PATIENT-PROVIDER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ADVANCE CARE PLANNING

Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Key Ballroom Foyer (Hilton Baltimore)
Poster Board # P3-29
Decision Psychology and Shared Decision Making (DEC)

Jane R. Schubart, PhD, MS, MBA, Michael J. Green, MD, MS, Elana Farace, PhD, Megan M. Whitehead, BA, Kristin Macfarlane, MPH, Anne Dimmock, BA, Erik Lehman, MS and Benjamin H. Levi, MD, PhD, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA
Purpose: People with cancer face a daunting number of medical decisions, not least of which is whether to receive life-sustaining treatments at the end of life.  When patients can no longer make decisions for themselves, it is important for healthcare providers to have an understanding of the patient’s preferences so medical care is consistent with the patient’s values, goals, and wishes—and we know that often these discussions do not occur.  This study examined whether a computer-based decision aid for advance care planning (ACP) increased the frequency of patient-provider conversations about ACP and whether those conversations impacted the relationship between patients and their providers.

Method: The present study was part of a larger, randomized control trial comparing a standard paper/pencil form for ACP adapted for use on a computer with an interactive, educational, multi-media computer-based decision aid for ACP among 200 patients with advanced cancer.  For the present data, participants were interviewed by phone every 6 weeks following completion of the ACP intervention.  Questions included whether the patients had discussion about ACP with their healthcare provider and perceptions of how any such conversations changed the provider-patient relationship.

Result: Complete data sets were available for 178/200 participants.  Of the 94/178 (53%) participants who reported having had a conversation with their healthcare provider, 78/94 (83%) reported no change in their relationship with their healthcare provider, 15/94 (16%) reported that the relationship was “somewhat” or “much” better, and only 1/94 (1%) reported that the relationship was “somewhat worse” as a result.  Participants who completed ACP using the decision aid were not more likely to have had a conversation with their healthcare provider.

Conclusion: Having a conversation about ACP does not adversely impact the patient-provider relationship.  However, in spite of the advantages of using an educational, interactive decision aid to engage patients in ACP (prior data having shown increases in knowledge and in satisfaction with end-of-life decisions, with no adverse change in hope or anxiety) the current results show that something more is needed to prompt patients to discuss their wishes with their healthcare providers.  Our current NIH-funded study is examining the role of family caregivers in facilitating ACP discussions, including interactions with healthcare providers.