Background: Patient identification is an important step for advance care planning (ACP) discussions. Objectives: We conducted a scoping review to identify prognostic indices potentially useful for initiating ACP. Methods: We included studies that developed and/or validated a multivariable prognostic index for all-cause mortality between 6 months and 5 years in community-dwelling adults. PubMed was searched in October 2018 for articles meeting our search criteria. If a systematic review was identified from the search, we checked for additional eligible articles in its references. We abstracted data on population studied, discrimination, calibration, where to find the index, and variables included. Each index was further assessed for clinical usability. Results: We identified 18 articles with a total of 17 unique prognostic indices after screening 9154 titles. The majority of indices (88%) had c-statistics greater than or equal to 0.70. Only 1 index was externally validated. Ten indices, 8 developed in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom, were considered clinically usable. Conclusion: Of the 17 unique prognostic indices, 10 may be useful for implementation in the primary care setting to identify patients who may benefit from ACP discussions. An index classified as "clinically usable" may not be easy to use because of a large number of variables that are not routinely collected and the need to program the index into the electronic medical record.

Background Advance care planning (ACP) involves patients and family members in discussions with clinicians about their values, goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. Objectives: To (1) assess whether an ACP conversation using the Serious Illness Conversation (SIC) was initiated and documented; (2) assess which components of SIC were documented; (3) determine how frequently clinicians trained to use the SIC guide used ACP billing codes during the study time period, (4) determine whether there was a significant difference in mortality risk score according to documentation of each component of the SIC. Methods; Thirteen clinicians at three family medicine offices were trained in the Serious Illness Care Program and asked to document SICs in the electronic medical record (EMR). A retrospective chart review of SIC components was conducted in the EMRs of patients who presumably had ACP conversations initiated by the trained clinicians. Patients were identified using the billing codes for ACP conversations and through referrals from another study that requires clinicians to have ACP conversations with their patients. Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables were conducted. Results: A total of 157 patients were included in this study; 131 patients referred from another ACP study and an additional 26 patients using the billing codes of ACP conversations. Through retrospective chart review, the mean age of patients was 72 years and 54 were male. Sixty-two (40%) charts had one or more SIC components documented. “Explore key topics” was documented most frequently for 58 (38%) patients by the 13 participating clinicians. Mean mortality risk score was 10.7 and higher scores were significantly correlated with more SIC components documented ( rp = 0.217, P = 0.007). Conclusion: Little use of the SIC guide among trained physicians was found in the EMR. It was expected that provision of an EMR template for documenting the SIC would have facilitated documentation of SICs.

Introduction/Objectives In February 2019, recruitment began in Iowa Research Network offices for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded Advance Care Planning (ACP) study to be conducted in 7 primary care practice-based research networks across the United States and Canada. The main study trained clinicians and nursing staff in serious illness care conversations and requested they refer eligible patients. Eligible patients were those with serious illness or frailty expected to live 1 to 2 years. Clinicians indicated it was difficult to identify eligible patients. This study aimed to find better methods for increasing patient recruitment for the ACP study. Methods Research staff brainstormed and implemented strategies to increase patient referrals from clinicians. Participating offices used Epic for their medical record and the Gagne Index was used to generate a list of eligible patients in Epic SlicerDicer. When patients from the Epic SlicerDicer report appeared on the schedule, clinicians and nursing staff were notified that they might be eligible for ACP. Clinicians and nursing staff were asked to complete a survey identifying their perception of implemented strategies. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare referral numbers before and after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer intervention. Results Seven clinicians referred patients prior to and 11 after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer intervention. Clinicians referred a total of 120 patients; 31 patients prior to and 89 patients after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer implementation ( P = .002). Survey results indicated that several strategies facilitated clinician referrals, including patients identified as potentially appropriate on the schedule, quarterly meetings with researchers, and e-mails with a list of potentially eligible patients. Conclusions Notifying clinical staff about potential study participants increased patient referrals in this ACP study. Research staff must have time, funding, and patience to support clinical staff who are expected to refer patients to studies.

Introduction: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released the final payment rules for reimbursement of advance care planning (ACP) effective January 2016. In its first year, 23,000 providers nationwide submitted 624,000 claims using the Current Procedural Terminology codes 99497 and 99498. The objectives of our study were to 1) assess the frequency of ACP codes used at a single academic tertiary care center in Iowa, 2) determine when and by whom the codes were used, and 3) summarize ACP clinical notes. Methods: Using the electronic medical record data warehouse from a single tertiary teaching hospital and affiliated clinics, date of service, department where service was provided, provider name and type, patient medical record number, date of birth, and gender linked to the ACP codes 99497 and 99498 were collected. The content of ACP clinical notes were reviewed and summarized. Study period was from January 1, 2016 through September 19, 2018. Results: During the 33 months, code 99497 was used 17 times and code 99498 was never used. Code 99497 was successfully reimbursed 4 times. Discussion: Charges were not reimbursed if the ACP visits did not meet the minimum time requirement or were conducted by an individual not considered a qualified health care professional per Medicare rules. Conclusion: ACP codes 99497 and 99498 were very rarely used at this tertiary care center during the initial 33-months after the Medicare rules went into effect. Interventions are needed to promote the use of ACP codes, so the time spent in important ACP discussions are properly compensated. (J Am Board Fam Med 2019;32:827-834.

Background The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), developed in 2011 by Ariadne Labs, restructures care so that knowing and then honoring patients’ wishes becomes part of routine care. Objectives 1) summarize patient perceptions of use of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) components, 2) assess whether a serious illness conversation was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) and identify the SICG components that were included, 3) summarize clinician perceptions of use of the SICG components, and 4) assess the association of documented SICG components with the patient's perception of the SICG discussion. Methods Clinicians at three family medicine offices were trained in serious illness conversations using the SICG. They documented their serious illness conversations in the medical record. Retrospective chart review for SICG components was conducted for patients. Patients and clinicians completed questionnaires about their experience with the SICG. Statistical analysis included the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables and Cohen's kappa to determine agreement between clinician documentation and patient perception. Results Eighty-nine patients consented and completed their baseline questionnaire. Mean age of the 89 patients was 72 years and 65 (73%) were female. Thirty (34%) medical records had one or more SICG components documented. Seventy-nine (89%) patients reported at least one individual component of the SICG being discussed. Clinicians reported they engaged in asking patients what is important to them at a mean of 5.9, with 7 being “all the time”. There was slight agreement (kappa = .19) for patient perception and clinician documentation of discussing patient goals, but no agreement for any of the other SICG components. Conclusion Even among trained clinicians, only one-third of patients had documentation of at least one SICG component. Only slight agreement was found between clinician documentation of SICG in the medical record and patient perception of SICG discussion.