Advance care planning for haemodialysis patients

Advance care planning for patients with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis: narrative review of the current evidence, and future considerations

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have a high symptom-burden and high rates of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, evidence has shown that this patient group does not have timely discussions to plan for deterioration and death, and at the end of life there are unmet palliative care needs. Advance care planning is a process that can help patients share their personal values and preferences for their future care and prepare for declining health. Earlier, more integrated and holistic advance care planning has the potential to improve access to care services, communication, and preparedness for future decision-making and changing circumstances. However, there are many barriers to successful implementation of advance care planning in this population. In this narrative review we discuss the current evidence for advance care planning in patients on dialysis, the data around the barriers to advance care planning implementation, and interventions that have been trialled. The review explores whether the concepts and approaches to advance care planning in this population need to be updated to encompass current and future care. It suggests that a shift from a problem-orientated approach to a goal-orientated approach may lead to better engagement, with more patient-centred and satisfying outcomes.

Exploring knowledge, attitude, and intention towards advance care planning, advance directive, and the patient self-determination act among hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Hemodialysis holds the highest incidence and prevalence rate in Taiwan globally. However, the implementation of advance care planning (ACP), advance directives (AD), and patient self-determination acts (PSDA) remains limited. Our objective was to examine the current status of ACP, AD and PSDA and potential opportunities for enhancement.

METHODS

We developed a novel questionnaire to assess individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and intentions regarding ACP, AD, and PSDA. We also collected baseline characteristics and additional inquiries for correlation analysis to identify potential factors. Student's t-test and Analysis of Variance were employed to assess significance.

RESULTS

Initially, a cohort of 241 patients was initially considered for inclusion in this study. Subsequently, 135 patients agreed to participate in the questionnaire study, resulting in 129 valid questionnaires. Among these respondents, 76 were male (59.9%), and 53 were female (41.1%). Only 13.2% had signed AD. A significant portion (85.3%) indicated that they had not discussed their dialysis prognosis with healthcare providers. Additionally, a mere 14% engaged in conversations about life-threatening decisions. Ninety percent believed that healthcare providers had not furnished information about ACP, and only 30% had discussed such choices with their families. The findings revealed that the average standardized score for ACP and AD goals was 84.97, while the attitude towards PSDA received a standardized score of 69.94. The intention score stood at 69.52 in standardized terms. Potential candidates for ACP initiation included individuals aged 50 to 64, possessing at least a college education, being unmarried, and having no history of diabetes.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing hemodialysis exhibited a significant knowledge gap concerning ACP, AD, and the PSDA. Notably, a substantial number of dialytic patients had not received adequate information on these subjects. Nevertheless, they displayed a positive attitude, and a considerable proportion expressed a willingness to sign AD. It is imperative for nephrologists to take an active role in initiating ACP discussions with patients from the very beginning.

Barriers to and facilitators of advance care planning implementation for medical staff after the COVID-19 pandemic: an overview of reviews

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the capacity for advance care planning (ACP) among patients, families and healthcare teams. We sought to identify and review the barriers to and facilitators of ACP implementation for medical staff in different settings (eg, hospitals, outpatient palliative care, nursing and care homes) during the pandemic.

DESIGN

This study employed an overview of reviews design. We searched the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Embase databases for studies published between 8 December 2019 and 30 July 2023. We used AMSTAR 2 to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included seven reviews. Common barriers to ACP implementation included visitation restrictions, limited resources and personnel and a lack of coordination among healthcare professionals. In care and nursing homes, barriers included a dearth of palliative care physicians and the psychological burden on facility staff. Using telemedicine for information sharing was a common facilitator across settings. In hospitals, facilitators included short-term training in palliative care and palliative care physicians joining the acute care team. In care and nursing homes, facilitators included ACP education and emotional support for staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Visitation restrictions and limited resources during the pandemic posed obstacles; however, the implementation of ACP was further hindered by insufficient staff education on ACP in hospitals and facilities, as well as a scarcity of information sharing at the community level. These pre-existing issues were magnified by the pandemic, drawing attention to their significance. Short-term staff training programmes and immediate information sharing could better enable ACP.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022351362.

A meta-synthesis on the older adults' perspective of advance care planning

AIM

To synthesise the evidence regarding older adults' perception of advance care planning in preparation for end-of-life care.

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning involves continuous communication of end-of-life care goals involving an individual's medical treatment preferences. However, its uptake among older adults remains low.

DESIGN

The meta-synthesis was conducted according to the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) guidelines and thematic synthesis was employed to synthesise the qualitative findings in an inductive manner.

DATA SOURCE

A search was completed on six electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus), for publications from 1 January 2000 to 4 December 2021.

REVIEW METHOD

The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Confidence (GRADE-CERQual) in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. Two independent reviewers conducted this process, and disagreements were resolved through discussions.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were analysed. Four major themes and eleven subthemes emerged from the thematic synthesis: (1) psychosocial preparedness, (2) medical preparedness, (3) psychological barriers towards advance care planning and (4) extrinsic barriers towards advance care planning.

DISCUSSION

These themes consolidated older adults' views of advance care planning and how engagement in this planning affected their end-of-life preparedness.

CONCLUSION

This review suggested psychological and extrinsic factors were barriers to the uptake of advance care planning and provided directions for future research to achieve a holistic understanding of the impact of advance care planning on end-of-life preparedness.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals could maintain close communication with older adults and families periodically to evaluate their readiness to discuss advance care planning to improve their preparedness. Healthcare professionals could also provide psychological support during the discussion of clinical decision-making to enhance readiness and confidence among older adults and their families.

Implementing Advance Care Planning for dialysis patients: HIGHway project

Background

Patients undergoing hemodialysis have a high mortality rate and yet underutilize palliative care and hospice resources. The Shared Decision Making-Renal Supportive Care (SDM-RSC) intervention focused on goals of care conversations between patients and family members with the nephrologist and social worker. The intervention targeted deficiencies in communication, estimating prognosis, and transition planning for seriously ill dialysis patients. The intervention showed capacity to increase substantially completion of advance care directives. The HIGHway Project, adapted from the previous SDM-RSC, scale up training social workers or nurses in dialysis center in advance care planning (ACP), and then support them for a subsequent 9-month action period, to engage in ACP conversations with patients at their dialysis center regarding their preferences for end-of-life care.

Methods

We will train between 50–60 dialysis teams, led by social workers or nurses, to engage in ACP conversations with patients at their dialysis center regarding their preferences for end-of-life care. This implementation project uses the Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to increase adoption and sustainability in the participating dialysis centers. This includes a curriculum about how to hold ACP conversation and coaching with monthly teleconferences through case discussion and mentoring. An application software will guide on the process and provide resources for holding ACP conversations. Our project will focus on implementation outcomes. Success will be determined by adoption and effective use of the ACP approach. Patient and provider outcomes will be measured by the number of ACP conversations held and documented; the quality and fidelity of ACP conversations to the HIGHway process as taught during education sessions; impact on knowledge and skills; content, relevance, and significance of ACP intervention for patients, and Supportive Kidney Care (SKC) App usage. Currently HIGHway is in the recruitment stage.

Discussion

Effective changes to advance care planning processes in dialysis centers can lead to institutional policy and protocol changes, providing a model for patients receiving dialysis treatment in the US. The result will be a widespread improvement in advance care planning, thereby remedying one of the current barriers to patient-centered, goal-concordant care for dialysis patients.

Trial registration

The George Washington University Protocol Record NCR213481, Honoring Individual Goals and Hopes: Implementing Advance Care Planning for Persons with Kidney Disease on Dialysis, is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05324878 on April 11^th, 2022.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Advance Care Planning Coaching in CKD Clinics: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Although guidelines recommend more and earlier advance care planning (ACP) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), scant evidence exists to guide incorporation of ACP into clinical practice for patients not yet requiring maintenance dialysis. Involving nephrology team members in addition to primary care providers in this important patient-centered process may increase its accessibility. Our objective was to examine the effect of coaching implemented in CKD clinics on patient engagement with ACP.

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter, pragmatic randomized control trial.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Three CKD clinics in different states participated. Eligible patients were 55 years or older, had stage 3-5 CKD, and were English speaking. 273 patients consented to participate, 254 were included in analysis.

INTERVENTION

Nurses or social workers with experience in nephrology or palliative care delivered individualized in-person ACP sessions. The enhanced control group was given Make Your Wishes About You (MY WAY) education materials and was verbally encouraged to bring their completed advance directives to the clinic.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcome measures were scores on a 45-point ACP engagement scale at 14 weeks and a documented advance directive or portable medical order at 16 weeks post-enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 254 participants analyzed, 46.5% were 65-74 years of age and 54% had CKD stage 3. Coached patients scored 1.9 points higher at 14 weeks on the ACP engagement scale (β = 1.87; CI: 0.13-3.64) adjusted for baseline score and site. Overall, 32.8% of intervention patients (41 of 125) had an advance directive compared to 17.8% (23 of 129) of patients in the comparison group. In a site-adjusted multivariable model, coached patients were 79% more likely to have a documented advance directive or portable medical order (adjusted risk ratio = 1.79; 95% CI: 1.18-2.72), with the impact principally evident at only one study site.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of study sites and possible unrepresentativeness of the broader CKD population by study participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Individualized coaching may be effective in enhancing ACP but its impact may be influenced by the healthcare environment where it is delivered.

Understanding how people with Parkinson's disease and their relatives approach advance care planning

PURPOSE

Advance care planning gives individuals with capacity the option of planning for their future, and anticipating future decision-making about their treatment or care should they then lose capacity. People with Parkinson's disease (PD) may develop significant physical and cognitive problems as the disease progresses, which creates a great need for, but significant challenges to, advance care planning. As a result, we set out to explore the views of people with PD and relatives on planning for the future and advance care planning.

METHODS

Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews of thirty-three people with PD and their relatives in the North-East of England.

RESULTS

Interviewees with PD were generally not keen to engage with advance care planning in the present, in comparison to the future. Three main themes arose from the data in identifying why this may be the case: (1) 'Awareness'-which included the limited awareness on purpose of advance care planning and Parkinson's disease; (2) 'Uncertainty'-the uncertainty of living with PD and of life; and (3) 'Salience'-the complex decision-making processes that interviewees engaged in, which were highly variable.

CONCLUSION

The use of advance care planning in PD is influenced by its perception amongst people with PD and their relatives. Health professionals have an important role in raising the salience of health care planning.

Exploring the Impact of Different Types of Do-Not-Resuscitate Consent on End-of-Life Treatments among Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease: An Observational Study

Background: Patients with advanced kidney disease have a symptomatic and psychological burden which warrant renal supportive care or palliative care. However, the impact of do-not-resuscitate consent type (signed by patients or surrogates) on end-of-life treatments in these patients remains unclear. Objective: We aim to identify influential factors correlated with different do-not-resuscitate consent types in patients with advanced kidney disease and the impact of do-not-resuscitate consent types on various life-prolonging treatments. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study. We included patients aged 20 years and over, diagnosed with advanced kidney disease and receiving palliative and hospice care consultation services between January 2014 and December 2018 in a tertiary teaching hospital in Taiwan. We reviewed medical records and used logistic regression to identify factors associated with do-not-resuscitate consent types and end-of-life treatments. Results: A total of 275 patients were included, in which 21% signed their do-not-resuscitate consents. A total of 233 patients were followed until death, and 32% of the decedents continued hemodialysis, 75% underwent nasogastric (NG) tube placement, and 70% took antibiotics in their final seven days of life. Do-not-resuscitate consents signed by patients were associated with reduced life-prolonging treatments including feeding tube placement and antibiotic use in the last seven days (odd ratio and 95% confidence interval were 0.16, 0.07-0.34 and 0.33, 0.16-0.69, respectively) compared to do-not-resuscitate consents signed by surrogates. Conclusions: Do-not-resuscitate consent signed by patients and not by surrogates may reflect better patients' autonomy and reduced life-prolonging treatments in the final seven days of patients with advanced kidney disease.

[Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions]

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

Nephrology and Palliative Care Collaboration in the Care of Patients With Advanced Kidney Disease: Results of a Clinician Survey

Rationale & Objective

Despite calls for integrating palliative care into chronic kidney disease (CKD) care, uptake remains low. The study aim was to describe clinicians’ perceptions of the clinical and research priorities in CKD care and the main barriers to collaboration.

Study Design

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study using an online survey developed by clinicians and researchers as the primary data collection method.

Setting & Participants

Clinicians in nephrology and palliative care departments (N = 195) at an academic health center in Virginia were invited to participate. Of the 48.7% (n = 95) who responded, most were registered nurses (65.3%) in nephrology (80%) with more than 15 years’ experience (40%).

Predictors

Factors including discipline (nursing, social work, and physician) and practice area (palliative care or nephrology) were assessed.

Outcomes

Main outcomes of interest included clinicians’ perceptions of the role of palliative care, barriers to collaboration, and the top clinical and research priorities for patients with advanced CKD.

Analytic Approach

Survey data were analyzed using SPSS using descriptive statistics.

Results

Respondents reported being comfortable caring for patients near the end of life and endorsed advance care planning and collaboration between nephrology and palliative care teams. However, both rarely happen. Fragmentation, or poor coordination of care, was perceived to be the main barrier to collaboration. Perceptions regarding collaboration facilitation differed; nephrology clinicians identified patient/family education as the most important facilitator while palliative care clinicians identified clinician education as most important. Top clinical priorities differed. Palliative care clinicians reported pain/symptom management as taking priority while nephrology clinicians identified caregiver/family support. Developing interventions to support treatment-related decision making was the top research priority.

Limitations

Results reflect perceptions of about half the clinicians at 1 academic health center.

Conclusions

Additional studies to capture patients’ and families’ perspectives and examine end-of-life care processes are needed. Results may inform future targeted interventions.

Nurse-led advance care planning with older people who have end-stage kidney disease: feasibility of a deferred entry randomised controlled trial incorporating an economic evaluation and mixed methods process evaluation (ACReDiT)

BACKGROUND

Advance Care Planning is recommended for people with end-stage kidney disease but evidence is limited. Robust clinical trials are needed to investigate the impact of advance care planning in this population. There is little available data on cost-effectiveness to guide decision makers in allocating resources for advance care planning. Therefore we sought to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial and to test methods for assessing cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A deferred entry, randomised controlled feasibility trial, incorporating economic and process evaluations, with people with end-stage kidney disease, aged 65 years or older, receiving haemodialysis, in two renal haemodialysis units in Northern Ireland, UK. A nurse facilitator helped the patient make an advance care plan identifying: a surrogate decision-maker; what the participant would like to happen in the future; any advance decision to refuse treatment; preferred place of care at end-of-life.

RESULTS

Recruitment lasted 189 days; intervention and data collection 443 days. Of the 67 patients invited to participate 30 (45%) declined and 36 were randomised to immediate or deferred advance care plan groups. Twenty-two (61%) made an advance care plan and completed data collection at 12 weeks; 17 (47.2%) were able to identify a surrogate willing to be named in the advance care plan document. The intervention was well-received and encouraged end-of-life conversations, but did not succeed in helping patients to fully clarify their values or consider specific treatment choices. There was no significant difference in health system costs between the immediate and deferred groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A trial of advance care planning with participants receiving haemodialysis is feasible and acceptable to patients, but challenging. A full trial would require a pool of potential participants five times larger than the number required to complete data collection at 3 months. Widening eligibility criteria to include younger (under 65 years of age) and less frail patients, together with special efforts to engage and retain surrogates may improve recruitment and retention. Traditional advance care planning outcomes may need to be supplemented with those that are defined by patients, helping them to participate with clinicians in making medical decisions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered December 16, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02631200 .

End-of-Life Care among US Adults with ESKD Who Were Waitlisted or Received a Kidney Transplant, 2005-2014

BACKGROUND

The care of patients in the United States who have ESKD is often shaped by their hopes and prognostic expectations related to kidney transplant. Little is known about how patients' engagement in the transplant process might relate to patterns of end-of-life care.

METHODS

We compared six measures of intensity of end-of-life care among adults in the United States with ESKD who died between 2005 and 2014 after experiencing differing exposure to the kidney transplant process.

RESULTS

Of 567,832 decedents with ESKD, 27,633 (5%) had a functioning kidney transplant at the time of death, 14,653 (3%) had a failed transplant, 16,490 (3%) had been removed from the deceased donor waitlist, 17,010 (3%) were inactive on the waitlist, 11,529 (2%) were active on the waitlist, and 480,517 (85%) had never been waitlisted for or received a transplant (reference group). In adjusted analyses, compared with the reference group, patients exposed to the transplant process were significantly more likely to have been admitted to an intensive care unit and to have received an intensive procedure in the last 30 days of life; they were also significantly more likely to have died in the hospital. Those who died on the transplant waitlist were also less likely than those in the reference group to have been enrolled in hospice and to have discontinued dialysis before death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who had engaged in the kidney transplant process received more intensive patterns of end-of-life care than other patients with ESKD. These findings support the relevance of advance care planning, even for this relatively healthy segment of the ESKD population.

Advance care planning for adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

People with heart failure report various symptoms and show a trajectory of periodic exacerbations and recoveries, where each exacerbation event may lead to death. Current clinical practice guidelines indicate the importance of discussing future care strategies with people with heart failure. Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of discussing an individual's future care plan according to their values and preferences, and involves the person with heart failure, their family members or surrogate decision-makers, and healthcare providers. Although it is shown that ACP may improve discussion about end-of-life care and documentation of an individual's preferences, the effects of ACP for people with heart failure are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of advance care planning (ACP) in people with heart failure compared to usual care strategies that do not have any components promoting ACP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, and two clinical trials registers in October 2019. We checked the reference lists of included studies. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ACP with usual care in people with heart failure. Trials could have parallel group, cluster-randomised, or cross-over designs. We included interventions that implemented ACP, such as discussing and considering values, wishes, life goals, and preferences for future medical care. The study participants comprised adults (18 years of age or older) with heart failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted outcome data from the included studies, and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted trial authors when we needed to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (1242 participants and 426 surrogate decision-makers) in this review. The meta-analysis included seven studies (876 participants). Participants' mean ages ranged from 62 to 82 years, and 53% to 100% of the studies' participants were men. All included studies took place in the US or the UK. Only one study reported concordance between participants' preferences and end-of-life care, and it enrolled people with heart failure or renal disease. Owing to one study with small sample size, the effects of ACP on concordance between participants' preferences and end-of-life care were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.55; participants = 110; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). It corresponded to an assumed risk of 625 per 1000 participants receiving usual care and a corresponding risk of 744 per 1000 (95% CI 569 to 969) for ACP. There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.38; participants = 156; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). However, one study, which was not included in the meta-analysis, showed that the quality of life score improved by 14.86 points in the ACP group compared with 11.80 points in the usual care group. Completion of documentation by medical staff regarding discussions with participants about ACP processes may have increased (RR 1.68. 95% CI 1.23 to 2.29; participants = 92; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). This corresponded to an assumed risk of 489 per 1000 participants with usual care and a corresponding risk of 822 per 1000 (95% CI 602 to 1000) for ACP. One study, which was not included in the meta-analysis, also showed that ACP helped to improve documentation of the ACP process (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.59; participants = 232). Three studies reported that implementation of ACP led to an improvement of participants' depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.34; participants = 278; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). We were uncertain about the effects of ACP on the quality of communication when compared to the usual care group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.61 to 0.81; participants = 9; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). We also noted an increase in all-cause mortality in the ACP group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67; participants = 795; studies = 5). The studies did not report participants' satisfaction with care/treatment and caregivers' satisfaction with care/treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACP may help to increase documentation by medical staff regarding discussions with participants about ACP processes, and may improve an individual's depression. However, the quality of the evidence about these outcomes was low. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low due to the small number of studies and participants included in this review. Additionally, the follow-up periods and types of ACP intervention were varied. Therefore, further studies are needed to explore the effects of ACP that consider these differences carefully.

Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced kidney disease (AKD) have to make difficult treatment modality decisions as their disease progresses towards end-stage kidney disease. International guidelines in nephrology suggest shared decision-making (SDM) to help patients make timely treatment modality decisions that align with their values and preferences. However, systematic reviews or scoping reviews on these SDM interventions and on their reported use or outcomes are lacking. This limits the adoption of SDM in clinical practice and hampers further research and development on the subject. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of these SDM interventions by means of a scoping review of the literature. Scoping reviews can provide a broad overview of a topic, identify gaps in the research knowledge base and report on the types of evidence that address and inform practices. This paper presents our study protocol.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The proposed scoping review will be performed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. It will cover both qualitative and quantitative scientific literature, as well as the grey literature on SDM interventions for treatment modality decisions in AKD. Only literature written in English will be considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will participate in an iterative process of screening the literature, paper selection and data extraction. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion until consensus is reached or after consultation with the research team when needed. Results will be reported with descriptive statistics and diagrammatic or tabular displayed information, accompanied by narrative summaries as explained in the JBI guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the conduct of this study is not required. We will analyse previously collected data for the proposed scoping review. Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through conferences and/or seminars.

Advance Care Planning With Patients Who Have End-Stage Kidney Disease: A Systematic Realist Review

CONTEXT

Patients with end-stage kidney disease have a high mortality rate and disease burden. Despite this, many do not speak with health care professionals about end-of-life issues. Advance care planning is recommended in this context but is complex and challenging. We carried out a realist review to identify factors affecting its implementation.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are 1) to identify implementation theories; 2) to identify factors that help or hinder implementation; and 3) to develop theory on how the intervention may work.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic realist review, searching seven electronic databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect.

RESULTS

Sixty-two papers were included in the review.

CONCLUSION

We identified two intervention stages-1) training for health care professionals that addresses concerns, optimizes skills, and clarifies processes and 2) use of documentation and processes that are simple, individually tailored, culturally appropriate, and involve surrogates. These processes work as patients develop trust in professionals, participate in discussions, and clarify values and beliefs about their condition. This leads to greater congruence between patients and surrogates; increased quality of communication between patients and professionals; and increased completion of advance directives. Advance care planning is hindered by lack of training; administrative complexities; pressures of routine care; patients overestimating life expectancy; and when patients, family, and/or clinical staff are reluctant to initiate discussions. It is more likely to succeed where organizations treat it as core business; when the process is culturally appropriate and takes account of patient perceptions; and when patients are willing to consider death and dying with suitably trained staff.