A Prospective Randomized Trial Using Video Images in Advance Care Planning in Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients
| Status: | Recruiting |
|---|---|
| Healthy: | No |
| Age Range: | 60 - Any |
| Updated: | 4/2/2016 |
| Start Date: | March 2011 |
The purpose of this study is to compare the decision making of hospitalized subjects having
a verbal discussion about CPR compared to subjects using a video.
a verbal discussion about CPR compared to subjects using a video.
A.1. Aim 1: To recruit 150 subjects admitted to the inpatient general medicine ward with an
overall prognosis of one year or less and randomly assign these subjects to: 1. a video
visually depicting CPR preferences or 2. the current standard of care without the use of
video (control).
Hypothesis 1: It is feasible to recruit and randomize 150 hospitalized subjects with an
overall prognosis of one year or less.
A.2. Aim 2: To compare the care preferences for CPR and intubation among subjects randomized
to video and subjects randomized to the current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 2: Subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more
likely to opt against CPR and intubation compared to those who do not see the video.
A.3. Aim 3: To compare code-status documentation in the electronic medical records between
subjects randomized to the video and those who are receiving the current standard of care
without the video.
Hypothesis 3: Subjects randomized to the video are more likely to have their code-status
documented in the electronic medical records compared to those who do not see the video.
A.4. Aim 4: To compare the decisional conflict of subjects randomized to video and subjects
randomized to the current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 4: When compared to subjects randomized to the current standard of care, subjects
in the video intervention group will have lower decisional conflict (lower decisional
conflict scores) when asked to choose CPR and intubation preferences.
A.5. Aim 5: To compare knowledge assessment of CPR of subjects randomized to video and
subjects randomized to current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 5: When compared to subjects randomized to the current standard of care, subjects
in the video intervention group will have higher knowledge assessment scores when asked
questions regarding their understanding of CPR.
A.6. Aim 6: To compare code-status (CPR, and intubation) preferences in the electronic
medical record on future hospitalizations up to one year post-hospital discharge of subjects
randomized to video and subjects randomized to current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 6: Subjects randomized to the video are more likely to opt against CPR and
intubation in the future compared to those who do not see the video.
overall prognosis of one year or less and randomly assign these subjects to: 1. a video
visually depicting CPR preferences or 2. the current standard of care without the use of
video (control).
Hypothesis 1: It is feasible to recruit and randomize 150 hospitalized subjects with an
overall prognosis of one year or less.
A.2. Aim 2: To compare the care preferences for CPR and intubation among subjects randomized
to video and subjects randomized to the current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 2: Subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more
likely to opt against CPR and intubation compared to those who do not see the video.
A.3. Aim 3: To compare code-status documentation in the electronic medical records between
subjects randomized to the video and those who are receiving the current standard of care
without the video.
Hypothesis 3: Subjects randomized to the video are more likely to have their code-status
documented in the electronic medical records compared to those who do not see the video.
A.4. Aim 4: To compare the decisional conflict of subjects randomized to video and subjects
randomized to the current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 4: When compared to subjects randomized to the current standard of care, subjects
in the video intervention group will have lower decisional conflict (lower decisional
conflict scores) when asked to choose CPR and intubation preferences.
A.5. Aim 5: To compare knowledge assessment of CPR of subjects randomized to video and
subjects randomized to current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 5: When compared to subjects randomized to the current standard of care, subjects
in the video intervention group will have higher knowledge assessment scores when asked
questions regarding their understanding of CPR.
A.6. Aim 6: To compare code-status (CPR, and intubation) preferences in the electronic
medical record on future hospitalizations up to one year post-hospital discharge of subjects
randomized to video and subjects randomized to current standard of care without the video.
Hypothesis 6: Subjects randomized to the video are more likely to opt against CPR and
intubation in the future compared to those who do not see the video.
Inclusion Criteria
1. Over the age of 60
2. The ability to provide informed consent
3. The ability to communicate in English
4. And one of the following:
1. An established diagnosis of metastatic cancer or
2. An established diagnosis of advanced heart failure (NYHA class III/IV heart
failure) or
3. An established diagnosis of chronic obstructive lung disease with an FEV1 < 50%
or
4. Two hospitalizations within the last 6 months or
5. An advanced illness or multiple comorbidities that are not otherwise specified
with an overall prognosis of one year or less confirmed with the attending
physician on service. Exclusion Criterion
1. Subject scores 6 or less on the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire, which is
indicative of cognitive impairment.
We found this trial at
1
site
