Skip to main content
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • Blog
  • Newsroom
  • Find It Fast
  • Help Center
  • Subscribe
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

PCORI

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Search form

  • About Us
    Close mega-menu

    About Us

    • Our Programs
    • Governance
    • Financials and Reports
    • Procurement Opportunities
    • Our Staff
    • Our Vision & Mission
    • Contact Us

    Fact Sheets: Learn More About PCORI

    Download fact sheets about out work, the research we fund, and our programs and initiatives.

    Find It Fast

    Browse through an alphabetical list of frequently accessed and searched terms for information and resources.

    Subscribe to PCORI Email Alerts

    Sign up for weekly emails to stay current on the latest results of our funded projects, and more.

  • Research & Results
    Close mega-menu

    Research & Results

    • Explore Our Portfolio
    • Research Fundamentals
    • Research Results Highlights
    • Putting Evidence to Work
    • Peer Review
    • Evidence Synthesis
    • About Our Research

    Evidence Updates from PCORI-Funded Studies

    These updates capture highlights of findings from systematic reviews and our funded research studies.

    Journal Articles About Our Funded Research

    Browse through a collection of journal publications that provides insights into PCORI-funded work.

    Explore Our Portfolio of Funded Projects

    Find out about projects based on the health conditions they focus on, the state they are in, and if they have results.

  • Topics
    Close mega-menu

    Topics

    • Addressing Disparities
    • Arthritis
    • Asthma
    • Cancer
    • Cardiovascular Disease
    • Children's Health
    • Community Health Workers
    • COVID-19
    • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment
    • Diabetes
    • Kidney Disease
    • Medicaid
    • Men's Health
    • Mental and Behavioral Health
    • Minority Mental Health
    • Multiple Chronic Conditions
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Obesity
    • Older Adults' Health
    • Pain Care and Opioids
    • Rare Diseases
    • Rural Health
    • Shared Decision Making
    • Telehealth
    • Transitional Care
    • Veterans Health
    • Women's Health

    Featured Topic: Women's Health

    Learn more about the projects we support on conditions that specifically or more often affect women.

  • Engagement
    Close mega-menu

    Engagement

    • The Value of Engagement
    • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
    • Influencing the Culture of Research
    • Engagement Awards
    • Engagement Resources
    • Engage with Us

    Engagement Tools and Resources for Research

    This searchable peer-to-peer repository includes resources that can inform future work in patient-centered outcomes research.

    Explore Engagement in Health Literature

    This tool enables searching for published articles about engagement in health research.

    Research Fundamentals: A New On-Demand Training

    It enables those new to health research or patient-centered research to learn more about the research process.

  • Funding Opportunities
    Close mega-menu

    Funding Opportunities

    • What & Who We Fund
    • What You Need to Know to Apply
    • Applicant Training
    • Merit Review
    • Awardee Resources
    • Help Center

    PCORI Funding Opportunities

    View and learn about the newly opened funding announcements and the upcoming PFAs in 2021.

    Tips for Submitting a Responsive LOI

    Find out what PCORI looks for in a letter of intent (LOI) along with other helpful tips.

    PCORI Awardee Resources

    These resources can help awardees in complying with the terms and conditions of their contract.

  • Meetings & Events
    Close mega-menu

    Meetings & Events

    • Upcoming
    • Past Events

    Special PCORI Webinar: February 2, 2pm ET

    Hear from PCORI leaders about ways to get involved in PCOR, improvements to our funding opportunities, and more. Register

    Confronting COVID-19: A Webinar Series

    Learn more about the series and access recordings and summary reports of all six sessions.

    2020 PCORI Annual Meeting

    Watch recordings of all sessions, and view titles and descriptions of the posters presented at the virtual meeting.

You are here

  • Research & Results
  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Improving Communication by Preparing ...

This project has results

Improving Communication by Preparing Patients and Doctors for a Conversation about Care Goals for Serious Illness

Sign Up for Updates to This Study  

Results Summary and Professional Abstract

Results Summary

Results Summary

Download Summary Español (pdf) Audio Recording (mp3)

What was the research about?

When patients are seriously ill, discussions between patients and their doctors can make it more likely that patients get the care they want. Because family members may help make decisions about patients’ care, they should also understand what patients want.

In this study, patients with serious illnesses filled out a form about their goals for care and how they’d like to discuss those goals. The research team compared communication and care for two groups. In one group, patients, doctors, and families saw information from the form before a visit. The other group didn’t see the results.

What were the results?

Compared with the group that didn’t see the results of the form, patients in the group that did

  • Were more likely to talk with their doctors about goals for care
  • Reported better communication with their doctors
  • Were more likely to report receiving care in line with their goals, as long as those goals didn’t change later in the study

There were no differences in patients’ depression and anxiety symptoms or the rate of referrals doctors provided to care that focuses on relieving suffering.

Who was in the study?

The study included 537 patients with serious illnesses and 132 doctors from clinics in Washington State. Of these patients, 79 percent were white, 12 percent were black, 3 percent were Asian, and 6 percent were of other races or mixed race. Also, 1 percent were Hispanic. The average age was 74 and 52 percent were men. Patients in the study had cancer, lung disease, or other long-term or serious health problems. Doctors included primary care doctors, specialists, and nurse practitioners.

An advisory board of patients with serious illnesses, family members, doctors, and community members gave feedback on the study materials.

What did the research team do?

The research team showed patients a video about how to fill out the form. The form asked about patients’ goals for care for a serious illness. The team assigned doctors by chance to one of two groups. In the first group, patients, families, and doctors received information from the patient form before a clinic visit. In the other group, they didn’t receive this information. Doctors reported to the research team whether any discussion about care goals took place during the office visit.

Patients in both groups filled out a follow-up survey two weeks, three months, and six months after the office visit. The surveys asked patients about

  • Whether they had talked about their care goals with their doctor
  • The quality of communication with their doctor
  • Whether their care matched their goals for care
  • Their depression and anxiety symptoms

What were the limits of the study?

The study took place in a single state. Results may be different in other places. Patients and doctors willing to be in this study may be more willing to talk about goals for care than other patients and doctors. Results might be different for patients and doctors who aren’t comfortable talking about goals for care. Only 22 percent of patients’ families were in the study. The study relied on patients to report whether their care matched their goals; patients may have found this question hard to answer.

How can people use the results?

Patients with serious illnesses and their doctors may choose to use a form to help them talk about patients’ goals for care.

Professional Abstract

Professional Abstract

Objective

To evaluate whether an intervention that prepares patients with serious, life-limiting illnesses to have a conversation about care goals with their clinician enhances communication about care preferences and improves achievement of patient goals

Study Design

Design Elements Description
Design Randomized controlled trial
Population 132 clinicians and 537 patients with serious, life-limiting illnesses
Interventions/
Comparators
  • Patients complete a questionnaire reporting their goals for serious illness care and their preferences for communicating those goals; before a routine clinic visit, the researchers present patients, clinicians, and family members with tailored forms based on that information
  • Patients complete the questionnaire but do not receive a tailored report based on their responses
Outcomes

Primary: patient-reported occurrence of patient-clinician communication about care goals

Secondary: clinician documentation of a care goals conversation in the health record, patient-reported quality of communication, patient reports of goal-concordant care, patient-reported symptoms of depression and anxiety

Timeframe 2-week follow-up, or until the patient’s death, for primary outcome

This randomized controlled trial tested an intervention to improve clinician-patient communication about patients’ goals for serious illness care. Patients with serious illnesses completed a questionnaire that included questions about their preferences for communication about goals of care, such as whether the patient wanted the doctor to initiate the discussion. The questionnaire also asked about patient preferences for care intensity and about communication barriers and facilitators.

Researchers randomly assigned clinicians to the intervention or comparison group. In the intervention group, researchers prepared a tailored report for the patient, family members, and clinician based on the information in the questionnaire and provided it to them before the visit. In the comparison group, researchers did not share information from the questionnaire.

  • Patients in both groups completed a follow-up survey at two weeks about whether they had a conversation about goals of care with their clinician.

At two weeks, three months, and six months after the clinic visit, patients completed surveys about

  • The quality of communication with their doctor
  • If the care they received matched their goals for care
  • Their symptoms of depression and anxiety

The study included 537 patients with serious illnesses and 132 clinicians. Clinicians in the study included primary care doctors, specialists, and nurse practitioners. Researchers recruited patients and clinicians from outpatient clinics in Washington state. Of the patients, 79% were white, 12% were black, 3% were Asian, 6% were mixed or other races. Also, 1% were Hispanic. The average age was 74 and 52% were males. Patients in the study had cancer, lung disease, or other chronic or life-limiting conditions.

A community advisory board, including patients with serious illnesses, caregivers, clinicians, and community members, provided feedback on study materials.

Results

Compared with the comparison group, the intervention group had higher rates of patient-reported communication about care goals at their visits (74% versus 31%, p<0.001), and clinicians also documented more communication with patients about care goals (62% versus 17%; p<0.001). Patient-rated quality of communication was also higher in the intervention group (p=0.01) than in the comparison group.

Among all patients, goal-concordant care was not significantly different between the intervention and comparison groups. However, among patients whose goals were stable between two-week and three-month follow-ups (71%), those in the intervention group were more likely to report greater goal-concordant care (p=0.029) than those in the comparison group.

Depression and anxiety symptoms did not differ significantly between groups at three or six months. Clinicians referred the groups to palliative care at the same rate.

Limitations

The study took place in a single state; results may be different in other places. The clinicians and patients who were willing to participate may not reflect the respective general populations. Only 22% of patients had a family member who participated. Finally, it may have been difficult for patients to discern whether their care was goal-concordant.

Conclusions and Relevance

The study results suggest that preparing patients and clinicians to talk about care goals can increase the occurrence, documentation, and quality of that communication between patients with serious illnesses and their clinicians. Although increased communication did not result in increased goal-concordant care overall, patients with stable goals reported an increase in goal-concordant care.

Clinicians or clinic administrators may implement a communication feedback form to promote discussions about care goals to improve care for patients with serious illnesses.

Future Research Needs

Future research could simplify the communication form and assess its impact in patient and clinician subgroups. Researchers could also investigate barriers to family participation.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Journal Articles

Article Highlight: This project, in an article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, revealed that the use of a survey to help clinicians and patients discuss their needs and preferences concerning end of life care resulted in a significant increase in patient-reported goals of care conversations and quality of discussions.

Results of This Project

JAMA Internal Medicine

Effect of a Patient and Clinician Communication-Priming Intervention on Patient-Reported Goals-of-Care Discussions Between Patients With Serious Illness and Clinicians A Randomized Clinical Trial

Related Articles

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Patient-Reported Receipt of Goal-Concordant Care Among Seriously Ill Outpatients-Prevalence and Associated Factors

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Toward Understanding the Relationship Between Prioritized Values and Preferences for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Seriously Ill Adults

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Did a Goals-of-Care Discussion Happen? Differences in the Occurrence of Goals-of-Care Discussions as Reported by Patients, Clinicians, and in the Electronic Health Record

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Quality of communication and trust in patients with serious illness: An exploratory study of the relationships of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and religiosity

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Factors Affecting Patients' Preferences for and Actual Discussions About End-of-Life Care

More on this Project  

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:

  • The reviewers questioned whether the study was really an efficacy study since the outcomes were about process of care rather than clinical change. The researchers responded that the study measured the efficacy of the intervention on changes in goals-of-care discussions as the primary outcome, a process outcome.
  • The reviewers asked researchers for additional rationale for including anxiety and depression symptoms as study outcomes. The researchers responded that interventions to improve communication often lead to reductions in anxiety and depression symptoms. Therefore, these outcomes are relevant.
  • The reviewers expressed concern about the low participation rate among clinicians as well as cross-contamination since the same clinicians cared for both intervention and nonintervention patients. The researchers acknowledged the low participation rate, noting that it was similar to other studies enrolling physicians in communications interventions. They also noted that the participating clinics were not organized to support clinician involvement. Few clinicians in these clinics considered goals-of-care communication to be part of their patient care responsibilities. The researchers also acknowledged that this low participation rate did raise concerns about generalizability of the intervention to other busy medical practices.
  • The reviewers expressed concern about the qualitative portion of the report, finding it underdeveloped, with little description of the analyses and results. The researchers noted that the goal of the qualitative work was to provide another perspective on the findings in the report. The investigators provided additional detail in this section.

Study Protocol

View this project's study protocol.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

View the COI disclosure form.

Project Details

Principal Investigator
J. Randall Curtis, MD, MPH
Project Status
Completed; PCORI Public and Professional Abstracts, and Final Research Report Posted
Project Title
Health System Intervention to Improve Communication About End-of-Life Care for Vulnerable Patients
Board Approval Date
May 2013
Project End Date
October 2018
Organization
University of Washington
Year Awarded
2013
State
Washington
Year Completed
2018
Project Type
Research Project
Health Conditions  
Cancer
Breast Cancer
Cardiovascular Diseases
Congestive Heart Failure
Kidney Diseases
Renal Failure
Liver Diseases
Cirrhosis
Respiratory Diseases
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Intervention Strategies
Other Health Services Interventions
Technology Interventions
Populations
Racial/Ethnic Minorities
Low Income
Older Adults
Funding Announcement
Improving Healthcare Systems
Project Budget
$2,101,900
Study Registration Information
HSRP20143304
NCT01933789
Page Last Updated: 
February 20, 2020

About Us

  • Our Programs
  • Governance
  • Financials and Reports
  • Procurement Opportunities
  • Our Staff
  • Our Vision & Mission
  • Contact Us

Research & Results

  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Research Fundamentals
  • Research Results Highlights
  • Putting Evidence to Work
  • Peer Review
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • About Our Research

Engagement

  • The Value of Engagement
  • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
  • Influencing the Culture of Research
  • Engagement Awards
  • Engagement Resources
  • Engage with Us

Funding Opportunities

  • What & Who We Fund
  • What You Need to Know to Apply
  • Applicant Training
  • Merit Review
  • Awardee Resources
  • Help Center

Meetings & Events

February 2
PCORI 2021 and Beyond: Opportunities for Funding and Involvement in Patient-Centered Research
February 9
Board of Governors Meeting: February 9, 2021
February 11
Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement Winter 2021 Meeting

PCORI

Footer contact address

Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute

1828 L Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 827-7700 | Fax: (202) 355-9558
[email protected]

Subscribe to Newsletter

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Vimeo

© 2011-2021 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademark Usage Guidelines | Credits | Help Center