Association of an Advance Care Planning Video and Communication Intervention With Documentation of Advance Care Planning Among Older Adults: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: COVID-19 has disproportionately killed older adults and racial and ethnic minority individuals, raising questions about the relevance of advance care planning (ACP) in this population. Video decision aids and communication skills training offer scalable delivery models. Objective: To assess whether ACP video decision aids and a clinician communication intervention improved the rate of ACP documentation during an evolving pandemic, with a focus on African American and Hispanic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Advance Care Planning: Communicating With Outpatients for Vital Informed Decisions trial was a pre-post, open-cohort nonrandomized controlled trial that compared ACP documentation across the baseline pre-COVID-19 period (September 15, 2019, to March 14, 2020), the COVID-19 wave 1 period (March 15, 2020, to September 14, 2020), and an intervention period (December 15, 2020, to June 14, 2021) at a New York metropolitan area ambulatory network of 22 clinics. All patients 65 years or older who had at least 1 clinic or telehealth visit during any of the 3 study periods were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ACP documentation. Results: A total of 14 107 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.0 [8.4] years; 8856 [62.8%] female; and 2248 [15.9%] African American or Hispanic) interacted with clinicians during the pre-COVID-19 period; 12 806 (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [8.5] years; 8047 [62.8%] female; and 1992 [15.6%] African American or Hispanic), during wave 1; and 15 106 (mean [SD] 80.9 [8.3] years; 9543 [63.2%] female; and 2535 [16.8%] African American or Hispanic), during the intervention period. Clinicians documented ACP in 3587 patients (23.8%) during the intervention period compared with 2525 (17.9%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (rate difference [RD], 5.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-7.9%; P = .01) and 1598 (12.5%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.3%; 95% CI, 6.3%-12.1%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented in 447 African American patients (30.0%) during the intervention period compared with 233 (18.1%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 11.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-15.9%; P < .001) and 130 (11.0%) during wave 1 (RD, 19.1%; 95% CI, 11.7%-21.2%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented for 222 Hispanic patients (21.2%) during the intervention period compared with 127 (13.2%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 8.0%; 95% CI, 2.1%-10.9%; P = .004) and 82 (10.2%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.1%; 95% CI, 5.5%-14.5%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This intervention, implemented during the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, was associated with higher rates of ACP documentation, especially for African American and Hispanic patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a CPR and Intubation Video Decision Support Tool for Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and intubation are a core part of advance care planning, particularly for seriously ill hospitalized patients. However, these discussions are often avoided. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the impact of a video decision tool for CPR and intubation on patients' choices, knowledge, medical orders, and discussions with providers. DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized trial conducted between 9 March 2011 and 1 June 2013 on the internal medicine services at two hospitals in Boston. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty seriously ill hospitalized patients over the age of 60 with an advanced illness and a prognosis of 1 year or less were included. Mean age was 76 and 51% were women. INTERVENTION: Three-minute video describing CPR and intubation plus verbal communication of participants' preferences to their physicians (intervention) (N = 75) or control arm (usual care) (N = 75). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was participants' preferences for CPR and intubation (immediately after viewing the video in the intervention arm). Secondary outcomes included: orders to withhold CPR/intubation, documented discussions with providers during hospitalization, and participants' knowledge of CPR/ intubation (five-item test, range 0-5, higher scores indicate greater knowledge). RESULTS: Intervention participants (vs. controls) were more likely not to want CPR (64% vs. 32%, p <0.0001) and intubation (72% vs. 43%, p < 0.0001). Intervention participants (vs. controls) were also more likely to have orders to withhold CPR (57% vs. 19%, p < 0.0001) and intubation (64% vs.19%, p < 0.0001) by hospital discharge, documented discussions about their preferences (81% vs. 43%, p < 0.0001), and higher mean knowledge scores (4.11 vs. 2.45; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Seriously ill patients who viewed a video about CPR and intubation were more likely not to want these treatments, be better informed about their options, have orders to forgo CPR/ intubation, and discuss preferences with providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01325519 Registry Name: A prospective randomized trial using video images in advance care planning in seriously ill hospitalized patients.

Assessing end-of-life preferences for advanced dementia in rural patients using an educational video: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated the end-of-life preferences of elderly patients in rural communities and whether preferences are associated with level of health literacy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of a goals-of-care video decision aid of advanced dementia. PARTICIPANTS: Elderly subjects (65 years or older) at a primary care clinic in rural Louisiana. METHODS: Half of subjects heard a verbal description of advanced dementia and the goals of care; the other half heard the same verbal description and then viewed the video decision aid. End points were the preferred goal of care in advanced dementia: life-prolonging care (cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], etc.), limited care (hospitalization but not CPR), or comfort care (symptom relief). The principal category for analysis was the difference in proportions of subjects preferring comfort care for each characteristic including randomization group and health literacy level. RESULTS: Seventy-six subjects were randomized to the verbal (n = 43) or video (n = 33) arms of the study. Among subjects receiving the verbal description of advanced dementia and the goals of care, 31 (72%) preferred comfort; 5 (12%) chose limited; and 7 (16%) desired life-prolonging. In the video group, 30 (91%) preferred comfort; 3 (9%) chose limited; and none desired life-prolonging (χ(2) = 6.3, df = 2, p = 0.047). Factors associated with greater likelihood of opting for comfort included greater health literacy (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 12.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-62.6) and randomization to the video (unadjusted OR 3.9; 95% CI, 1.0-15.1). CONCLUSION: Rural subjects with higher health literacy were more likely to want comfort care compared to those with lower levels of health literacy. Furthermore, subjects who viewed a video decision aid were more likely to opt for comfort compared to those who solely listened to a verbal description. These findings suggest that video can help elicit preferences and that interventions to empower such patients need to be designed in a manner that is sensitive to health literacy.