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.
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
- Conditions the study is for
- Congestive Heart Failure, Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
- 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
Canada2 sites
Quebec Practice-based Research Network
Québec, Quebec
University of Toronto Practice-based Research Network
Toronto, Ontario
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.
- Conditions
- Congestive Heart Failure, Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Cerebrovascular Accident, Frail Elderly Syndrome, Cardiovascular Diseases
- 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 group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician SICP | Active comparator | Advance 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 SICP | Active comparator | Advance 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.
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hospice use
Participant report of use of hospice or palliative care services
Measured: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
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
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.
- First posted5 Jul 2018
- Study start28 Feb 2019
- Primary completion1 Apr 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Jul 2023 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Congestive Heart FailureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Oregon Health and Science UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Oregon Health and Science University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Wisconsin, Madison, University of Colorado, Denver, University of Iowa, Duke University, Laval University, University of Toronto
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Annette Totten, Oregon Health and Science University
- Investigators
- Annette Totten, PhD, Principal investigator, Oregon Health and Science UniversityFrance Legare, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Universite Laval
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 31486729Lokossou 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 41120901Gomes 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 40138335Asmaou 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 39502858Ma 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 37171856Izumi 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 37040304Schmidt 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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 May 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- 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
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03577002
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PLC-1609-36277
- Conditions
- Congestive Heart Failure, Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Cerebrovascular Accident, Frail Elderly Syndrome, Cardiovascular Diseases
- Keywords
- Advance care planning, Patient-provider communications, Interdisciplinary teams, Practice-based research networks, Cluster-randomized controlled trial, Primary care
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 1,120 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Oregon Health and Science UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Wisconsin, Madison, University of Colorado, Denver, University of Iowa, Duke University, Laval University, University of Toronto
- Study start
- 28 Feb 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Apr 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Jul 2023 (estimated)
- First posted
- 5 Jul 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician SICP | Active comparator | Other: Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)Advance care planning between primary care clinician and the patient/family using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) |
| Team SICP | Active comparator | Other: Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)Advance care planning between team members and the patient/family using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- 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
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)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 | Other | Clinician SICP, Team SICP |
Primary outcome
Global rating of goal-concordant care, patient-reported
Time frame: 12 months after enrollment
Comparison between arms of whether care received corresponds to patient goals. This will be assessed at 12 months.
11 secondary outcomes
Cumulative time spent at home, patient-reported questionnaires
Time frame: 12 months after enrollment
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) - Depression
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
Patient-reported outcomes for individuals living with chronic conditions
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
SICP acceptability
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
SICP experience
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
Quality of communication
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
Shared decision making for healthcare decisions
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
Hospice use
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
Detailed items on goal-concordant care
Time frame: 6 months and 12 months after enrollment
Global rating of goal-concordant care, patient-reported
Time frame: 6 months after enrollment
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 May 2021.
- Background: PubMed 31486729Totten 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41120901Lokossou 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40138335Gomes 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 39502858Asmaou 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37171856Ma 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37040304Izumi 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33840295Schmidt 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.
- Trial informational websiteLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: 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
Related trials for Congestive Heart Failure
RecruitingPhase 4
The Effects of Ferric Derisomaltose in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency on Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life(COREVIVE-HFrEF)
Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction, Iron Deficiency
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
A Study of Bimagrumab in Participants With HFpEF
Heart Failure, Diastolic, Diastolic Heart Failure
Recruiting
Evaluation of a French Hospital Discharge Therapeutic Education Program by Nurses for Heart Failure Patient (EduSor)
Heart Failure
Active, not recruiting
Assessment of Combined CCM and ICD Device in HFrEF
Heart Failure, Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction
Not yet recruiting
RELIEVE-HFrEF TRIAL: REducing Lung congestIon Symptoms Using the v-wavE Shunt in adVancEd Heart Failure With Reduced EF
Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction, Heart Failure Chronic
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Annette Totten, PhD principal investigator
Oregon Health and Science University
France Legare, MD, PhD principal investigator
Universite Laval
7 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
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.