Ischaemic heart disease (IHD), in particular acute coronary syndrome (ACS), comprising ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina, is the leading cause of death worldwide. Age is a major predictor of adverse outcome following ACS. COVID-19 infection seems to escalate the risk in older patients with heart disease. Increasing odds of in-hospital death is associated with older age following COVID-19 infection. Importantly, it seems older patients with comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), in particular IHD, diabetes and hypertension, are at the highest risk of mortality following COVID-19 infection. The evidence is sparse on the optimal care of older patients with ACS with lack of robust randomised controlled trials. In this setting, with the serious threat imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of rapidly evolving knowledge with much unknown, it is important to weigh the risks and benefits of treatment strategies offered to older patients. In cases where risks outweigh the benefits, it might not be an unreasonable option to treat such patients with a conservative or a palliative approach. Further evidence to elucidate whether invasive management is beneficial in older patients with ACS is required out-with the COVID-19 pandemic. Though it is hoped that the actual acute phase of COVID-19 infection will be short lived, it is vital that important clinical research is continued, given the long-term benefits of ongoing clinical research for patients with long-term conditions, including CVD. This review aimed to evaluate the challenges and the management strategies in the care of older patients presenting with ACS in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) occurs in about 25% of hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis (DC) and is associated with high, short-term mortality . The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) - Chronic Liver Failure (CLIF) EASL-CLIF Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in Cirrhosis (CANONIC) study showed that 28-day mortality could be predicted after the 3rd day in the intensive care unit (ICU) applying the CLIF-sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score.
BACKGROUND: Prior to national spread, the Department of Veterans Affairs implemented a pilot of the life-sustaining treatment decisions initiative (LSTDI) to promote proactive goals of care conversations (GoCC) with seriously ill patients, including policy and practice standards, an electronic documentation template and order set, and implementation support.
AIM: To describe a 2-year pilot of the LSTDI at 4 demonstration sites.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6664 patients who had at least one GoCC.
RESULTS: Descriptive statistics characterized patient demographics, goals of care, LST decisions, and risk of hospitalization or mortality among patients with at least one GoCC. Participants were on average 71.4 years old, 93.2% male, 87.1% white, and 64.7% urban; 27.3% died by the end of the pilot period. Fifteen percent lacked decision-making capacity (DMC). Nonmutually exclusive goals included to be cured (7.6%), to prolong life (34%), to improve/maintain quality of life (61.5%), to be comfortable (53%), to obtain support for family/caregiver (8.4%), to achieve life goals (2.1%), and other (10.5%). Many GoCCs resulted in a do not resuscitate (DNR) order (58.8%). Patients without DMC were more likely to have comfort-oriented goals (77.3% vs 48.8%) and a DNR (84% vs 52.6%). Chart abstraction supported content validity of GoCC documentation.
CONCLUSION: The pilot demonstrated that standardizing practices for eliciting and documenting GoCCs resulted in customized documentation of goals of care and LST decisions of a large number of seriously ill patients and established the feasibility of spreading standardized practices throughout a large integrated health care system.
BACKGROUND: Despite a majority of persons receiving hospice care in their homes, there are gaps in understanding how to facilitate goals of care conversations between persons with heart failure and healthcare providers.
AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators which shape goals of care conversations for persons with heart failure in the context of home hospice.
DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study design was used with semi-structured interviews.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted qualitative interviews with persons with heart failure, family caregivers, and interprofessional healthcare team members at a large not-for-profit hospice agency in New York City between March 2018 and February 2019.
RESULTS: A total of 39 qualitative interviews were conducted, including with healthcare team members (e.g. nurses, physicians, social workers, spiritual counselors), persons with heart failure, and family caregivers. Three themes emerged from the qualitative interviews regarding facilitators and barriers in goals of care conversations for better decision-making: (1) trust is key to building and maintaining goals of care conversations; (2) lack of understanding and acceptance of hospice inhibits goals of care conversations; and (3) family support and engagement promote goals of care conversations.
CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest that interventions designed to improve goals of care conversations in the home hospice setting should focus on promoting understanding and acceptance of hospice, family support and engagement, and building trusting relationships with interprofessional healthcare teams.
PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer often have a poor understanding of cancer incurability, which correlates with more aggressive treatment near the end of life (EOL). We sought to determine whether training oncologists to elicit patient values for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions will increase and improve these discussions. We explored its impact on use of aggressive care at EOL.
METHODS: We enrolled and used block randomization to assign 92% of solid tumor oncologists to 2-hour communication skills training and four coaching sessions. We surveyed 265 patient with newly diagnosed advanced cancer with < 2-year life expectancy at baseline and 6 months. We assessed prevalence and quality of GoC communication, change in communication skills, and use of aggressive care in the last month of life.
RESULTS: Intervention (INT) oncologists' (n = 11) skill to elicit patient values increased (27%-55%), while usual care (UC) oncologists' (n = 11) skill did not (9%-0%; P = .01). Forty-eight percent (n = 74) INT v 51% (n = 56) UC patients reported a GoC discussion (P = .61). There was no difference in the prevalence or quality of GoC communication between groups (global odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.23). Within 6 months, there was no difference in deaths (18 INT v 16 UC; P = .51), mean hospitalizations (0.47 INT v 0.42 UC; P = .63), intensive care unit admissions (5% INT v 9% UC; P = .65), or chemotherapy (26% INT v 16% UC; P = .39).
CONCLUSION: Use of a coaching model focused on teaching oncologists to elicit patient values improved that skill but did not increase prevalence or quality of GoC discussions among patients with advanced cancer. There was no impact on high care utilization at EOL.
Background: African Americans receive more aggressive end-of-life care than Whites. Little is known about how palliative care consultation to discuss goals-of-care (“PCC”) is associated with acute care utilization and costs by race.
Objective: To compare future acute care costs and utilization between propensity-matched cohorts of African Americans with and without PCC, and Whites with and without PCC.
Design: Secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study.
Setting/Subjects: Thirty-five thousand one hundred and fifty-four African Americans and Whites age 18+ admitted for conditions other than childbirth or rehabilitation, who were not hospitalized at the end of the study, and did not die during index hospitalization (hospitalization during which the first PCC occurred).
Measurements: Accumulated mean acute care costs and utilization (30-day readmissions, future hospital days, future intensive care unit [ICU] admission, future number of ICU days) after discharge from index hospitalization.
Results: No significant difference between African Americans with or without PCC in mean future acute care costs ($11,651 vs. $15,050, p = 0.09), 30-day readmissions (p = 0.58), future hospital days (p = 0.34), future ICU admission (p = 0.25), or future ICU days (p = 0.30). There were significant differences between Whites with PCC and those without PCC in mean future acute care costs ($8,095 vs. $16,799, p < 0.001), 30-day readmissions (10.2% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.0001), and future days hospitalized (3.7 vs. 6.3 days, p < 0.0001).
onclusions: PCC decreases future acute care costs and utilization in Whites and, directionally but not significantly, in African Americans. Research is needed to explain why utilization and cost disparities persist among African Americans despite PCC.
BACKGROUND: With a growing nursing home population suffering from chronic progressive illnesses and evolving patterns of comorbidities, end-of-life communication takes on a critical role to enable healthcare professionals to gather information about the resident's wishes for care at the end-of-life and organise the care plan accordingly.
AIM: To explore nurses' perspective about the process by which end-of-life communication impacts on the goal of end-of-life care in nursing home residents.
DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive research design based on thematic analysis was performed. Fourteen nurses involved in the care of residents during their last week of life were recruited across 13 Italian nursing homes and accounted for 34 semi-structured interviews. A combined approach of analysis that incorporated a data-driven inductive approach and a theory-driven one was adopted.
RESULTS: Twelve themes described how end-of-life communication may contribute to adjust the care plan in nursing home according to the nurses' perspective. Five antecedents (i.e. life crisis or transitions, patient-centered environment, arising the question of possible dying, quality of relationships and culture of care) influenced the establishment and quality of communication, and five attributes depicted the characteristics and potential mechanisms of end-of-life communication (i.e. healthcare professional-resident and healthcare professional-family carers communication, knowledge of family carers' preferences, knowledge of residents' preferences, family carers and residents understanding, and shared decision-making), while curative-oriented and palliative-oriented care goals emerged as consequences.
CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the nursing perspective of end-of-life communication between healthcare professionals and bereaved family carers of nursing home residents. Several factors influenced the occurrence and quality of end-of-life communication, which contributed to the transition towards palliative-oriented care by using and improving knowledge about family cares' and resident's preferences for end-of-life care, promoting family carers and residents understanding about prognosis and treatments available, and fostering shared decision-making.
Prognostication is a vital aspect of decision making because it provides patients and families with information to establish realistic and achievable goals of care, is used in determining eligibility for certain benefits, and helps in targeting interventions to those likely to benefit. Prognostication consists of 3 components: clinicians use their clinical judgment or other tools to estimate the probability of an individual developing a particular outcome over a specific period of time; this prognostic estimate is communicated in accordance with the patient's information preferences; the prognostic estimate is interpreted by the patient or surrogate and used in clinical decision making.
Background: early involvement of palliative care and advance care planning improves quality of life outcomes and survival for patients with advanced lung cancer, however there are barriers to implementation.
Aims and Methods: A single-centre prospective audit reviewing “Goals of Care” (GOC) form completion and palliative care referrals in an oncology clinic was undertaken with the aim of increasing GOC completion and palliative care referrals for patients with advanced lung cancer. Involved physicians attended a communication skills course and then received a communication-priming interventions. Clinicopathological factors associated with GOC completion and palliative care referral were explored.
Results: 84 patients receiving palliative treatment for advanced lung cancer were enrolled. Clinicopathological factors, such as poorer performance status were associated with higher likelihood of GOC completion (p = 0.018) prior to the intervention. Male sex (p = 0.023), absence of a sensitising EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement (p = 0.017), type of systemic therapy (p = 0.031) and poorer performance status (p < 0.001) were associated with higher likelihood of palliative care referral. The intervention improved GOC completion (RR 1.29 p = 0.004), however this was not sustained in a follow-up audit (RR 0.98 p = 0.92) and there was no change in palliative care referral rate (RR 2.5, p = 0.16). Predictors of palliative referral following clinical review included age (RR 1.16, p = 0.001), male sex (RR 14.2, p = 0.02) and poorer performance status (RR 1.76, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: communication-priming interventions can improve GOC completion for patients with advanced lung cancer. Further investigation is needed to pursue sustainable options for managing this complex patient group and improve guideline-adherence and patient care.
We propose that the palliative care team response will occur in two ways: first, communication and second, symptom management. Our experience with discussing goals of care with the family of a COVID-positive patient highlighted some expected and unexpected challenges. We describe these challenges along with recommendations for approaching these conversations. We also propose a framework for proactively mobilizing the palliative care workforce to aggressively address goals of care in all patients, with the aim of reducing the need for rationing of resources.
Importance: Growing evidence shows that palliative care (PC) improves treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), but few large-scale studies have prospectively evaluated the processes and outcomes associated with PC consultation for such patients in the real world.
Objective: To characterize processes and outcomes of PC consultations for hospitalized patients with HF compared with patients with cancer.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of inpatient encounters at community and academic hospitals in the Palliative Care Quality Network enrolled participants between 2013 and 2017. Of a total of 135 197 patients, 57 272 adults with a primary diagnosis of HF or cancer receiving PC consultation were enrolled. Data analysis was performed from April 2018 to December 2019.
Exposures: Primary diagnosis of HF or cancer.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptom improvement and changes in care planning documentation after PC consultation.
Results: At the time of consultation, patients with HF were older (mean age, 75.3 years [95% CI, 75.0-75.5 years] vs 65.2 years [95% CI, 65.0-65.3 years]; P < .001), had lower Palliative Performance Scale scores (mean, 35.6% [95% CI, 35.3%-35.9%] vs 42.4% [95% CI, 42.2%-42.6%]; P < .001), and were more likely to be in a critical care unit (5808 of 16 741 patients [35.3%] vs 4985 of 40 531 patients [12.5%]; P < .001) or a telemetry or step-down unit (5802 of 16 741 patients [35.2%] vs 7651 of 40 531 patients [19.2%]; P < .001) compared with patients with cancer. Patients with HF were less likely than patients with cancer to be referred to PC within 24 hours of admission (6773 of 16 741 patients [41.2%] vs 19 348 of 40 531 patients [49.0%]; P < .001) and had longer hospitalizations before receiving PC consultation requests (mean, 4.6 days [95% CI, 4.4-4.8 days] vs 3.9 days [95% CI, 3.8-4.0 days]; P < .001). Patients with HF were referred less frequently for symptoms other than pain (1686 of 16 488 patients [10.2%] vs 8587 of 39 609 patients [21.7%]; P < .001), but were equally likely to report improvements in anxiety (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.02; P = .08) and more likely to report improvements in dyspnea (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.83-2.57; P < .001) compared with patients with cancer. Patients with HF were less likely than those with cancer to be discharged alive (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96; P = .02) or to be referred to hospice (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.47-0.53; P < .001).
Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that PC referral comes late for patients with HF and is used primarily to discuss care planning. Practitioners caring for patients with HF should consider involving PC experts earlier for symptom management.
INTRODUCTION: Equitable delivery of advance care planning and symptom management among patients is crucial to improving cancer care. Existing interventions to improve the uptake of these services have predominantly occurred in clinic settings and are limited in their effectiveness, particularly among low-income and minority populations.
METHODS: The "Lay health worker Educates Engages and Activates Patients to Share (LEAPS)" intervention was developed to improve advance care planning and symptom management among low-income and minority hourly-wage workers with cancer, in two community settings. The intervention provides a lay health worker to all patients newly diagnosed with cancer and aims to educate and activate patients to engage in advance care planning and symptom management with their oncology providers. In this randomized clinical trial, we will evaluate the effect on quality of life (primary outcome) using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey, at enrollment, 4- and 12- months post-enrollment. We will examine between-group differences on our secondary outcomes of patient activation, patient satisfaction with healthcare decision-making, and symptom burden (at enrollment, 4- and 12-months post-enrollment), and total healthcare use and healthcare costs (at 12-months post-enrollment).
DISCUSSION: Multilevel approaches are urgently needed to improve cancer care delivery among low-income and minority patients diagnosed with cancer in community settings. The current study describes the LEAPS intervention, the study design, and baseline characteristics of the community centers participating in the study.
Background: Residents living and dying in long-term care (LTC) homes represent one of society's most frail and marginalized populations of older adults, particularly those residents with advanced dementia who are often excluded from activities that promote quality of life in their last months of life. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and effects of Namaste Care: an innovative program to improve end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia.
Methods: This study used a mixed-method survey design to evaluate the Namaste Care program in two LTC homes in Canada. Pain, quality of life, and medication costs were assessed for 31 residents before and 6 months after they participated in Namaste Care. The program consisted of two 2-h sessions per day for 5 days per week. Namaste Care staff provided high sensory care to residents in a calm, therapeutic environment in a small group setting. Feasibility was assessed in terms of recruitment rate, number of sessions attended, retention rate, and any adverse events. Acceptability was assessed using qualitative interviews with staff and family.
Results: The feasibility of Namaste Care was acceptable with a participation rate of 89%. However, participants received only 72% of the sessions delivered and only 78% stayed in the program for at least 3 months due to mortality. After attending Namaste Care, participants' pain and quality of life improved and medication costs decreased. Family members and staff perceived the program to be beneficial, noting positive changes in residents. The majority of participants were very satisfied with the program, providing suggestions for ongoing engagement throughout the implementation process.
Conclusions: These study findings support the implementation of the Namaste Care program in Canadian LTC homes to improve the quality of life for residents. However, further testing is needed on a larger scale.
Background: Palliative care (PC) referral is recommended early in the course of advanced cancer. This study aims to describe, in an integrated onco-palliative care program (IOPC), patient’s profile when first referred to this program, timing of this referral and its impact on the trajectory of care at end-of-life.
Methods: The IOPC combined the weekly onco-palliative meeting (OPM) dedicated to patients with incurable cancer, and/or the clinical evaluation by the PC team. Oncologists can refer to the multidisciplinary board of the OPM the patients for whom goals and organization of care need to be discussed. We analyzed all patients first referred at OPM in 2011–2013. We defined the index of precocity (IP), as the ratio of the time from first referral to death by the time from diagnosis of incurability to death, ranging from 0 (late referral) to 1 (early referral).
Results: Of the 416 patients included, 57% presented with lung, urothelial cancers, or sarcoma. At first referral to IOPC, 76% were receiving antitumoral treatment, 63% were outpatients, 56% had a performance status =2 and 46% had a serum albumin level > 35 g/l. The median [1st-3rd quartile] IP was 0.39 [0.16–0.72], ranging between 0.53 [0.20–0.79] (earliest referral, i.e. close to diagnosis of incurability, for lung cancer) to 0.16 [0.07–0.56] (latest referral, i.e. close to death relatively to length of metastatic disease, for prostate cancer). Among 367 decedents, 42 (13%) received antitumoral treatment within 14 days before death, and 157 (43%) died in PC units.
Conclusions: The IOPC is an effective organization to enable early integration of PC and decrease aggressiveness of care near the end-of life. The IP is a useful tool to model the timing of referral to IOPC, while taking into account each cancer types and therapeutic advances.
Introduction: The ability of oncologists to understand patients’ goals of care is recognized as a key component of quality care. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of patient–oncologist agreement regarding goals of care upon aggressive care at end of life (EOL) for patients with advanced cancer.
Methods: Patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists were interviewed at study enrollment and every 3 months thereafter until patient death or end of the study period (15 months). A 100-point visual analogue scale was used to represent goals of care, with quality of life (scored as 0) and survival (scored as 100) as anchors. Strong goal of care agreement for survival was defined as oncologist and patient dyadic goal of care scores that fell between 70 and 100 (100 = highest goal for survival) and for comfort, dyadic goal of care values that fell between 0 and 30 (0 = high goal for comfort).
Results: Two hundred and six patients and eleven oncologists provided data. At the last interview prior to death, 23.3% of dyads had strong goal of care agreement for either survival (8.3%) or comfort (15%) and 76.7% had no strong agreement. There was a significant association between aggressive care use and categories of dyadic agreement regarding goals of care (p = 0.024, Cramer’s V = 0.15).
Conclusions: A large percentage of oncologists did not understand their patients’ EOL goals of care. While aggressive care aligned with categories of dyadic agreement for goals of care, high rates of aggressive care were reported.
Background: The Dutch guidelines for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer recommend discussion of patients by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Despite this recommendation, one previous study in the Netherlands suggested that therapeutic guidance was missing for palliative care of patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of the current study was therefore to assess the impact of an MDT discussion on initial palliative treatment and outcome of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.
Material and methods: The population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry was used to identify patients treated for esophageal or GEJ cancer with palliative intent between 2010 and 2017 in 7 hospitals. We compared patients discussed by the MDT with patients not discussed by the MDT in a multivariate analysis. Primary outcome was type of initial palliative treatment. Secondary outcome was overall survival.
Results: A total of 389/948 (41%) patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer were discussed by the MDT before initial palliative treatment. MDT discussion compared to non-MDT discussion was associated with more patients treated with palliative intent external beam radiotherapy (38% vs. 21%, OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.8–3.9]) and systemic therapy (30% vs. 23%, OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0–2.5]), and fewer patients treated with stent placement (4% vs. 12%, OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1–0.6]) and best supportive care alone (12% vs. 33%, OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1–0.3]). MDT discussion was also associated with improved survival (169 days vs. 107 days, HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1–1.6]).
Conclusion: Our study shows that MDT discussion of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer resulted in more patients treated with initial palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with patients not discussed by the MDT. Moreover, MDT discussion may have a positive effect on survival, highlighting the importance of MDT meetings at all stages of treatment.
Background: Goals of care (GOC) conversations are critical to advance care planning but occur infrequently in nephrology. National workshops have improved trainee comfort with initiating GOC conversations but lack interface with palliative subspecialists and can incur travel-related costs. We developed an educational intervention focused on GOC conversations for nephrology trainees that incorporated into routine schedules and offered feedback from palliative subspecialists.
Objective: To explore barriers and facilitators to discussing GOC and uncover perceptions of GOC-related behavior change post-intervention.
Design: Qualitative study.
Setting/Subjects: Sixteen nephrology trainees at an academic medical center.
Measurements: Analyses of semistructured interviews occurred in phases: (1) isolation of quotes; (2) development of a coding system; and (3) creation of a framework of interrelationships between quotes using an inductive/deductive approach.
Results: We captured the following themes: (1) prior knowledge (ability to define GOC, knowledge of communication frameworks and prognostic data, exposure to outpatient GOC conversations; (2) attitudes related to GOC conversations (responsibility, comfort, therapeutic alliance, patient preparedness, partnership with care teams); and (3) potential change in behaviors (increased likelihood to initiate GOC conversations early, more accurate identification of patients appropriate for a GOC conversation).
Conclusions: Prior knowledge of, exposure to, and attitudes toward advance care planning were key determinants of a nephrology trainees' ability to initiate timely GOC conversations. After our intervention, trainees reported increased comfort with and likelihood to initiate GOC conversations and an improved ability to identify appropriate candidates. Our intervention may be a novel, feasible way to coach nephrologists to initiate timely GOC conversations.
INTRODUCTION: The End-of-Life Namaste Care Program for People with Dementia, challenges the misconception that people with dementia are a 'shell'; it provides a holistic approach using the five senses, which can provide positive ways of communicating and emotional responses. It is proposed Namaste Care can improve communication and the relationships families and friends have with the person with dementia. Previously used in care homes, this study is the first to explore the pioneering use of Namaste Care in people's own homes.
OBJECTIVE: To develop initial programme theories detailing if, how and under which circumstances Namaste Care works when implemented at home.
DESIGN: A qualitative realist approach following the RAMESES II guidelines was employed to understand not only whether Namaste Care has positive outcomes, but also how these are generated, for whom they happen and in which circumstances.
SETTING: A hospice in the North East of England, operating in the community, through volunteers.
PARTICIPANTS: Programme theories were developed from three focus groups with volunteers implementing Namaste Care (n=8; n=8; n=11) and eight interviews with family carers (n=8).
RESULTS: Four refined explanatory theories are presented: increasing engagement, respite for family carers, importance of matched volunteers and increasing social interaction. It was identified that while Namaste Care achieved some of the same goals in the home setting as it does in the care home setting, it could also function in a different way that promoted socialisation.
CONCLUSIONS: Namaste Care provides holistic and personalised care to people with both moderate and advanced dementia, improving engagement and reducing social isolation. In the present study carers often chose to use Namaste Care sessions as respite. This was often linked to their frustration of the unavoidable dominance of task-focussed care in daily life. Individualised Namaste Care activities thus led to positive outcomes for both those with dementia and their carers.
Effective communication between clinicians and seriously ill patients and their families about a patient's goals of care is essential to patient-centered, goal-concordant, end-of-life care. Effective goals-of-care communication between clinicians and patients is associated with improved patient and family outcomes, increased clinician satisfaction, and decreased health care costs. Unfortunately, clinicians often face barriers in goals-of-care communication and collaboration, including a lack of education, time constraints, and no standardized protocols. Without clear goals-of-care communication, patients may not be able to provide guidance to clinicians about their end-of-life preferences. The purpose of this integrative review was to examine the efficacy of goals-of-care communication interventions between patients, families, and clinicians in randomized controlled trials published between 2009 and 2018. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria with an overall sample (N = 6376) of patients, family members, and clinicians. Results revealed of the 6 different intervention modes, patient decision aids and patient-clinician communication consistently increased comprehension and communication. Twelve of the studies had nurses facilitate or support the communication intervention. Because nurses are a critical, trusted nexus for communication about end-of-life care, focusing on nurse interventions may significantly improve clinical outcomes and the patient experience.