Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Improving the Adoption of Advance Directives in Primary Care Practices

Elizabeth Wickersham, Mary Gowin, Munim H. Deen and Zsolt Nagykaldi
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine March 2019, 32 (2) 168-179; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2019.02.180236
Elizabeth Wickersham
From the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Research Division (EW, MG, ZN), Primary Care Health Policy Division (MG), Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health (MHD), University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK.
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary Gowin
From the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Research Division (EW, MG, ZN), Primary Care Health Policy Division (MG), Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health (MHD), University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK.
MPH, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Munim H. Deen
From the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Research Division (EW, MG, ZN), Primary Care Health Policy Division (MG), Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health (MHD), University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK.
MPH, CPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zsolt Nagykaldi
From the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Research Division (EW, MG, ZN), Primary Care Health Policy Division (MG), Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health (MHD), University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    Workflow process for the distribution of advance directives in the clinics.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 2.

    Age distribution pf participating patients in the study.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Characteristics of Pair-Matched Practices, Based on Clinician Survey Responses

    Pair MatchPractice Type2013 Locale PopulationPanel SizePts/Day% MedicareReg Use of AD Form% Discuss AD
    1FQHC17,140>20001225 to 49N0
    1Independent6,027>3000>4050 to 74N1 to 24
    2Residency/Corporate610,613>300030 to 3925 to 49N × 2, Y × 11 to 24
    2Residency610,613>30004025 to 74Y × 1, N × 41 to 24
    3Independent23,400>300010 to 1925 to 49N0
    3Independent17,140>300020 to 2950 to 74N1 to 24
    • 2013 Locale Population, based on 2013 data; % Discuss AD: Estimated percent of patients with whom the clinician believes they discuss ADs at baseline; FQHC, Federally Qualified Health Center; pts/day, estimated average number of patients seen per day; % Medicare, estimated percent Medicare-insured patients; Reg Use of AD Form, Does the clinician use an AD form on a regular basis? (Y, yes; N, no, ×# indicates how many clinicians gave this answer).

      AD, Advance Directive.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Participating Patient Demographics

    CategoryCharacteristicCountPercentage, %
    GenderMale23235
    Female44065
    Race/ethnicityWhite33773
    Black5412
    Hispanic/Latino317
    Native American/Alaskan72
    Asian/Pacific Islander327
    • Count is limited to the number of patient participants for whom this information was recorded by the clinical staff.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Cumulative Utilization Statistics for the Two Forms: OKAD Versus Five Wishes

    FormEligibleOfferedOffered/Eligible, %AcceptedAccepted/Offered, %Accepted/Eligible, %
    OKAD1494493332665418
    Five Wishes1254450363698229
    • OKAD, Oklahoma Advance Directive.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    AD Form Utilization Distribution by Practices

    FormPracticeWeeks in StudyEligibleOfferedO/EAcceptedA/OA/E
    OKAD11781628835%14751%18%
    3*171346851%3957%29%
    6*1454413725%8058%15%
    Five Wishes2*2241316339%9357%23%
    41573325435%25299%34%
    5161083331%2473%22%
    Total274894334%63567%23%
    • ↵* Practices going through electronic health record transition during this study.

    • A, accepted; AD, Advance Directive; E, eligible; O, offered, OKAD, Oklahoma Advance Directive.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Representative Quotes from Qualitative Interviews with Patients and Clinicians

    Qualitative Themes for Patients and Clinicians
    ThemeSubthemeRepresentative Quotes
    OKADFive Wishes
    Capturing wishesClinicians• I tell the patients, ‘If it is not clear [the wording of the form], write it in [ie., patients write in their wishes on the form].’ Then it does fine. [This is a workaround this clinician devised for the OKAD].• I think it captures their wishes very well and helps stimulate questions and other information or desires they had not thought of in the past.
    • I think it is good on that. I looked it over. [This clinician could not identify the details of the form to explain what he thought made it adequately designed.]• It's improved compared to the state-approved document.
    • Useful tool.• To me, the way it [The Five Wishes form] is developed makes it a very good document.
    Patients• Can't remember the form very well.• Quite well
    • They give you a chance to change anything you may want to change.• Very well
    • I would have to read it all over again. I don't think you want to spend the time on that again.
    • As I recall, my husband and I did them together… he's in healthcare so he was able to answer any questions I had.
    Reading level, language, and form designClinicians• Pretty readable• I like it. It's worded in a way that people can understand it and what it is.
    • About what you would expect• They can understand how to word or communicate what they want out of it and it's not so scary-sounding in the way that it is worded. The way it is worded it is positive.
    • It might be a challenge for some people.• I have given the form out myself to patients who are not enrolled in the study as well.
    • In general, I think it is appropriate, but I probably tend to assume a level of comprehension that my patients may not possess, and I think they are often uncomfortable bringing that up and telling me, even if I ask if they understand it or not.Regarding form design:
    • I also realized the form itself is very complicated and it's hard to read at a different level• It's just laid out really simply.
    • It's almost like a conversation.
    Regarding form design:Asked about length:
    • It's OK.• I don't know how you can put in there [in the form] everything that has to be covered. So, there is a lot of stuff that goes into it, but it explains everything, so I think if you take that out it makes it to where they can't understand what you're asking of them. You can make it short and they're not going to answer it.
    • It requires some explanation, but it's OK.
    • Typically get zero positive input on the state form [from a clinician in the Five Wishes arm of the study].
    Patients• Well, with all those extra pages [explanatory booklet] that they gave me, and I thought ‘Oh my word!’ … it just kept me putting it aside because I didn't want to mess with it.• I thought it was very informative, really, gave me a lot of ideas I wouldn't think of if I didn't have this form.
    • In fact, we had checked some stuff that we didn't understand until the RN told us, ‘now, do you understand that when you check off that they use all parts of your body, but if you just specify the ones that you want done, your body will only take 2 days but otherwise it will take 2 weeks.’• … If you have seen the regular one [state form], then you know what a bunch of jumble mumble [it is]!… but this one is–I just don't see how it could be much simpler.
    • Very easy to understand.
    • It explains itself very well.
    • I have no qualms with it at all. I understood it.
    Family and cultural contextClinicians• Frequently people want to put more than one name on a line.• Health care proxy selection easier.
    • Allows discussion of cultural differences in a respectful and culturally-sensitive manner.
    • Several people really liked Wish 5.
    Patients• I had already [completed an AD], once I saw that Terri Schiavo mess and how they were recommending it. Plus, my mother died without one and they had to pull the plug … and that was like 10 years ago. So that is when we thought, ‘No. we need to make sure we have this.’• The only problem I had with it is, I am sitting here looking at it right now, I had talked to my daughter it said first1st choice and second choice, but my two daughters felt like they should both be the person to help with my care, not the second choice
    Patients• I must say my son was really wigged out that he thought he was in charge of deciding whether to pull the plug or not. My daughter is a respiratory therapist and so she just told him to not worry about it–‘You won't be the only one there. I can make sure it's a hopeless kind of thing.’ [however, daughter lives out of state, so son is first on HCP form].
    Implementation successClinicians• I feel like I have a decent number of patients that have completed it but percentage wise, I don't know [answer to the question as to how successful the clinician thought they were with implementation].• The Five Wishes form is more accessible [than the state form].
    • Not good.• I know of a number of patients who have brought the [completed] form in to me [since the start of this study].
    • [Our lack of success of implementation had nothing] to do with the form. It's just remembering to get that in. The form itself is fine.
    Patients• It's with all of those other pages they gave me and I thought, ‘Oh my word!’ … it just kept me putting it aside because I didn't want to mess with it.• I know I should have already had it turned back in.
    • I got everything on there. I just got to get it back to him [the doctor].
    Facilitating EOL discussionsClinicians• I tell patients, ‘I know it is silly, but it is important for us to have these conversations … the state requires that I do … it's really just protecting your family when you are no longer able to state your wishes.’• [this form] helps patients understand their responsibility (for the need to make end of life care decisions): ‘Who would speak for you [if you couldn't speak for yourself]?’
    • I think it has been helpful.• Prior to this study I thought I was doing a pretty good job. During the study I realized that the form itself was important.
    • I haven't noticed that it has done much for that.• The [Five Wishes] form itself does facilitate the communication part at home more so than the others [other AD forms].
    • More concrete. Takes the feeling out of it, the emotional component out of it. It's more cognitive. You know, 'Check, check, check.'• [The Five Wishes form] gets you to think about how you would want to get care if you were very sick.
    Patients• Right now, I am healthy. I am not giving it too much thought of what my end of life will be like, but if I was closer to death I would probably be a bit more [interested in this type of discussion.]• I don't know if I can tell you how she [the nurse] explained it to me, but she did explain it enough.
    • AD, Advance Directive; EOL, end of life; HCP, healthcare Proxy; OKAD, Oklahoma Advance Directive; RN, registered nurse.

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Barriers and Facilitators Identified by Clinicians During Qualitative Interviews

    Qualitative Themes for Clinicians
    SubthemeCommon barriers to implementation for both forms
    Time• Almost all clinicians in both study arms reference the extra time required, ranging from 30 seconds to 20 minutes, averaging approximately 3 to 5 minutes extra.
    • Several didn't mind finding the time because they felt it was important. Reimbursement codes help.
    Barriers and facilitators identified• Forgetting to offer forms, misunderstandings about how to address existing/multiple forms, pts forgetting to complete forms, pts forgetting to return forms, new EHR implementation, location and managing forms in EMR. Facilitators: involvement of nursing staff as part of the introduction, important to be part of the check-in flow/routine, offer to everyone, script cards for nursing staff.
    • Lack of sustainable reminders in place; numerous competing priorities; time pressures; EHR system change; Facilitators: systematic planning; effective teamwork; securing buy-in from entire clinic prior to implementation; professional experience with EOL conversations; “Bringing the attention.”
    • EHR, electronic health record; EOL, end-of-life.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 32 (2)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 32, Issue 2
March-April 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving the Adoption of Advance Directives in Primary Care Practices
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Improving the Adoption of Advance Directives in Primary Care Practices
Elizabeth Wickersham, Mary Gowin, Munim H. Deen, Zsolt Nagykaldi
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2019, 32 (2) 168-179; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.02.180236

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Improving the Adoption of Advance Directives in Primary Care Practices
Elizabeth Wickersham, Mary Gowin, Munim H. Deen, Zsolt Nagykaldi
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2019, 32 (2) 168-179; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.02.180236
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Most Frequently Read Articles of 2019
  • Multiple Research Methodologies Can Advance the Science of Family Medicine
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Advance Directives
  • End of Life Care
  • Living Wills
  • Oklahoma
  • Patient Preference
  • Patient-Centered Care
  • Primary Health Care
  • Quality of Life

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire