Cited by 66Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementPalliative and Oncologic Care

An intervention to enhance goals-of-care communication between heart failure patients and heart failure providers

Open access
Doorenbos, Ardith Z., Levy, Wayne C., Curtis, J. Randall, Dougherty, Cynthia M.·2016·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Context Heart failure patients contend with a markedly impaired quality of life, experiencing emotional distress and severe physical discomfort that increases in frequency in the last months of life. Improving communication between patients and providers about goals of care has the potential to improve patient-provider communication and patient outcomes.Objectives To determine the effects of a goals-of-care (GoC) intervention compared to usual care on the number of GoC conversations, quality of communication between patients and providers, referrals to palliative care services and completion of advance care directives.Methods A two-group randomized study (n = 40/group) compared a GoC intervention to usual care, conducted in an academic heart failure (HF) clinic. The GoC intervention was a previsit patient activation-education, telephone-based intervention delivered by a nurse. The primary outcome of the study was number of GoC conversations between HF patients and HF providers. Secondary outcomes were quality of communication, number of referrals to palliative care, and completion of advance directives.Results Patients averaged 58.15 ± 11.26 years of age, with mean left ventricular ejection fraction = 30.31 ± 9.72% and Seattle Heart Failure Model scores = 95.1 ± 1.60. There was a significant increase in goals-of-care conversations (58% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.001) and quality of end-of-life communication (P = 0.03) in the GoC group compared to usual care after the intervention. There were no differences between groups on the other outcomes.Conclusion The GoC intervention resulted in more GoC conversations and higher quality communication between HF patients and providers without increased anxiety or depression. Further studies are needed to assess impact on longer term quality of care and patient outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.03.018

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patient-centred somatic symptom interventions to improve end-of-life quality often have a limited impact.

    “However, patient-centred somatic symptom interventions to improve end-of-life quality often have a limited impact.24”

    From Psychological adjustment to death anxiety: a qualitative study of Chinese patients with advanced cancer (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction and Discussion describe a goals-of-care communication intervention for heart failure patients, not a somatic symptom intervention. The Results report improved end-of-life communication but do not assess end-of-life quality of life or establish that patient-centred somatic symptom interventions often have limited impact. Searches for limited impact, somatic symptoms, and quality-of-life intervention outcomes found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 66

Authors
Doorenbos, A. Z., Levy, W. C., Curtis, J. R., & Dougherty, C. M.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Doorenbos, Ardith Z.
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
353-360
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2464403383
Cited by
66
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Palliative Care Research Center (NCT02466100)
  • Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
goals of care, heart failure, patient-provider communication, end-of-life communication, palliative care referral, advance directives, patient activation, telephone-delivered intervention, nurse-led intervention, quality of life, emotional distress
MeSH terms
Communication, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurses, Palliative Care, Patient Care Planning, Patient Education as Topic, Professional-Patient Relations, Quality of Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Terminal Care, Advance Directives, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review