MedPath

Advance Care Planning: Promoting Effective and Aligned Communication in the Elderly

Not Applicable
Completed
Conditions
Other Cancer
Registration Number
NCT03609177
Lead Sponsor
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Brief Summary

In this research study, the investigators are working to help oncologists better serve patients by delivering more patient-centered, goal-concordant care that may improve health care delivery.

\- It is expected that about 30,000 people will take part in this research study, 29,550 of these patients, the vast majority, will be included only for medical record review.

Detailed Description

The purpose of this study is to improve the quality of care provided to millions of older Americans with cancer. The investigators are working to help oncologists better serve patients by delivering more patient-centered, goal-concordant care that may dramatically improve health care delivery.

This is pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) of a Comprehensive ACP (Advance Care Planning) Program among older oncology patients. The ACP Program will include training clinicians in communication skills and using video decision aids for participants.

\- This study will involve medical record review of 30,000 people age 65 or older with advanced cancer.

We will also recruit 450 eligible patients (150 patients from each of our three sites broken down into 75 patients during the control phase and 75 patients during the intervention phase) to conduct a survey for our secondary patient-centered outcomes (confidence, satisfaction with physician communication, patient decisional satisfaction and regret). From among this sub-group we will engage 240 participants (80 from each of our three sites broken down into 40 patients during the control phase and 40 patients during the intervention phase) in an activity to film video declarations of their preferences.

During the first year, three pilot sites (one at each health care system) will trial the intervention. The subjects recruited at these pilot sites will not be included in the final analysis. Thus, the main trial will begin during year 2 and continue through year 5 with recruitment of 30,000 subjects for the primary outcome at 30 oncology clinics. The first year pilot will serve to inform the larger roll-out and the intervention may change during the first year based on pilot-clinic experience.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
13800
Inclusion Criteria

Not provided

Exclusion Criteria
  • Adults unable to consent
  • Individuals who are not yet adults (infants, children, teenagers)
  • Pregnant women
  • Prisoners

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Number of Participants With Advance Care Planning Documentation6 months

Any advance directive (e.g., living will, POLST, etc.) and changes of resuscitation orders or any indication in the EHR of a goals-of-care or advance care planning conversation

Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Number of Participants With CODE Status Limitations6 months

Documented choices regarding CPR and mechanical ventilation in the EHR

Rate of Palliative Care Consultation6 months

Use of palliative care services (consults, outpatient visits) in the EHR

Rate of Hospice Use6 months

Use of hospice documented in the EHR

Confidence in Future Care6 months

(in person survey) patient confidence that they will receive the right care at the right time by their health system. The scale ranged from 1 Not at all confident to 5 Very confident. Higher values represent a better outcome.

Communication and Decisional Satisfaction6 months

(In person survey) patient satisfaction with communication and decision making.The scale range is from 1- Strongly Disagree to 5 - Strongly Disagree. Higher values represent better outcomes. Subscales were combined questions were summed to compute a total score. The lowest possible score is a 9 and the highest possible score is 45. Lower scores indicate lower communication and decisional satisfaction.

Decisional Regret6 months

(In person survey) patient regret regarding decision making. The response range is 1 - Strongly Disagree to 5 - Strongly agree. Higher numbers represent a worse outcome. Scale questions were summed to compute a total score. The lowest possible score is 2 and the highest possible score is 10. Lower scores indicate less decisional regret.

Trial Locations

Locations (4)

Dana Farber Cancer Institute

🇺🇸

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Mayo Clinic

🇺🇸

Rochester, Minnesota, United States

Northwell Health

🇺🇸

New Hyde Park, New York, United States

Duke Health

🇺🇸

Durham, North Carolina, United States

Dana Farber Cancer Institute
🇺🇸Boston, Massachusetts, United States

MedPath

Empowering clinical research with data-driven insights and AI-powered tools.

© 2025 MedPath, Inc. All rights reserved.