Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 25;20(1):97.
doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00796-1.

Facilitating advance care planning in the general practice setting for patients with a chronic, life-limiting illness: protocol for a phase-III cluster-randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of the ACP-GP intervention

Affiliations

Facilitating advance care planning in the general practice setting for patients with a chronic, life-limiting illness: protocol for a phase-III cluster-randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of the ACP-GP intervention

Julie Stevens et al. BMC Palliat Care. .

Abstract

Background: Advance care planning (ACP), a process of communication about patients' preferences for future medical care, should be initiated in a timely manner. Ideally situated for this initiation is the general practitioner (GP). The intervention to improve the initiation of ACP for patients with a chronic life-limiting illness in general practice (ACP-GP) includes an ACP workbook for patients, ACP communication training for GPs, planned ACP conversations, and documentation of ACP conversation outcomes in a structured template. We present the study protocol of a Phase-III randomized controlled trial (RCT) of ACP-GP that aims to evaluate its effects on outcomes at the GP, patient, and surrogate decision maker (SDM) levels; and to assess the implementation process of the intervention.

Methods: This RCT will take place in Flanders, Belgium. Thirty-six GPs, 108 patients with a chronic, life-limiting illness, and their (potential) SDM will be recruited, then cluster-randomized to the ACP-GP intervention or the control condition. The primary outcome for GPs is ACP self-efficacy; primary outcome for patients is level of ACP engagement. Secondary outcomes for GPs are ACP practices, knowledge and attitudes; and documentation of ACP discussion outcomes. Secondary outcomes for patients are quality of life; anxiety; depression; appointment of an SDM; completion of new ACP documents; thinking about ACP; and communication with the GP. The secondary outcome for the SDM is level of engagement with ACP. A process evaluation will assess the recruitment and implementation of the intervention using the RE-AIM framework.

Discussion: While the general practice setting holds promise for timely initiation of ACP, there is a lack of randomized trial studies evaluating the effectiveness of ACP interventions implemented in this setting. After this Phase-III RCT, we will be able to present valuable evidence of the effects of this ACP-GP intervention, with the potential for offering a well-tested and evaluated program to be implemented in general practice. The results of the process evaluation will provide insight into what contributes to or detracts from implementation success, as well as how the intervention can be adapted to specific contexts or needs.

Trial registration: Prospectively registered at with ISRCTN ( ISRCTN12995230 ); registered 19/06/2020.

Keywords: Advance care planning; Communication; Complex intervention; General practice; Phase III; Process evaluation; Randomized controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the ACP-GP trial

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rietjens JAC, Sudore RL, Connolly M, van Delden J, Drickamer MA, Droger M, van der Heide A, Heyland DK, Houttekier D, Janssen DJA, Orsi L, Payne S, Seymour J, Jox RJ, Korfage IJ, European Association for Palliative Care Definition and recommendations for advance care planning: an international consensus supported by the European Association for Palliative Care. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):e543–e551. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30582-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340(7751):847. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1345. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Teno JM, Gruneir A, Schwartz Z, Nanda A, Wetle T. Association between advance directives and quality of end-of- life care: a National Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(2):189–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01045.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tierney WM, Dexter PR, Gramelspacher GP, Perkins AJ, Zhou X-H, Wolinsky FD. The Effect of Discussions About Advance Directives on Patients’ Satisfaction with Primary Care. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(1):32–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.00215.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Rietjens JAC, Van Der Heide A. The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2014;28(8):1000–1025. doi: 10.1177/0269216314526272. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources