Advance care planning in primary care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer: feasibility randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance (anticipatory) care planning (ACP) requires discussions between patients and healthcare professionals about planning for future deterioration in health. ACP improves care coordination but uptake is limited and often deferred. AIM: To assess the feasibility and acceptability to patients, carers, and GPs of a primary care ACP intervention for people with incurable oesophageal, gastric, or pancreatic cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 12-month feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a Scottish Cancer Network. METHOD: Patients aged ≥18 years starting palliative oncology treatment were randomised 1:1 to an ACP intervention or standard care. Patients in the intervention group received an oncologist letter supporting them to request a GP review along with a patient information leaflet about ACP. Pre-specified analyses with masking included trial recruitment and retention, ACP completion, and quality-of-life questionnaires (EuroQol EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP Supportive Care Measure) at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Qualitative interviews with purposive sampling explored patient, carer, and GP experiences. RESULTS: Of 99 eligible participants (269 screened), 46% were recruited (n = 46) and randomised; 25 to intervention and 21 to control. By 12 weeks, 45% (n = 9/20) of the individuals in the intervention and 59% (n = 10/17) in the control group had a documented ACP plan. By 24 weeks, 30% (n = 14) had died; in the remaining participants quality of life was maintained at 24 weeks except for physical symptoms. Social norms associating ACP with dying were prevalent among 23 participants interviewed. No psychological or clinical harms were identified. CONCLUSION: An RCT of ACP for people with incurable cancer in primary care is feasible. Patient, carer, and GP attitudes and behaviours determined acceptability and timing of care planning.

An International Collaborative Standardizing Patient-Centered Outcome Measures in Pediatric Facial Palsy.

IMPORTANCE: Standardization of outcome measurement using a patient-centered approach in pediatric facial palsy may help aid the advancement of clinical care in this population. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardized outcome measurement set for pediatric patients with facial palsy through an international multidisciplinary group of health care professionals, researchers, and patients and patient representatives. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A working group of health care experts and patient representatives (n = 21), along with external reviewers, participated in the study. Seven teleconferences were conducted over a 9-month period between December 3, 2016, and September 23, 2017, under the guidance of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, each followed with a 2-round Delphi process to develop consensus. This process defined the scope, outcome domains, measurement tools, time points for measurements, and case-mix variables deemed essential to a standardized outcome measurement set. Each teleconference was informed by a comprehensive review of literature and through communication with patient advisory groups. Literature review of PubMed was conducted for research published between January 1, 1981, and November 30, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The study aim was to develop the outcomes and measures relevant to children with facial palsy as opposed to studying the effect of a particular intervention. RESULTS: The 21 members of the working group included pediatric facial palsy experts from 9 countries. The literature review identified 1628 papers, of which 395 (24.3%) were screened and 83 (5.1%) were included for qualitative evaluation. A standard set of outcome measurements was designed by the working group to allow the recording of outcomes after all forms of surgical and nonsurgical facial palsy treatments among pediatric patients of all ages. Unilateral or bilateral, congenital or acquired, permanent or temporary, and single-territory or multiterritory facial palsy can be evaluated using this standard set. Functional, appearance, psychosocial, and administrative outcomes were selected for inclusion. Clinimetric and psychometric outcome measurement tools (clinician-, patient-, and patient proxy-reported) and time points for measuring patient outcomes were established. Eighty-six independent reviews of the standard set were completed, and 34 (85%) of the 40 patients and patient representatives and 44 (96%) of the 46 health care professionals who participated in the reviews agreed that the standard set would capture the outcomes that matter most to children with facial palsy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This international collaborative study produced a free standardized set of outcome measures for evaluating the quality of care provided to pediatric patients with facial palsy, allowing benchmarking of clinicians, comparison of treatment pathways, and introduction of value-based reimbursement strategies in the field of pediatric facial palsy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.