Use of a computer model and care coaches to increase advance care planning conversations for patients with metastatic cancer.
Authors: Divya Gupta, Touran Fardeen, Winifred Teuteberg, Briththa Seevaratnam, Mary Khay Asuncion, Nina Alves, Brian Rogers, Joel W. Neal, Alice C. Fan, Divya Ahuja Parikh, Manali I. Patel, Sumit Shah, Sandy Srinivas, Jane E. Huang, Sunil A. Reddy, Kristen N. Ganjoo, Nam Bui, Jennifer Hansen, Michael F. Gensheimer, Kavitha Ramchandran
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

8 Background: Patients with metastatic cancer benefit from advance care planning (ACP) conversations. Despite initiatives which train providers to have ACP conversations using the serious illness care program (SICP) conversation guide, few patients have a documented prognosis discussion due to busy clinic schedules and difficulty in deciding the right times to have such conversations. We designed an intervention to improve ACP by incorporating a validated computer model to identify patients at high risk for mortality in combination with lay care coaches. We investigated whether this would improve end of life quality measures. Methods: Four Stanford clinics were included in this pilot; all received SICP training. Two clinics (thoracic and genitourinary) underwent the intervention (computer model + care coach), and two clinics (sarcoma and cutaneous) served as the control. For providers in the intervention, an email was sent every Sunday listing the metastatic cancer patients who would be seen in clinic the following week and a predicted prognosis generated by the model. A lay care coach contacted patients with a predicted survival ≤2 years to have an ACP conversation with them. After, the care coach notified the provider to suggest discussion regarding prognosis with the patient. Criteria for a patient visit to be included in the analysis were: age ≥18, established patient, has sufficient EMR data for computer model, and no prior prognosis documentation. The primary outcome was documentation of prognosis in the ACP form by the end of the week following the clinic visit. Results: 5330 visits in 1298 unique patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 67 (range 19-97); 790 male, 508 female. 1970 visits were with patients with ≤2 year predicted survival. Prognosis discussion was documented by providers in the ACP form for 8.1% of intervention visits compared to 0.07% of control visits (p=0.001 in mixed effects model). Of the 1298 unique patients, 84 were deceased by December 2020. 41.7% died in the hospital. 59.5% were enrolled in hospice prior to death, and 19.0% were hospitalized in the ICU ≤14 days prior to death. Of deceased patients with ACP form prognosis documentation, 5.0% had ≥2 hospitalizations in the 30 days before death compared to 23.4% of deceased patients with no prognosis documented (p=0.10). For ≥ 2 ER visits in the 30 days before death, the proportions were 5.0% and 20.3% (p=0.17). Conclusions: This pilot study supports that our intervention is associated with higher rates of prognosis discussions and documentation. There was a trend towards better quality of end of life care as noted by higher rates of hospice enrollment and less intensive care at end of life. These results merit further investigation as a means to improve goal-concordant care and ensure appropriate care for cancer patients at the end of life.