AzTrials
AzTrials

Congestive Heart FailureNCT03577002

Team-based Versus Primary Care Clinician-led Advance Care Planning in Practice-based Research Networks

A study testing Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in people with Congestive Heart Failure and Cancer, run by Oregon Health and Science University at 7 sites in 2 countries.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This project compares two models of the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in primary care: clinician-focused SICP and team-based SICP. Discussion and planning for serious illness care can help patients identify what is most important to them and assure they receive care that best matches their goals and values, such… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
What is being tested?
Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
1,120 participants
Where
7 sitesin 2 countries
Study dates
28 Feb 2019to 1 Jul 2023
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Can provide verbal consent
  • Be an adult 18 years of age or older
  • Has a serious illness(es) or condition(s) that is likely to limit the patient's life expectancy to less than 2 years as defined by using clinical intuition or a patient identification algorithm when possible
  • Is community-dwelling or is planned to be discharged to a community-based setting
  • Can speak, read and write in English, French or Spanish
  • Has had an initial advance care planning (ACP) conversation at a primary care practice participating in this project.

Who cannot join

  • Patients may not already be enrolled in hospice
  • Patients may not currently be in an intensive care unit or hospital with no expectation of discharge
  • Patient may not be in an institution (e.g., nursing home) or awaiting nursing home placement in the near future

Trial locations and contacts

7 sites in 2 countries.

7 sites in 2 countries

United States5 sites
  • State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners

    Aurora, Colorado, 80045

  • Duke Primary Care Research Consortium

    Durham, North Carolina, 27705

  • Iowa Research Network

    Iowa City, Iowa, 52242

  • Wisconsin Research and Education Network

    Madison, Wisconsin, 53175

  • Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network

    Portland, Oregon, 97239

Other trials in United States

Canada2 sites
  • Quebec Practice-based Research Network

    Québec, Quebec

  • University of Toronto Practice-based Research Network

    Toronto, Ontario

Other trials in Canada

About this study

Official title: A Cluster-randomized Trial Comparing Team-based Versus Primary Care Clinician-led Advance Care Planning in the Meta-LARC Practice-based Research Networks

This project compares two models of the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in primary care: clinician-focused SICP and team-based SICP. Discussion and planning for serious illness care can help patients identify what is most important to them and assure they receive care that best matches their goals and values, such as spending more time at home or not being in pain.

Read the detailed description

Background and Significance:

Many people die after living with chronic conditions that have a broadly predictable course. This should give patients and families the opportunity to consider what is most important to them and plan for the care they wish to receive in their final months and at the end of life. However, in many cases health care defaults to more testing and treatments, creating a potential mismatch between healthcare services and what patients and families want.

Serious illness care planning occurs once a patient with advanced illness reaches a life expectancy of one to two years. Patients face a wide range of choices that can profoundly affect their quality of life. Planning for the last months and days may improve quality of life, by assuring health care supports patient goals and that preferences for life-sustaining interventions honored. For many patients, this planning should occur in the primary care setting, but primary care practices are over-extended, clinicians and staff are often uncomfortable discussing prognosis, and patients and families often do not ask.

The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) provides a comprehensive implementation strategy, training modules, and a structured conversation guide to promote realistic and compassionate discussions with seriously ill patients in any health care setting. SICP is widely used, having trained hundreds of clinicians and used with thousands of patients. It contributes to the quadruple aims of optimizing healthcare performance through improving patient experience and appropriate utilization of resources, increasing population health, and improving the work life of clinicians. The challenge is that it is unclear whether whether targeting clinicians or entire teams is more efficient and effective when implementing SICP in primary care.

Study Aims:

The study will fill this critical gap by comparing two models of SICP in primary care: clinician-focused SICP and team-based SICP. In the clinician-focused model, a patient's primary care clinician is responsible for serious illness care planning, while in the team-based model, tasks are purposefully shared across roles. This cluster-randomized trial has the following aims:

  • AIM 1. Assess the comparative effectiveness in primary care of team-based vs. primary clinician-focused SICP to achieve the long-term outcomes of concordance of care with patient goals and more time at home for patients with prognoses of two years of life or less.
  • AIM 2. Assess the comparative effectiveness in primary care of a team-based SICP vs. clinician-focused SICP on place of death and family bereavement in cases where the patient dies during the study period, as well as additional secondary short term and intermediate outcomes including patient, family and clinician satisfaction with communication and decisions and quality of life.
  • AIM 3. Identify determinants of successful implementation of the two different models of SICP across varying settings, with a focus on the comparison of practices in the U.S. and Canada and on practice-level characteristics.

Overall study design A cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) conducted in primary care practices recruited from seven practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the U.S. and Canada. The practices will be randomly assigned to implement either the primary care clinician-focused model or the team-based model. A cRCT is proposed because the two models cannot be implemented simultaneously in the same practice. SICP requires changes in work flow and different training is required for the clinician-focused and team-based models.

Main components of the intervention and comparators The clinician-focused model provides training and standard infrastructure support within the practice, similar to what would be provided for any primary care clinician activity. The team-based model splits the serious illness care conversation and planning into its components and these are shared across team members and may be spread over time. The composition of the teams and how they divide their tasks will be allowed to vary across practices and patients; this is necessary and realistic as staffing patterns and resources vary across practices and ACP should be customized to patient needs.

Study population The target population is adults living in the community with serious illnesses and their families. The study will be conducted in a minimum of 36 primary care practices in seven primary care PBRNs (five in the U.S., two in Canada). Each PBRN will recruit a minimum of six practices to enroll 130 patients for a total of 1260 enrolled, so that with attrition, over 750 will be available for analysis.

Primary and secondary outcomes The primary outcomes are patient-centered. These are: a) care that corresponds to patient goals and b) time spent at home. Assuring goal-concordant care is the overarching purpose of the SICP. Patient outcomes will be measured at enrollment, six months, and one year of follow-up. If the patient dies during the study period, place of death will be recorded and a family member contacted to complete a bereavement survey.

Secondary outcomes will also include intermediate and proximal or short-term outcomes for patients and families including patient and caregiver quality of life, depression and anxiety, satisfaction with communication, decision quality, engagement and acceptability of the SICP program and model to patients.

Analytic methods Analytic models will be refined with the input of the Research Project Partnership (Steering Committee), including patient and clinician stakeholder representatives as well as experts in biostatistics. Analysis will be conducted under an intention to treat assumption with multiple imputation procedures and selection models for missing data. Multilevel modeling will be used to account for clustering at the practice (cluster) and individual level, and interaction terms will be included in the analysis to identify potential heterogeneity of treatment effects.

Being tested
Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
Keywords
Advance care planning, Patient-provider communications, Interdisciplinary teams, Practice-based research networks, Cluster-randomized controlled trial, Primary care
Medical subject headings
Heart Failure, Neoplasms, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Stroke, Cardiovascular Diseases

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)Other

    SICP includes the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, which provides patient-tested language for initial and follow-up conversations; training materials, including didactic materials and case studies for structured role playing; and implementation guidance including recommended approaches to identifying appropriate patients and templates for documentation of conversations

Study groups in NCT03577002
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Clinician SICPActive comparatorAdvance care planning between primary care clinician and the patient/family using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
Receives: Other: Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
Team SICPActive comparatorAdvance care planning between team members and the patient/family using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)
Receives: Other: Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Global rating of goal-concordant care, patient-reported

    Comparison between arms of whether care received corresponds to patient goals. This will be assessed at 12 months.

    Measured: 12 months after enrollment

Secondary outcomes (11)
  1. Cumulative time spent at home, patient-reported questionnaires

    Days at home will be reported over a 6-month range and will be compared between arms. Patients will report number of days spent in a hospital, nursing home or post-acute care home and number of trips to the emergency department during the last 6-month period. The number of days and ED trips reported will be combined then subtracted from the number of days in the 6-month reporting period to arrive a final number of days at home. This measure will be compared between both study arms.

    Measured: 12 months after enrollment

  2. Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)

    Participant assessment of anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD7) using 4-point scale for seven anxiety questions where low scores indicate less anxiety and high scores are higher levels of anxiety symptoms and a single composite score is calculated.

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  3. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) - Depression

    Participant assessment of depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire depression test questionnaire (PHQ-9) scale using 4-point scale for nine depression questions where low scores indicate less depressive and high scores are higher levels of depressive symptoms and a single composite score is calculated.

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  4. Patient-reported outcomes for individuals living with chronic conditions

    Participant assessment of health, quality of life, mental health, satisfaction with social activities and roles, daily activities of living, anxiety/depression, sleep and pain using the PROMIS Global Health 10 short form

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  5. SICP acceptability

    Participant assessment of the SICP conversation and program using and adapted SICP-developed Patient Acceptability Survey

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  6. SICP experience

    Participant assessment of the SICP conversation and program using and adapted SICP-developed Patient Experience Survey

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  7. Quality of communication

    Participant rating of the communication with the clinician or care team using a subset of questions from the Quality of Community questionnaire which uses an 11-point scale on 13 questions to rate care from the worst I could imagine (low score) to the very best I could imagine (high score), with a summed total score

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  8. Shared decision making for healthcare decisions

    Measurement of shared decision-making using questionnaires to measure different aspects of making healthcare decisions, such as engagement, sureness, difficulty making a decision, and level of distress or remorse after making a decision. Each of these shared decision-making subscales will be scored

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  9. Hospice use

    Participant report of use of hospice or palliative care services

    Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  10. Detailed items on goal-concordant care

    Patient reports on confidence in future care, trust in providers and family, and advance care planning processes responding to 10-point scale or yes/no questions.

    Measured: 6 months and 12 months after enrollment

  11. Global rating of goal-concordant care, patient-reported

    Comparison between arms of whether care received corresponds to patient goals. This will be assessed at 6 months.

    Measured: 6 months after enrollment

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted5 Jul 2018
  2. Study start28 Feb 2019
  3. Primary completion1 Apr 2022 (estimated)
  4. Study completion1 Jul 2023 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
1,120 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03577002
Sponsor's protocol ID
PLC-1609-36277
Status last verified
May 2021
First submitted
31 May 2018
Last updated
6 May 2021
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: The study protocol has been published after ClinicalTrials.gov registration and IRB approval and is now listed in the citations. Data will released in accordance with the funder's policy (PCORI) after the end of the project. Results tables will be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov

Publications

  • Totten AM, Fagnan LJ, Dorr D, Michaels LC, Izumi SS, Combe A, Legare F. Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Team-Based to Clinician-Focused Implementation of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care. J Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;22(S1):82-89. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0117.

    PubMed 31486729
  • Lokossou KL, Assan OQ, Gadio S, Uwizeye CB, Dofara SG, Bouba DA, Guay-Belanger S, Michaels L, Archambault P, Paquette JS, Izumi S, Totten AM, Rivest LP, Legare F; Meta-LARC ACP Cluster Randomized Trial team. Comparison of the sustainability of the impact of team-based versus individual clinician-focused training of primary care professionals in serious illness conversations on caregiver burden of care: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial. BMC Geriatr. 2025 Oct 21;25(1):795. doi: 10.1186/s12877-025-06324-7.

    PubMed 41120901
  • Gomes Souza L, Archambault PM, Asmaou Bouba D, Dofara SG, Guay-Belanger S, Cortez Ghio S, Gadio S, Izumi SS, Michaels L, Paquette JS, Totten AM, Legare F; Meta-LARC ACP Cluster Randomized Trial team. Impact of a team-based versus individual clinician-focused training approach on primary healthcare professionals' intention to have serious illness conversations with patients: A theory-informed process evaluation embedded within a cluster randomized trial. PLoS One. 2025 Mar 26;20(3):e0298994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298994. eCollection 2025.

    PubMed 40138335
  • Asmaou Bouba D, Gomes Souza L, Dofara SG, Guay-Belanger S, Gadio S, Mochcovitch D, Paquette JS, Izumi SS, Archambault P, Totten AM, Rivest LP, Legare F. Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial. J CME. 2024 Nov 3;13(1):2420475. doi: 10.1080/28338073.2024.2420475. eCollection 2024.

    PubMed 39502858
  • Ma JE, Lowe J, Berkowitz C, Kim A, Togo I, Musser RC, Fischer J, Shah K, Ibrahim S, Bosworth HB, Totten AM, Dolor R. Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2023 May 12;25:e41884. doi: 10.2196/41884.

    PubMed 37171856
  • Izumi SS, Caron D, Guay-Belanger S, Archambault P, Michaels L, Heinlein J, Dorr DA, Totten A, Legare F. Development and Evaluation of Serious Illness Conversation Training for Interprofessional Primary Care Teams. J Palliat Med. 2023 Sep;26(9):1198-1206. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2022.0268. Epub 2023 Apr 11.

    PubMed 37040304
  • Schmidt ME, Daly JM, Xu Y, Levy BT. Improving Iowa Research Network Patient Recruitment for an Advance Care Planning Study. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021 Jan-Dec;12:21501327211009699. doi: 10.1177/21501327211009699.

    PubMed 33840295

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in people with Congestive Heart Failure and Cancer, run by Oregon Health and Science University at 7 sites in 2 countries.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 May 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 7 sites in United States, Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Global rating of goal-concordant care, patient-reported (time frame: 12 months after enrollment). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03577002, which also lists 7 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 May 2021.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in