chronic conditions (disease count) as an alternative morbidity metric was requested during peer review. RESULTS: Prevalence of MM and CMM was 43.8% and 15.5%, respectively, and prevalence increased with age. Across three healthcare settings, MM was associated with a 2.02-fold to 2.26-fold, and CMM was associated with a 1.83-fold to 2.08-fold, increased risk of high service use. The association was higher in the youngest group (45-59 years) versus the oldest group (≥75 years), which was confirmed when disease count was used as the morbidity metric in sensitivity analysis.When comparing impact using three categories with no overlap (no MM/CMM, MM with no CMM, and CMM), CMM had greater impact than MM across all settings. CONCLUSION: Increased healthcare service use among older adults with MM and CMM impacts on the demand for primary care and hospital services. Which of MM or CMM has greater impact on risk of high healthcare service use depends on the analytic method used. Ageing populations living longer with increasing burdens of MM and CMM will require increased Medicare funding and provision of integrated care across the healthcare system to meet their complex needs.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Facilitated Advance Care Planning in Outpatient Clinics: A Qualitative Study of Patient and Caregivers Experiences.

Guidelines recommend advance care planning (ACP) for people with advanced illness; however, evidence supporting ACP as a component of outpatient care is lacking. We sought to establish the feasibility and acceptability of a facilitated ACP intervention for people attending tertiary outpatient clinics. Data from 20 semi-structured interviews with patient (M = 79.3 ± 7.7, 60% male) and caregiver (M = 68.1 ± 11.0, 60% female) participants recruited as part of a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT) were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methodology. Patients were randomized to intervention (e.g., facilitated support) or control (e.g., standard care). Intervention patients expressed high satisfaction, reporting the facilitated ACP session was clear, straightforward, and suited to their needs. Intervention caregivers did not report any significant concerns with the facilitated ACP process. Control participants reported greater difficulty completing ACP compared to intervention participants. Embedding facilitated ACP into tertiary outpatient care appears feasible and acceptable for people with advanced illnesses.

Randomised trial of general practitioner online education for prescribing and test ordering.

INTRODUCTION: Potentially inappropriate medicine prescriptions and low-value diagnostic testing pose risks to patient safety and increases in health system costs. The aim of the Clinical and Healthcare Improvement through My Health Record usage and Education in General Practice study was to evaluate a scalable online quality improvement intervention, integrating online education regarding a national shared electronic health record and rational prescribing, pathology and imaging ordering by Australian general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: The study was a parallel three-arm randomised trial comprising a prescribing education arm, a pathology education arm and an imaging education arm. Currently practising GPs in Australia were eligible to participate and randomised on a 1:1:1 basis to the study arms after consenting. The response to the intervention in reducing potentially unnecessary medicine prescriptions and tests in each arm was assessed using the other two arms as controls. The primary outcome was the cost per 100 consultations of predefined medication prescriptions, pathology and radiology test ordering 6 months following the intervention, compared with 6 months prior. Outcomes were assessed on intention-to-treat and post hoc per-protocol bases using multilevel regression models, with the analysts blinded to allocation. RESULTS: In total, 106 GPs were enrolled and randomised (prescribing n=35, pathology n=36, imaging n=35). Data were available for 97 GPs at the end of trial (prescribing n=33, pathology n=32, imaging n=32) with 44 fully completing the intervention. In intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant differences in the rates of change in costs across the three arms. Per protocol, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of change in pathology costs (p=0.03). In the pathology arm, the rate of increase in pathology costs was significantly lower by $A187 (95% CI -$A340, -$A33) than the prescribing arm, and non-significantly $A9 (95% CI -$A128, $A110) lower than the imaging arm. DISCUSSION: This study provides some evidence for reductions in costs for low-value pathology test ordering in those that completed the relevant online education. The study experienced slow uptake and low completion of the education intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes were not significant for the primary endpoint, which included all participants. Improving completion rates and combining real-time feedback on prescribing or test ordering may increase the overall effectiveness of the intervention. Given the purely online delivery of the education, there is scope for upscaling the intervention, which may provide cost-effectiveness benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000010998.

Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) trials and real-world programs is low, with many people at high-risk for lung cancer opting out of baseline screening after registering interest. We aimed to identify the potential drivers of participation in LCS in the Australian setting, to inform future implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals at high-risk of lung cancer who were eligible for screening and who had either participated ('screeners') or declined to participate ('decliners') in the International Lung Screening Trial from two Australian sites. Interview guide development was informed by the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the COM-B model of behaviour to explore capability, opportunity and motivation related to screening behaviour. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants were interviewed (25 screeners; 14 decliners). Motivation to participate in screening was high in both groups driven by the lived experience of lung cancer and a belief that screening is valuable, however decliners unlike their screening counterparts reported low self-efficacy. Decliners in our study reported challenges in capability including ability to attend and in knowledge and understanding. Decliners also reported challenges related to physical and social opportunity, in particular location as a barrier and lack of family support to attend screening. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that motivation alone may not be sufficient to change behaviour related to screening participation, unless capability and opportunity are also considered. Focusing strategies on barriers related to capability and opportunity such as online/telephone support, mobile screening programs and financial assistance for screeners may better enhance screening participation. Providing funding for clinicians to support individuals in decision-making and belief in self-efficacy may foster motivation. Targeting interventions that connect eligible individuals with the LCS program will be crucial for successful implementation.

General practice nurses and physicians and end of life: a systematic review of models of care.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide palliative care (PC) or end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. In order to maximise the impact of GPs and GPNs, the impact of different models of care that have been developed to support their practice of EoLC needs to be understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine published models of EoLC that incorporate or support GP and GPN practice, and their impact on patients, families and the health system. METHOD: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: From 6209 journal articles, 13 papers reported models of care supporting the GP and GPN's role in EoLC or PC practice. Services and guidelines for clinical issues have mixed impact on improving symptoms, but improved adherence to clinical guidelines. National Frameworks facilitated patients being able to die in their preferred place. A single specialist PC-GP case conference reduced hospitalisations, better maintained functional capacity and improved quality of life parameters in both patients with cancer and without cancer. No studies examined models of care aimed at supporting GPNs. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practitioners have a natural role to play in EoLC, and most patient and health system outcomes are substantially improved with their involvement. Successful integrative models need to be tested, particularly in non-malignant diseases. Such models need to be explored further. More work is required on the role of GPNs and how to support them in this role.

Facilitators and barriers to general practitioner and general practice nurse participation in end-of-life care: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide palliative care (PC) or end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. To enhance primary EoLC, the facilitators and barriers to their provision need to be understood. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive description of the facilitators and barriers to GP and GPN provision of PC or EoLC. METHOD: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: From 6209 journal articles, 62 reviewed papers reported the GP's and GPN's role in EoLC or PC practice. Six themes emerged: patient factors; personal GP factors; general practice factors; relational factors; co-ordination of care; availability of services. Four specific settings were identified: aged care facilities, out-of-hours care and resource-constrained settings (rural, and low-income and middle-income countries). Most GPs provide EoLC to some extent, with greater professional experience leading to increased comfort in performing this form of care. The organisation of primary care at practice, local and national level impose numerous structural barriers that impede more significant involvement. There are potential gaps in service provision where GPNs may provide significant input, but there is a paucity of studies describing GPN routine involvement in EoLC. CONCLUSIONS: While primary care practitioners have a natural role to play in EoLC, significant barriers exist to improved GP and GPN involvement in PC. More work is required on the role of GPNs.

Diagnostic and health service pathways to diagnosis of cancer-registry notified cancer of unknown primary site (CUP).

BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a late-stage malignancy with poor prognosis, but we know little about what diagnostic tests and procedures people with CUP receive prior to diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine how health service utilisation prior to diagnosis for people with cancer-registry notified CUP differs from those notified with metastatic cancer of known primary. METHODS: We identified people with a cancer registry notification of CUP (n = 327) from the 45 and Up Study, a prospective cohort of 266,724 people ≥45 years in New South Wales, Australia, matched with up to three controls with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer of known primary (n = 977). Baseline questionnaire data were linked to population health data to identify all health service use, diagnostic tests, and procedures in the month of diagnosis and 3 months prior. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: After adjusting for age and educational attainment, people with a cancer-registry notified CUP diagnosis were more likely to be an aged care resident (OR = 2.78, 95%CI 1.37-5.63), have an emergency department visit (OR = 1.65, 95%CI 1.23-2.21), serum tumor marker tests (OR = 1.51, 95%CI 1.12-2.04), or a cytology test without immunohistochemistry (OR = 2.01, 95%CI 1.47-2.76), and less likely to have a histopathology test without immunohistochemistry (OR = 0.43, 95%CI 0.31-0.59). Neither general practitioner, specialist, allied health practitioner or nurse consultations, hospitalisations, nor imaging procedures were associated with a CUP diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The health service and diagnostic pathway to diagnosis differs markedly for people notified with CUP compared to those with metastatic cancer of known primary. While these differences may indicate missed opportunities for earlier detection and appropriate management, for some patients they may be clinically appropriate.

General practice physicians' and nurses' self-reported multidisciplinary end-of-life care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. To enhance primary palliative care (PC), the care they provide needs to be understood to inform best practice models of care. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive description of the self-reported role and performance of GPs and GPNs in (1) specific medical/nursing roles, (2) communication, (3) care co-ordination, (4) access and out-of-hours care, and (5) multidisciplinary care. METHOD: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: From 6209 journal articles, 29 reviewed papers reported the GPs' and GPNs' role in EoLC or PC practice. GPs report a central role in symptom management, treatment withdrawal, non-malignant disease management and terminal sedation. Information provision included breaking bad news, prognosis and place of death. Psychosocial concerns were often addressed. Quality of communication depended on GP-patient relationships and GP skills. Challenges were unrealistic patient and family expectations, family conflict and lack of advance care planning. GPs often delayed end-of-life discussions until 3 months before death. Home visits were common, but less so for urban, female and part-time GPs. GPs co-ordinated care with secondary care, but in some cases parallel care occurred. Trust in, and availability of, the GP was critical for shared care. There was minimal reference to GPNs' roles. CONCLUSIONS: GPs play a critical role in palliative care. More work is required on the role of GPNs, case finding and models to promote shared care, home visits and out-of-hours services.

General practitioners (GPs) and end-of-life care: a qualitative study of Australian GPs and specialist palliative care clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: General practitioners (GPs) are well placed to be involved in end-of-life care for patients with life-limiting illnesses. However, differing views exist regarding their role. This study aims to explore the views of GPs and specialist palliative care clinicians (SPCCs) on the role that GPs should play in the planning and provision of end-of-life care and important barriers and facilitators to GPs' involvement in end-of-life care including suggestions for improvement. METHODS: Qualitative description methodology using semistructured interviews of 11 GPs and 10 SPCCs. RESULTS: The participants identified two key roles that GPs should play in the planning and provision of end-of-life care: care planning and referring to palliative care services and being the primary clinician in charge of patient care. GPs and SPCCs expressed similar views; however, a significant proportion of the GP participants were not actively involved in end-of-life care. Factors affecting GPs' involvement in end-of-life care included: (1) GP and practice factors including continuity of care, long-term relationships with patients, knowledge and skills in end-of-life care, resource limitations and work patterns; (2) communication and collaboration between GPs and the acute healthcare system and (3) communication and collaboration between GPs and SPCCs. CONCLUSION: GPs have a key role in the planning and provision of end-of-life care. GPs could be encouraged in this role by providing them with education and practical experience in end-of-life care, making changes to remuneration structure, formalised arrangements for shared care and encouraging continuity of care and developing long-term relationship with their patients.

Systematic review of general practice end-of-life symptom control.

BACKGROUND: End of life care (EoLC) is a fundamental role of general practice, which will become more important as the population ages. It is essential that general practice's role and performance of at the end of life is understood in order to maximise the skills of the entire workforce. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive description of the role and performance of general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) in EoLC symptom control. METHOD: Systematic literature review of papers from 2000 to 2017 were sought from Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: From 6209 journal articles, 46 papers reported GP performance in symptom management. There was no reference to the performance of GPNs in any paper identified. Most GPs expressed confidence in identifying EoLC symptoms. However, they reported lack of confidence in providing EoLC at the beginning of their careers, and improvements with time in practice. They perceived emotional support as being the most important aspect of EoLC that they provide, but there were barriers to its provision. GPs felt most comfortable treating pain, and least confident with dyspnoea and depression. Observed pain management was sometimes not optimal. More formal training, particularly in the use of opioids was considered important to improve management of both pain and dyspnoea. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential that GPs receive regular education and training, and exposure to EoLC from an early stage in their careers to ensure skill and confidence. Research into the role of GPNs in symptom control needs to occur.

Using intuition or a formal palliative care needs assessment screening process in general practice to predict death within 12 months: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Population ageing will lead to more deaths with an uncertain trajectory. Identifying patients at risk of dying could facilitate more effective care planning. AIM: To determine whether screening for likely death within 12 months is more effective using screening tools or intuition. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial of screening tools (Surprise Question plus the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool for Surprise Question positive patients) to predict those at risk of death at 12 months compared with unguided intuition (clinical trials registry: ACTRN12613000266763). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Australian general practice. A total of 30 general practitioners (screening tool = 12, intuition = 18) screened all patients ( n = 4365) aged ≥70 years seen at least once in the last 2 years. RESULTS: There were 142 deaths (screening tool = 3.1%, intuition = 3.3%; p = 0.79). General practitioners identified more at risk of dying using Surprise Question (11.8%) than intuition (5.4%; p = 0.01), but no difference with Surprise Question positive then Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (5.1%; p = 0.87). Surprise Question positive predicted more deaths (53.2%, intuition = 33.7%; p = 0.001), but Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool predictions were similar (5.1%; p = 0.87 vs intuition). There was no difference in proportions correctly predicted to die (Surprise Question = 1.6%, intuition = 1.1%; p = 0.156 and Surprise Question positive/Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool = 1.1%; p = 0.86 vs intuition). Screening tool had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than intuition, but no difference in positive or negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Screening tool was better at predicting actual death than intuition, but with a higher false positive rate. Both were similarly effective at screening the whole cohort for death. Screening for possible death is not the best option for initiating end-of-life planning: recognising increased burden of illness might be a better trigger.

A self-reported survey on the confidence levels and motivation of New South Wales practice nurses on conducting advance-care planning (ACP) initiatives in the general-practice setting.

Nurses are well positioned to initiate and conduct advance-care planning (ACP) conversations; however, there has been limited research on practice nurses performing this role in Australia. The aim of the present study was to understand the beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, confidence, training and educational needs of New South Wales practice nurses with regards to involvement in ACP. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in August to October 2014. Nurses were recruited through nursing organisations and Medicare Locals. There were 147 completed surveys (n=147). Participants were mostly female registered nurses, with a median age of 50, and 6 years of practice-nurse experience. Practice nurses were generally positive towards their involvement in ACP and believed it would be beneficial for the community. Their confidence in initiating ACP increased as their familiarity with patients increased. They showed a high level of interest in participating in training and education in ACP. Barriers to their involvement in ACP included the lack of a good documentation system, limited patient-education resources and unclear source of remuneration. Nurses were also concerned over legalities of ACP, ethical considerations and their understanding of end-of-life care options. Nevertheless, they were highly receptive of integrating ACP discussions and were willing to enhance their skills. These findings uncover a need for further training and development of practice nurses for ACP discussions.

Why are advance care planning decisions not implemented? Insights from interviews with Australian general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is thought to enhance patient autonomy and improve end-of-life care. However, there is evidence that when patients engage in ACP, the resultant plans are often not implemented. This has been attributed to either nonadherence by health professionals or inadequacies in ACP such as inaccessibility of the plans, plans providing ambiguous or conflicting instructions, and inappropriate focus on the completion of documents rather than communication. However, it is not known whether these postulated reasons are consistent with the experiences and views of health care professionals providing end-of-life care in the community. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on factors influencing the implementation of ACPs. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews of a purposive sample of 17 Australian GPs. Interview transcripts were analysed using constructionist grounded theory utilizing NVivo 9 software. RESULTS: Factors that were considered to have an important influence on the implementation of ACPs include: ACP factors such as form, legal standing, accessibility, clarity, currency, and specificity; illness factors such as quality of life, function, diagnosis, prognosis, and prognostic certainty; family factors such as family attitudes to ACP and different conceptualizations on whether care is provided to individuals or to a family unit; and organizational and care setting factors such as health care facility's attitudes and policies in relation to end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Problems in implementation of ACPs are multifactorial and not necessarily due to deliberate nonadherence by health professionals. Potential solutions to improve the clinical impact of ACP are discussed.

Advance care planning and interpersonal relationships: a two-way street.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) has been gaining prominence for its perceived benefits for patients in enhancing patient autonomy and ensuring high-quality end-of-life-care. Moreover, it has been postulated that ACP has positive effects on families and health professionals and their relationship with the patient. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the views of GPs on this issue. OBJECTIVE: To explore GP views on the impact that ACP has on interpersonal relationships among those involved in the patient's care. METHOD: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews of a purposive sample of 17 GPs. Interview transcripts were analysed using constructionist grounded theory methodology with QSR NVivo 9 software. RESULTS: ACP was seen as having both positive and negative impacts on interpersonal relationships. It was thought to enhance family relationships, help resolve conflicts between families and health professionals and improve trust and understanding between patients and health professionals. Negatively, it could take the family's attention away from patient care. The link between ACP and interpersonal relationships was perceived to be bidirectional-the nature of interpersonal relationship that patients have with their families and health professionals has a profound impact on what form of ACP is likely to be useful. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the importance that GPs place on the link between ACP and the patient's interpersonal context. This has implications on how ACP is conducted in primary care settings that are considerably different from other care settings in their emphasis on continuity of care and long-term nature of relationships.

Uptake and implementation of Advance Care Planning in Australia: findings of key informant interviews.

OBJECTIVE: Advance Care Planning (ACP) has an important role in enhancing patient autonomy and guiding end-of-life care. However, there is low uptake of ACP and evidence that advance care plans are often not implemented. We explored these issues in interviews with expert clinicians and representatives of key stakeholder organisations with interest in end-of-life care. METHOD: Qualitative descriptive study of semi-structured telephone interviews with 23 participants. RESULTS: Participants thought that the low uptake of ACP in Australia is a result of inadequate awareness, societal reluctance to discuss end-of-life issues, and lack of health professionals' involvement in ACP. Problems in implementation of advance care plans were thought to be a result of problems in accessing ACP documents; interpreting written documents; making binding decisions for future unpredictable situations; and paternalistic attitudes of health professionals and families. Participants had different perspectives on how advance care plans should be implemented, with some believing in strict implementation, whereas others believed in a more flexible approach. IMPLICATIONS: Low uptake and poor implementation of advance care plans may be addressed by (1) increasing community awareness; (2) encouraging health professional involvement; and (3) system-wide implementation of multi-faceted interventions. A patient-centred approach to ACP is required to resolve the differences in views on how advance care plans should be implemented.

How is advance care planning conceptualised in Australia? Findings from key informant interviews.

OBJECTIVE: Advance Care Planning (ACP) has been gaining prominence as an important component of good end-of-life care. This study explored how ACP is conceptualised by stakeholder organisations and clinicians involved in aged care and end-of-life care in Australia, in particular their views on the aim, appropriate context and settings for ACP, and how ACP should be facilitated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three participants including expert clinicians and representatives of government organisations, professional societies, consumer groups and other organisations involved in aged care and end-of-life care. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive analysis of semi-structured telephone interviews. RESULTS: Most participants viewed ACP as an ongoing process aimed at enhancing an individual's autonomy and ensuring good end-of-life care. However, there were significant differences in how this process was conceptualised. Some viewed ACP as a process undertaken by patients to define and communicate their treatment preferences. Others viewed ACP as discussions undertaken by health professionals to gain a better understanding of the patient's values and goals in order to provide good care. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings highlight significant differences in how ACP is conceptualised in Australia. A shared conceptualisation and agreement on purpose is needed to ensure a successful implementation of ACP in Australia.