Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT05681585

Advanced Care Planning for the Severely Ill Home-dwelling Elderly

This study will develop and evaluate a complex intervention to implement advance care planning for severely ill home-dwelling elderly acutely admitted to hospital, by using a cluster randomized design.

Twelve Norwegian acute geriatric hospital units will participate in the main study, each as one cluster. Of the twelve clusters, half will receive implementation support and training immediately, and the other half will receive similar support after the intervention period. The study includes 1) assessment of implementation outcomes (fidelity) in the participating units,2) health service and clinical outcomes including a) questionnaires to all staff in the units before and after the implementation period, questionnaires to attending clinicians and qualitative interviews with health personnel and local unit leaders b) questionnaires to patients and their relatives, patients records and data from central health registers and qualitative interviews with patients and relatives. Furthermore we will assess barriers and facilitators for advance care planning in 1) a wider health service context, and 2) at the national, regional and municipal level, and do economic analyses.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Conditions

Advance Care Planning Death Pathologic Processes Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms

Age range

70 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Bærum, Oslo, Bærum kommune, Norway

Loading trial locations.

About this study

Background:

Severely ill elderly patients and their relatives are often poorly involved in treatment and care decisions. Advance care planning is a well-documented tool to comply with the ethical and legal imperative to involve both the patient and their next of kin in the planning of current and future treatment and care. The overall aim of this project is to improve health services, user involvement and quality of life for severely ill elderly people living at home, and their relatives, in an efficient, sustainable and coordinated way, through better implementation of Advance care planning (ACP).

Setting: Twelve hospital wards providing care to acutely admitted elderly home-dwelling patients, either pure geriatric units or mixed units with specialists in geriatric medicine.

Research questions:

  • What is the current level of implementation of ACP for home-dwelling elderly patients with severe somatic disease in the participating clinical units?
  • What are the most important facilitators and barriers among all relevant stakeholders - to implementing ACP at the a) clinical, b) health care service- and c) national, regional and municipal level?
  • What are the most important moral dilemmas and conflicting interests related to ACP, and how can these be resolved?
  • What are the benefits and disadvantages with the implementation support and ACP experienced by the patients, among next of kin, health personnel and implementation teams?
  • Does the implementation support program - compared to no such support - improve a) the implementation of ACP (fidelity), b) quality of communication and decision-making for patients and relatives when approaching the end of life, and c) congruence between the patient's preferences for information and involvement and the attending clinician's perceptions of the same, and other relevant outcomes for patients, relatives, and the attending clinicians?
  • Is the implementation support program associated with changes in health personnel's perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, confidence in, and experiences in relation to information giving and involvement of patients and relatives?
  • Is higher level of implementation (fidelity) of ACP associated with improved outcomes for patients, relatives, the staff and the services?
  • Is the implementation support program for ACP a cost-effective intervention?

Hypotheses:

  • The current level of implementation of ACP for home-dwelling elderly patients with severe somatic disease in participating clinical units is low.
  • There are important facilitators for and barriers to implementing ACP among all stakeholders at the a) clinical, b) health care service- and c) national and other higher levels.
  • There are important moral dilemmas and conflicting interests related to ACP, and they can be dealt with through systematic approaches and ethics reflection.
  • Patients, among next of kin, health personnel and implementation teams experience both benefits and disadvantages with the implementation support and ACP.
  • The implementation support program - compared to no such support - will improve a) improve the implementation of ACP (fidelity), b) quality of communication and decision-making for patients and relatives when approaching the end of life, and c) congruence between the patient's preferences for information and involvement and the attending clinician's perceptions of the same, and other relevant outcomes for patients, relatives, and the attending clinicians.
  • The implementation support program is associated with changes in health personnel's perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, confidence in, and experiences in relation to information giving and involvement of patients and relatives
  • Higher level of implementation (fidelity) of ACP is associated with improved outcomes for patients, relatives, the staff and the services
  • Outcomes for patients, relatives and the public health- and welfare services justify the costs of the implementation support program and of ACP in routine care.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for patients and relatives the quantitative and triadic sub-study:

Inclusion criteria

for patients:

  • Home-dwelling
  • 70 years or older
  • Acutely admitted to the participating unit
  • Sufficient language proficiency in Norwegian to answer the questionnaire
  • Clinical frailty score of 4 or more
  • The physician responsible for the patient's medical care answers "no" to "Surprise question" from Gold Standards Framework proactive identification guidance
  • Both patient and a close relative (preferably the closest relative) would participate in ACP together if offered
  • Both patient and the close relative consent to participate in the research project

Exclusion criteria

for patients:

  • The patient is not competent to consent to research participation
  • The patient is expected to die within 24 hours
  • The patient has participated in ACP prior to the current hospital admission
  • In the intervention arm
  • ACP is not conducted with patient, next of kin and physician before hospital discharge
  • The clinician that participated in the ACP conversation has not consented to research participation
  • In the control arm
  • The patient would not have been able to participate in ACP during hospitalization
  • An attending clinician has not consented to research participation

Inclusion criteria

for relatives:

  • A close relative of a patient who fulfill all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria; and who would be willing to participate in ACP together with the patient if offered
  • 18 years or older
  • Sufficient language proficiency in Norwegian to answer the questionnaire
  • Both patient and the close relative consent to participate in the research project

Exclusion criteria

for relatives:

  • The relative is not competent to consent to research participation
  • In the intervention arm
  • ACP is not carried out with the patient, next of kin and attending clinician before hospital discharge
  • In the control arm
  • The relative would not have been able to participate in ACP during hospitalization

Treatment and study plan

Implementation support program

Other

The intervention consists of:

I Implementation strategies:

1.1 Ensuring leadership commitment 1.2 Responsive evaluation 1.3 Whole ward approach 1.4 Train the trainer model 1.5 Sustainability after the study

II Implementation interventions 2.1 Implementation team 2.2 ACP coordinator 2.3 Training and supervision: Kick-off, training of resource persons and health care personnel including practical exercises, network conferences 2.4 Toolkit and shared resources: ACP guideline, teaching material, information leaflets, documentation templates etc. 2.5 Structured fidelity measurements of the implementation level of a) the implementation interventions and b) the clinical intervention, with tailored feedback and supervision

III Clinical intervention: Advance Care Planning 3.1 Routine information and invitation to Advance Care Planning to all eligible patients 3.2 Written information to patients and relatives 3.3 Documentation and collaboration with other health care levels

Primary outcomes

  1. Implementation outcome study: Fidelity to the intervention model - Advanced Care Planning

    Time frame: Baseline, 9 and 18 months in the intervention arm. Baseline and 18 months in the control arm.

    Change in fidelity (sum score) measured by the fidelity scale for Advanced Care Planning. Rated from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

  2. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient-reported outcome

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Quality of communication and decision-making when the patient is approaching the end of life. 4 items, scale 0-9.

  3. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported outcome

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Quality of communication and decision-making for the patient and the next-of-kin when approaching the end of life. 4 items, rated 0-9.

  4. Clinical effectiveness study 3: Clinician outcome

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Congruence between the patient's preferences for information and involvement and the attending clinician's perceptions of the same, 4 items, scales: 0-9, 0-2, 0-9, 7 alternative answers, respectively

Secondary outcomes

  1. Implementation outcome study: Fidelity to the intervention model - Advanced Care Planning 1

    Time frame: Baseline, 9 and 18 months in the intervention arm. Baseline and 18 months in the control arm.

    Change in fidelity subscale - Organizational implementation - measured by the fidelity scale for Advanced Care Planning. Rated from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

  2. Implementation outcome study: Fidelity to the intervention model - Advanced Care Planning 2

    Time frame: Baseline, 9 and 18 months in the intervention arm. Baseline and 18 months in the control arm.

    Change in fidelity subscale - Quality of ACP - measured by the fidelity scale for Advanced Care Planning. Rated from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

  3. Implementation outcome study: Fidelity to the intervention model - Advanced Care Planning 3

    Time frame: Baseline, 9 and 18 months in the intervention arm. Baseline and 18 months in the control arm.

    Change in fidelity subscale - Penetration - measured by the fidelity scale for Advanced Care Planning. Rated from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

  4. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient-reported seondary outcome 1

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Communication about preferences for information and involvement, providers' current compliance with these preferences, and trust in future compliance. 5 items, rated 0-9.

  5. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient-reported seondary outcome 2

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Satisfaction with information and involvement concerning health care provided during admittance and that will be provided after discharge, and with information about the patient's state of health, discharge, prognosis and future health care needs. 10 items, rated 0-9

  6. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient-reported seondary outcome 3

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Self-efficacy in communicating with next-of-kin and health care professionals about future deterioration, preferences for life-prolonging treatment in such a situation, and health care when approaching the end of life. 9 items, rated 0-3

  7. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient-reported seondary outcome 4

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Problem causing admittance solved, satisfaction with arrival, stay, and discharge at the hospital, and trust in necessary health care in the future. 5 items, rated 0-9

  8. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient-reported seondary outcome 5

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Concrete preferences for information and who should participate in important decisions about health care, and assessment of the amount of information given. 4 items, scales: 0-9, 0-2, 0-9, 7 alternative answers, respectively

  9. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient-reported seondary outcome 6

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    General life satisfaction (ref. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being). 1 item, rated 0-10.

  10. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient registry data 1 - Number of hospital admissions

    Time frame: From 18 months before to 18 months after inclusion (or until death)

    Retrieved from national registries

  11. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient registry data 2 - Other use of health care services and use of medication

    Time frame: From 18 months before to 18 months after inclusion (or until death)

    Retrieved from national registries

  12. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient registry data 3 - Time before death (for patients dying before 18 months after inclusion)

    Time frame: From inclusion to 18 months after inclusion

    Retrieved from national registries

  13. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Patient health records data

    Time frame: From 18 months before to 18 months after inclusion (or until death)

    Documentation concerning ACP and other similar conversations, palliative care plan, the patient's life stance or religious beliefs, and life prolonging treatment and palliative care given and any decisions to limit such treatment or care, and similarly for hospital admittance.

  14. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported seondary outcome 1

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Satisfaction with information and involvement concerning the patient's health care provided during admittance and that will be provided after discharge, with information about the patient's state of health, discharge, prognosis, future health care needs, and with the providers' understanding of the next-of-kin's situation. 11 items, rated 0-9

  15. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported seondary outcome 2

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Self-efficacy in communicating with the patient and health care professionals about future deterioration, the patient's preferences for life-prolonging treatment in such a situation, and health care when the patient is approaching the end of life. 9 items, rated 0-3.

  16. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported seondary outcome 3

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Problem causing admittance solved, satisfaction with arrival, stay, and discharge at the hospital, trust in necessary health care for the patient in the future, and make sure that the patient receives needed health care in the time to come. 6 items, ratet 0-9.

  17. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported seondary outcome 4

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Next-of-kin's concrete preferences for information and assessment of the amount of information given, the patient's preference for information and who should participate in important decisions about health care. 4 items, scales: 0-9, 0-2, 0-9, 7 alternative answers, respectively

  18. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported seondary outcome 5

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Next-of-kin's tasks and burdens. 7 items with various scales/response alternatives.

  19. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported seondary outcome 6

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Informal carer's care-related quality of life (ref. CarerQoL-7D (Brouwer et al. 2006)). 7 items, rated 0-2

  20. Clinical effectiveness study 2: Relative-reported seondary outcome 7

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    General life satisfaction (ref. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being). 1 item, rated 0-10.

  21. Clinical effectiveness study 3: Clinician secondary outcome 1

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Self-confidence in matching involvement of patient and next-of-kin and future decision-making to patient's preferences. 4 items, rated 0-10

  22. Clinical effectiveness study 3: Clinician secondary outcome 2

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    Self-efficacy in communicating about future deterioration, preferences for life-prolonging treatment in such a situation, for future care (at home or in a nursing home), and for health care when approaching the end of life, with the patient, next-of-kin, and other providers. 16 items, rated 0-3.

  23. Clinical effectiveness study 4: All staff - 1

    Time frame: Baseline and 18 months in both intervention and control arm

    Patients' and relatives' preferences for information and involvement. 7 questions.

  24. Clinical effectiveness study 4: All staff - 2

    Time frame: Baseline and 18 months in both intervention and control arm

    Whether information, involvement and health care provided is concordant with the patients' and relatives' preferences, and reasons for discordance. 9 questions.

  25. Clinical effectiveness study 4: All staff - 3

    Time frame: Baseline and 18 months in both intervention and control arm

    Decision making authority - clinical realities and ideals. 16 questions.

  26. Clinical effectiveness study 4: All staff - 4

    Time frame: Baseline and 18 months in both intervention and control arm

    Self-efficacy in ACP-relevant information and involvement tasks.17 questions.

  27. Clinical effectiveness study 4: All staff - 5

    Time frame: Baseline and 18 months in both intervention and control arm.

    Self-confidence in ACP-relevant information and involvement tasks. 7 questions.

  28. Economic sub-study: Increased costs related to implementing and practicing ACP

    Time frame: Measured before baseline and then throughout the implementation period (0-18 months).

    Increased costs related to implementing and practicing ACP in the clinical units in the intervention arm. Compared to normal costs before baseline. Differences in costs will be compared to the primary outcomes (differences measured as percentage point) and selected secondary outcomes.

Other outcomes

  1. Clinical effectiveness study 1: Clinical data about the patient from participating/attending clinician

    Time frame: During the intervention period (10-18 months after the start of the implementation support)

    We ask the participant clinician (clinical effectiveness study 3) to report key clinical information about the patient. 14 items in the intervention units, and 15 items in the control units, with various scales/response alternatives, including free text answers (e.g. main diagnosis).

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Reidar Pedersen, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+47 41575987

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Oslo

Other

Collaborators

  • Diakonhjemmet Hospital
  • Helse Sor-Ost
  • Hospital of Southern Norway Trust
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  • Oslo Metropolitan University
  • Oslo University Hospital
  • Ostfold Hospital Trust
  • Sykehuset Innlandet HF
  • The Hospital of Vestfold
  • The Research Council of Norway
  • University Hospital, Akershus
  • Vestre Viken Hospital Trust

Registry information

Official study title

Implementing Advanced Care Planning in the Routine Care for Acutely Admitted Patients in Geriatric Units: a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

Important dates

Study start
2023
Primary completion
2024
Study completion
2026
First posted
Jan 12, 2023
Registry last updated
Apr 6, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.