This multicenter RCT of 200 hospitalized patients and their family members evaluates an "informed assent" approach to discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, compared to usual care, in older seriously ill hospitalized patients with severe life-limiting illness or severe functional impairment.
Increasing evidence suggests that high quality palliative care in older patients improves quality of care, patient and family satisfaction, and costs of care. However, while some specific palliative care interventions have been investigated, exactly how we should provide this care remains unclear. One important component of high quality provider-patient communication is discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) within the context of the patient's values and goals of care. Unfortunately, these conversations are often rushed, focused only on the procedure rather than the patient's goals and values, and CPR is often offered as if a choice on a menu. Elderly hospitalized patients are unlikely to have made decisions about CPR prior to hospitalization, and these discussions often leave patients and families feeling burdened, stressed, and concerned. Outcomes after in-hospital CPR in chronically ill older patients continue to be very poor, despite decades of efforts toward improvement. The investigators aim to change the paradigm of CPR discussions with older adults unlikely to benefit from CPR. This study is a randomized controlled trial comparing an innovative "informed assent" approach to discussing CPR versus usual care with attention control for older hospitalized adults with life-limiting illness or severe functional impairment, enrolling patients and family members at three different study sites. Informed assent includes: 1) eliciting values and goals, 2) explaining CPR in the context of illness, and 3) a caring statement that the patient should not receive CPR if values include avoiding burdensome therapies unlikely to provide benefit. Thus, the provider can elicit values, convey information, and state an assessment, while allowing the patient or family to disagree. The investigators hypothesize that informed assent will improve quality of and satisfaction with communication about CPR; reduce the burden of potentially harmful CPR discussions, including reduced patient and family symptoms of depression and anxiety; and reduce intensity of care and health care utilization. The intervention builds on prior work investigating CPR outcomes in older adults and performing pilot studies of the informed assent intervention in both inpatients and outpatients.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
182
Participants randomized to the intervention arm will participate in a discussion about CPR with a study doctor that follows these steps: 1. Patient's values and preferences for therapies and outcomes elicited from patient and family; overall therapeutic goals formulated 2. Description of CPR and dying process provided 3. Personalized explanation provided about probable lack of achieving any reasonable therapeutic goal with CPR (i.e. why s/he is a poor candidate for CPR due to underlying illness) 4. Patient and family informed that due to severe underlying illness and high likelihood that CPR will be burdensome/harmful and will not provide benefit, CPR will not be offered unless they disagree (except in rare circumstance where overall therapeutic goals from step 1 are to preserve life regardless of quality of that life) Assessment of patient's and family's understanding of issues discussed; patients may actively disagree and request CPR be performed, but CPR not explicitly offered
Participants who are randomized to the usual care arm will receive a friendly visit in the hospital from research personnel to ask if they have any questions or concerns. Follow up assessments and time windows will be explained. Importance of their participation in the study will be emphasized.
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina, United States
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont, United States
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington, United States
Quality of Communication Questionnaire (QOCQ), slightly modified to focus on communication about cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Patient-Assessed Quality of Communication about CPR
Time frame: Study day 5 +/- 1 or hospital discharge, whichever is earlier
Quality of Communication Questionnaire (QOCQ), slightly modified to focus on communication about cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Family-Assessed Quality of Communication about CPR
Time frame: Study day 5 +/- 1 or hospital discharge, whichever is earlier
5-question communication domain of the CANHELP Questionnaire, slightly modified to focus on communication about cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Patient-Assessed Satisfaction with Communication about CPR
Time frame: Study day 5 +/- 1 or hospital discharge, whichever is earlier
5-question communication domain of the CANHELP Questionnaire, slightly modified to focus on communication about cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Family-Assessed Satisfaction with Communication about CPR
Time frame: Study day 5 +/- 1 or hospital discharge, whichever is earlier
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Survey (HADS)
Patient Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms
Time frame: Study day 5 +/- 1 or hospital discharge (whichever is earlier), 3 months, and 6 months
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Survey (HADS)
Family Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms
Time frame: Study day 5 +/- 1 or hospital discharge (whichever is earlier), 3 months, and 6 months
Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders (yes/no)
Time frame: Study day 5 +/- 1 or hospital discharge (whichever is earlier), 3 months, and 6 months
Time to Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders
Time frame: To 6 months post-randomization
Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) 9yes/no)
Time frame: Measured at the time hospital discharge, which will likely occur at an average of 6 days after admission, but will be assessed for up to 6 months.
ICU length of stay (days)
Time frame: Measured at the time hospital discharge, which will likely occur at an average of 6 days after admission, but will be assessed for up to 6 months.
Tracheostomy placement (yes/no)
Time frame: Measured at the time hospital discharge, which will likely occur at an average of 6 days after admission, but will be assessed for up to 6 months.
Gastrostomy tube placement (yes/no)
Time frame: Measured at the time hospital discharge, which will likely occur at an average of 6 days after admission, but will be assessed for up to 6 months.
Receipt of mechanical ventilation (yes/no)
Time frame: Measured at the time hospital discharge, which will likely occur at an average of 6 days after admission, but will be assessed for up to 6 months.
Receipt of renal replacement therapy (yes/no)
Time frame: Measured at the time hospital discharge, which will likely occur at an average of 6 days after admission, but will be assessed for up to 6 months.
Receipt of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (yes/no)
Time frame: Measured at the time hospital discharge, which will likely occur at an average of 6 days after admission, but will be assessed for up to 6 months.
Cost of health care after initial hospitalization
Repeat hospital admissions, ICU admissions, nursing home says, hospice care stays, and use of home health care will be assessed, and if they occurred, duration will be recorded. A standardized value (costs, not charges) will be applied to these measures to determine overall cost.
Time frame: 3 months and 6 months post-randomization
Mortality (dead or alive)
Time frame: To 6 months post-randomization
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.