Communication Study“There's no cure for this condition”: How physicians discuss advance care planning in heart failure
Introduction
Patient–clinician communication about advance care planning (ACP) is critical to helping patients prepare and plan for their future care, by enhancing their understanding about their diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and choices in end of life care [1]. ACP is especially important for patients with heart failure (HF), who face a highly uncertain and variable trajectory, marked by frequent exacerbations and increasingly complex treatment decision-making. HF patients report wanting to engage in ACP discussions with their physician as early as at the time of diagnosis [2], and recent guidance recommends that clinicians initiate ACP discussions in the outpatient setting, prior to and in anticipation of clinical decline, when a considered evaluation of treatment preferences is possible [3]. However, evidence that HF patients are unaware of their choices and alternatives related to future care [4], [5], [6] suggests that ACP is often underused or delayed until the end of life, or an emergent clinical need arises [5].
Providing physicians with practical guidance for conducting these often difficult and time-intensive discussions might increase the use of ACP in the outpatient setting. Although little guidance regarding the structure and process of an ACP discussion exists, various elements of ACP have been highlighted as important for physicians to engage in with their patients, including explaining the nature and trajectory of heart failure [2], [7], [8], [9], eliciting patient preferences for care [10], [11], [12], [13], and encouraging patients to document their identified treatment preferences [14], [15], [16], [17]. As part of a complete ACP discussion, these elements can help patients understand the implications of their disease, calibrate their expectations within the context of their illness, and articulate their care preferences to their providers. We previously examined if and how patients raised ACP discussions with their physicians and whether physicians responded to this opportunity [18]. In the current study we sought to evaluate the extent to which physicians engaged in these recommended ACP elements (i.e., explaining, eliciting, and encouraging) in actual practice during outpatient clinic visits with recently hospitalized HF patients.
Section snippets
Participants and data collection
We obtained data from a prospective observational cohort of patients hospitalized for heart failure at two Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers. Patients in this study had one or more audio-recorded outpatient post-discharge follow-up visits with a participating primary care internist or cardiologist within 6 months of their hospital discharge. From this study cohort, we selected patients age 65 years or older (N = 52), because we believed ACP communication would be more likely in an older
Participant characteristics
Patient participants (n = 52) had a mean age of almost 71 years, were predominantly male (98.0%), Black/African American (51.9%), and were unmarried/single (63.5%) (Table 2). Patients had mean EF of 34.4% (SD 14.5) within 12 months of study enrollment. Physicians reported AHA/ACC HF stage for 29 out of the 52 patients, rating 93.1% as Stage C or D. Physician participants (N = 44) had a mean age of almost 38 years, were predominantly male (57.5%) and White (42.5%), and were in practice for an
Discussion
In this study of recently hospitalized heart failure patients, physicians infrequently used ACP communication during clinic visits after the HF hospitalization, and those who did often raised only a single element of ACP rather than engaging in more complete discussions that addressed all three elements as recommended in the literature. These physicians frequently explained the nature and course of heart failure by providing a general definition of HF and its mechanisms, but rarely mentioned
Funding
Supported in part by grant ECV-02-254 from VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D), Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ahluwalia is supported by an Office of Academic Affiliation's VA Associated Health Postdoctoral Fellowship Program at the VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center of Excellence.
Role of the sponsor
The funding organizations did not participate in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest or any relevant financial interest in this manuscript.
References (45)
- et al.
Advance care planning for patients with COPD: past, present and future
Patient Educ Couns
(2012) - et al.
Preferences of patients with heart failure for prognosis communication
Can J Cardiol
(2007) - et al.
Meeting the communication and information needs of chronic heart failure patients
J Pain Symptom Manage
(2008) - et al.
They diagnosed bad heart”: a qualitative exploration of patients’ knowledge about and experiences with heart failure
Heart Lung
(2008) - et al.
Outcomes, preferences for resuscitation, and physician–patient communication among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. SUPPORT investigators. Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments
Am J Med
(1998) - et al.
Consensus statement: palliative and supportive care in advanced heart failure
J Card Fail
(2004) - et al.
Efficacy of a cancer research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2002) - et al.
Improving patient education by an in-service communication training for health care providers at a cancer ward: communication climate, patient satisfaction and the need of lasting implementation
Patient Educ Couns
(2010) - et al.
A randomized trial to improve communication about end-of-life care among patients with COPD
Chest
(2012) - et al.
Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the american heart association
Circulation
(2012)