Team-based Versus Primary Care Clinician-led Advance Care Planning in Practice-based Research Networks
NCT ID: NCT03577002
Last Updated: 2021-05-06
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
1120 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-02-28
2023-07-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effectiveness of the HF-ACP Website Study
NCT03539510
Effectiveness of the FairCare System for Patients With Advanced Illness
NCT00105599
Patient-centered Care Transitions in Heart Failure: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial
NCT02112227
Primary Care Management/Action Plans for Advanced Chronic Diseases
NCT00202150
Audit and Feedback for Primary Care: a Cluster-randomized Trial
NCT01878370
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Many people die after living with chronic conditions that have a broadly predictable course. This should give patients and families the opportunity to consider what is most important to them and plan for the care they wish to receive in their final months and at the end of life. However, in many cases health care defaults to more testing and treatments, creating a potential mismatch between healthcare services and what patients and families want.
Serious illness care planning occurs once a patient with advanced illness reaches a life expectancy of one to two years. Patients face a wide range of choices that can profoundly affect their quality of life. Planning for the last months and days may improve quality of life, by assuring health care supports patient goals and that preferences for life-sustaining interventions honored. For many patients, this planning should occur in the primary care setting, but primary care practices are over-extended, clinicians and staff are often uncomfortable discussing prognosis, and patients and families often do not ask.
The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) provides a comprehensive implementation strategy, training modules, and a structured conversation guide to promote realistic and compassionate discussions with seriously ill patients in any health care setting. SICP is widely used, having trained hundreds of clinicians and used with thousands of patients. It contributes to the quadruple aims of optimizing healthcare performance through improving patient experience and appropriate utilization of resources, increasing population health, and improving the work life of clinicians. The challenge is that it is unclear whether whether targeting clinicians or entire teams is more efficient and effective when implementing SICP in primary care.
Study Aims:
The study will fill this critical gap by comparing two models of SICP in primary care: clinician-focused SICP and team-based SICP. In the clinician-focused model, a patient's primary care clinician is responsible for serious illness care planning, while in the team-based model, tasks are purposefully shared across roles. This cluster-randomized trial has the following aims:
* AIM 1. Assess the comparative effectiveness in primary care of team-based vs. primary clinician-focused SICP to achieve the long-term outcomes of concordance of care with patient goals and more time at home for patients with prognoses of two years of life or less.
* AIM 2. Assess the comparative effectiveness in primary care of a team-based SICP vs. clinician-focused SICP on place of death and family bereavement in cases where the patient dies during the study period, as well as additional secondary short term and intermediate outcomes including patient, family and clinician satisfaction with communication and decisions and quality of life.
* AIM 3. Identify determinants of successful implementation of the two different models of SICP across varying settings, with a focus on the comparison of practices in the U.S. and Canada and on practice-level characteristics.
Overall study design A cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) conducted in primary care practices recruited from seven practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the U.S. and Canada. The practices will be randomly assigned to implement either the primary care clinician-focused model or the team-based model. A cRCT is proposed because the two models cannot be implemented simultaneously in the same practice. SICP requires changes in work flow and different training is required for the clinician-focused and team-based models.
Main components of the intervention and comparators The clinician-focused model provides training and standard infrastructure support within the practice, similar to what would be provided for any primary care clinician activity. The team-based model splits the serious illness care conversation and planning into its components and these are shared across team members and may be spread over time. The composition of the teams and how they divide their tasks will be allowed to vary across practices and patients; this is necessary and realistic as staffing patterns and resources vary across practices and ACP should be customized to patient needs.
Study population The target population is adults living in the community with serious illnesses and their families. The study will be conducted in a minimum of 36 primary care practices in seven primary care PBRNs (five in the U.S., two in Canada). Each PBRN will recruit a minimum of six practices to enroll 130 patients for a total of 1260 enrolled, so that with attrition, over 750 will be available for analysis.
Primary and secondary outcomes The primary outcomes are patient-centered. These are: a) care that corresponds to patient goals and b) time spent at home. Assuring goal-concordant care is the overarching purpose of the SICP. Patient outcomes will be measured at enrollment, six months, and one year of follow-up. If the patient dies during the study period, place of death will be recorded and a family member contacted to complete a bereavement survey.
Secondary outcomes will also include intermediate and proximal or short-term outcomes for patients and families including patient and caregiver quality of life, depression and anxiety, satisfaction with communication, decision quality, engagement and acceptability of the SICP program and model to patients.
Analytic methods Analytic models will be refined with the input of the Research Project Partnership (Steering Committee), including patient and clinician stakeholder representatives as well as experts in biostatistics. Analysis will be conducted under an intention to treat assumption with multiple imputation procedures and selection models for missing data. Multilevel modeling will be used to account for clustering at the practice (cluster) and individual level, and interaction terms will be included in the analysis to identify potential heterogeneity of treatment effects.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
OTHER
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Clinician SICP
Advance care planning between primary care clinician and the patient/family using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
SICP includes the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, which provides patient-tested language for initial and follow-up conversations; training materials, including didactic materials and case studies for structured role playing; and implementation guidance including recommended approaches to identifying appropriate patients and templates for documentation of conversations
Team SICP
Advance care planning between team members and the patient/family using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
SICP includes the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, which provides patient-tested language for initial and follow-up conversations; training materials, including didactic materials and case studies for structured role playing; and implementation guidance including recommended approaches to identifying appropriate patients and templates for documentation of conversations
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
SICP includes the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, which provides patient-tested language for initial and follow-up conversations; training materials, including didactic materials and case studies for structured role playing; and implementation guidance including recommended approaches to identifying appropriate patients and templates for documentation of conversations
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Be an adult 18 years of age or older
* Has a serious illness(es) or condition(s) that is likely to limit the patient's life expectancy to less than 2 years as defined by using clinical intuition or a patient identification algorithm when possible
* Is community-dwelling or is planned to be discharged to a community-based setting
* Can speak, read and write in English, French or Spanish
* Has had an initial advance care planning (ACP) conversation at a primary care practice participating in this project.
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients may not currently be in an intensive care unit or hospital with no expectation of discharge
* Patient may not be in an institution (e.g., nursing home) or awaiting nursing home placement in the near future
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
OTHER
University of Colorado, Denver
OTHER
University of Iowa
OTHER
Duke University
OTHER
Laval University
OTHER
University of Toronto
OTHER
Oregon Health and Science University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Annette Totten
Associate Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Annette Totten, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Oregon Health and Science University
France Legare, MD, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Universite Laval
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners
Aurora, Colorado, United States
Iowa Research Network
Iowa City, Iowa, United States
Duke Primary Care Research Consortium
Durham, North Carolina, United States
Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network
Portland, Oregon, United States
Wisconsin Research and Education Network
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
University of Toronto Practice-based Research Network
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Quebec Practice-based Research Network
Québec, Quebec, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Totten AM, Fagnan LJ, Dorr D, Michaels LC, Izumi SS, Combe A, Legare F. Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Team-Based to Clinician-Focused Implementation of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care. J Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;22(S1):82-89. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0117.
Gomes Souza L, Archambault PM, Asmaou Bouba D, Dofara SG, Guay-Belanger S, Cortez Ghio S, Gadio S, Izumi SS, Michaels L, Paquette JS, Totten AM, Legare F; Meta-LARC ACP Cluster Randomized Trial team. Impact of a team-based versus individual clinician-focused training approach on primary healthcare professionals' intention to have serious illness conversations with patients: A theory-informed process evaluation embedded within a cluster randomized trial. PLoS One. 2025 Mar 26;20(3):e0298994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298994. eCollection 2025.
Asmaou Bouba D, Gomes Souza L, Dofara SG, Guay-Belanger S, Gadio S, Mochcovitch D, Paquette JS, Izumi SS, Archambault P, Totten AM, Rivest LP, Legare F. Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial. J CME. 2024 Nov 3;13(1):2420475. doi: 10.1080/28338073.2024.2420475. eCollection 2024.
Ma JE, Lowe J, Berkowitz C, Kim A, Togo I, Musser RC, Fischer J, Shah K, Ibrahim S, Bosworth HB, Totten AM, Dolor R. Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2023 May 12;25:e41884. doi: 10.2196/41884.
Izumi SS, Caron D, Guay-Belanger S, Archambault P, Michaels L, Heinlein J, Dorr DA, Totten A, Legare F. Development and Evaluation of Serious Illness Conversation Training for Interprofessional Primary Care Teams. J Palliat Med. 2023 Sep;26(9):1198-1206. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2022.0268. Epub 2023 Apr 11.
Schmidt ME, Daly JM, Xu Y, Levy BT. Improving Iowa Research Network Patient Recruitment for an Advance Care Planning Study. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021 Jan-Dec;12:21501327211009699. doi: 10.1177/21501327211009699.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Trial informational website
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
PLC-1609-36277
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.