This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Non-randomized Protocols and Methods (ehealth) (540) Personal Health Records, Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records, Patient Portals (538) Consumer & Patient Education and Shared-Decision Making (636) Participatory Medicine & E-Patients (758) Design of Processes and Workflows (86) Formative Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions (2193) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (1556) mHealth for Symptom and Disease Monitoring, Chronic Disease Management (1301) Hospice and End-of-Life Care (4)

Published on in Vol 13 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/55080, first published .
Participation in Advance Care Planning Among Medically At-Risk Rural Veterans: Protocol for a Personalized Engagement Model

Participation in Advance Care Planning Among Medically At-Risk Rural Veterans: Protocol for a Personalized Engagement Model

Participation in Advance Care Planning Among Medically At-Risk Rural Veterans: Protocol for a Personalized Engagement Model

Authors of this article:

Tammy Walkner1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Daniel W Karr1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Sarah Murray1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Amanda Heeren3, 4 Author Orcid Image ;   Maresi Berry-Stoelzle1, 5 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (4) Metrics

    Protocol

    1Veterans Rural Health Resource Center, Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, United States

    2Center for Access & Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE), Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, United States

    3Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, United States

    4Department of Psychiatry, Carver College of Medicine, Unviersity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States

    5Vaughan Institute, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Maresi Berry-Stoelzle, PhD, MD

    Veterans Rural Health Resource Center

    Iowa City VA Health Care System

    601 Highway 6 West

    Iowa City, IA, 52246

    United States

    Phone: 1 319 338 0581

    Email: maresi.berry-stoelzle@va.gov


    Background: Many of the challenges in advanced care planning (ACP) conversations are linked to the waxing and waning progress of serious illnesses. Conversations with patients about future medical care decisions by a surrogate decision maker have historically been left until late in the patient’s disease trajectory. These conversations often happen at a time when the patient is already very ill. The challenge in effective early ACP and serious illness conversations is to create a situation where patients appreciate the link between current and future medical care. Setting the stage to make these conversations more accessible includes using telehealth to have conversations at the patient’s place of choice. The personalization used includes addressing the current medical and social needs of the patient and ensuring that expressed needs are addressed as much as possible. Engaging patients in these conversations allows the documentation of patient preferences in the electronic health record (EHR), providing guidelines for future medical care.

    Objective: The objective of our telehealth serious illness care conversations program was to successfully recruit patients who lacked up-to-date documentation of ACP in their EHR. Once these patients were identified, we engaged in meaningful, structured conversations to address the veterans’ current needs and concerns. We developed a recruitment protocol that increased the uptake of rural veterans’ participation in serious illness care conversations and subsequent EHR documentation.

    Methods: The recruitment protocol outlined herein used administrative data to determine those patients who have not completed or updated formal ACP documentation in the EHR and who are at above-average risk for death in the next 3-5 years. The key features of the telehealth serious illness care conversations recruitment protocol involve tailoring the recruitment approach to address current patient concerns while emphasizing future medical decision-making.

    Results: As of September 2022, 196 veterans had completed this intervention. The recruitment method ensures that the timing of the intervention is patient driven, allowing for veterans to engage in ACP at a time and place convenient for them and their identified support persons.

    Conclusions: The recruitment protocol has been successful in actively involving patients in ACP conversations, leading to an uptick in completed formal documentation of ACP preferences within the EHR for this specific population. This documentation is then available to the medical team to guide future medical care.

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/55080

    JMIR Res Protoc 2024;13:e55080

    doi:10.2196/55080

    Keywords

    advance care planning; chronic disease; end-of-life care; health care decision; medical decision-making; recruiting; shared medical decision-making 


    Overview

    Advance care planning (ACP) involves dialogues between patients and their health care providers regarding the patient’s values and health care preferences [1-3]. These discussions provide a foundation for health care providers and surrogate decision makers to make informed decisions in situations where the individual is unable to do so. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) offers ACP as a named health care benefit for enrolled veterans [4]. Advance directives (ADs) are documents outlining instructions for future medical care and go into effect only if an individual is not capable of making medical decisions or communicating their wishes [3]. Not all ACP sessions result in the completion of an AD, nor is completing an AD always the goal of specific ACP discussions [1,2]. This project focuses on increasing ACP participation and documentation among VHA enrolled veterans.

    ACP is a key factor in end-of-life care, yet it is an underused intervention [5]. Among US veterans, it is estimated that 7.1 million of the 9.6 million veterans who are enrolled in VHA do not have ACP preferences documented in their medical records [1,6,7]. Work on AD discussions by Matthieu and colleagues [1] shows only 5.2% of all VHA beneficiaries had a documented ACP discussion in 2020.

    Research suggests older adults may not be informed about the ACP process and may assume that physicians initiate conversations about advanced illness or end-of-life care [5,8]. Additionally, some older adults might lack adequate health literacy to understand the contents of end-of-life care conversations or the risks related to treatments they may receive throughout the illness trajectory [9-12]. Communication about end-of-life preferences may also be difficult if the health care provider or the patient is reluctant to initiate discussion or the provider lacks sufficient time to engage in the conversation [1,9,13,14]. Yet there are benefits to ACP, such as reducing uncertainty when a patient is unable to communicate their wishes, receiving care that is more congruent with personal preferences, and including care that is more consistent with the spiritual cultural needs of patients and their families [14-17]. Additionally, for specific high-risk populations, the presence of an advanced care plan before hospital admission has been shown to decrease intensive care unit length of stay [8,18,19].

    VHA supports multiple approaches to facilitate ACP conversations between patients, surrogate decision makers, and providers, including, but not limited to, the serious illness care conversation (SICC), the goals of care conversations, and the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative [4,20]. The National Center for Ethics in Health Care is at the forefront of making ACP information available to veterans and the Veterans Administration’s (VA) clinical and nonclinical workforce. National Center for Ethics in Health Care has been central to providing guidelines and training to support ACP practices within VHA. Enterprise-wide initiatives, such as advance care planning through group visits, are additional offerings at various VA sites that are successfully increasing access to ACP [1,21]. VHA has been promoting life-sustaining treatment (LST) as the AD of choice for VHA; however, the limitation of LSTs to VA health systems restricts the transferability of the veteran’s wishes to community-based hospitals and providers. LSTs are ADs that are only valid in VA health facilities and are not widely accepted outside of VHA. Despite known benefits and resources for providers and veterans for engaging in ACP, documentation of ACP discussions in veterans’ electronic health records (EHRs) remains low [1].

    Challenges of ACP in a Rural Veteran Population

    Rural veterans living with serious illness, compared to their urban peers, have increased barriers to ACP within VHA and community health care systems [15,22,23]. Serious illness has been defined as a “health condition that carries a high risk of mortality and either negatively impacts a person’s daily function or quality of life or excessively strains their caregivers” [24]. Veterans who rely on VHA for care are often sicker, tend to live in rural areas, and face significant travel challenges regarding broad geographic distance and seasonal weather impacting travel safety [22,23]. While the VA Mission Act of 2018 has increased access to medical care for rural veterans [25], formalizing ACP processes still lags for rural veterans [1,26]. Access to medical care is a concern for many rural veterans, and with fewer care options, there are fewer opportunities to talk about serious illness and advance care planning [15,27]. Urban-dwelling veterans often face similar challenges, so any improvements to access through these interventions have the potential to benefit all veterans.

    Many rural veterans use both VA and community-based health care [28,29], indicating a need for ACP that is translatable to both VA and community-obtained health care. As such, this intervention seeks to promote ACP and offers support to veterans wishing to complete whichever formal AD documentation format is best suited for their unique health care needs. For veterans, whose primary care location is VA, LST offers a nuanced format for documenting future care decisions. For those, whose primary site of care is outside VA, the state-based AD, such as the durable power of attorney form, should be filled out.

    SICC acknowledge that the disease is unlikely to resolve, and managing symptoms and medical crises is an ongoing challenge for patients and their support team [2-4,30]. While SICCs are widely applicable, they are an underutilized structure for conversations between a provider and a patient who is focusing on living with a serious illness [9,31]. The telehealth serious illness care conversation (tSICC) adapts many of the tenets of SICC for a telehealth intervention while utilizing VA clinical standards designed for ACP [32]. These frameworks have been adjusted to suit conversations with veterans in their homes who are not expected to be in a current medical crisis [4,32]. The provider talks with the patient about their values and priorities for health care, as well as how those might change in the context of advancing illness with or without an acute medical crisis. The goal is more than simply discussing resuscitation status; but rather, it is to develop a personalized plan for medical care as the patient’s illness progresses. While SICC acts as an entry into the ACP process, these types of conversations often happen too late in a person’s medical trajectory [16,31]. Early engagement allows for relational decision-making for veterans and their families [33], accommodating the more complex information about the variable clinical trajectory of older and more seriously ill veterans.

    Personalized approaches have been shown to promote engagement in the ACP process [5,34]. Our project tailored the recruitment strategies for rural veterans, recognizing they have more barriers to receiving end-of-life health care, including limited access to hospice and palliative care services [15]. This manuscript outlines a recruitment protocol for rural, seriously ill veterans into a quality improvement (QI) project at a veteran healthcare system in the Midwestern United States.

    To optimize integration of veteran-specific values, this QI project used community-based participatory research (CBPR) practices [35-37]. According to National Institutes of Health, CBPR involves researchers and community members to combine “knowledge with action to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities” [38]. To accomplish our goal of developing a veteran-centric approach to engaging in ACP, we established a team that included veterans and veterans’ proxy decision makers (through a Veteran Engagement Panel [VEP]), an advocacy expert, social workers, licensed VA medical providers, and veteran service officers. The VEP was convened specifically to provide guidance for the pilot, accompanying the project from institutional review board (IRB) approval through the development of the intervention and analysis of preliminary results. The VEP was integral to the development of veteran-facing materials, including flyers and other recruitment materials, as well as the development of metrics reflecting veteran priorities. Panel members shared their insights on how to personalize all aspects of the study to support the goal of making the process relatable to the veteran population.

    A Telehealth-Based, Multimodal, and Veteran-Centric Intervention

    Improving access and decreasing barriers were driving forces in our QI project: develop and disseminate a veteran-centric clinical protocol for ACP through tSICC. Telehealth visits expand access for patients who face barriers to receiving medical care [39-41]. However, technology issues limit the use of telehealth as an equitable or appropriate care mechanism [39]. While VHA has been using telehealth for many years, rural veterans’ limited access to high-quality broadband service can be a barrier to telehealth services [42,43]. Evidence has suggested veterans with a serious illness were satisfied with telehealth encounters, as these types of appointments improved their access to care and diminished the need for travel [39].

    Information About the tSICC Pilot

    Our project targets at-risk veterans with no ADs or out-of-date AD documentation in veterans’ EHRs. Our team obtained funding through VHA Office of Rural Health for a QI project within VHA; we are a rural-serving Midwest VA medical center. We present here a systematic description of a stakeholder informed, multimodal recruitment strategy for a clinical intervention for ACP.

    Setting for the Development of the Engagement Strategy

    Our QI project sought to determine the appropriate timing and setting for a tSICC within a veteran’s clinical trajectory. We had a driving slogan: “the right care, for the right veteran, at the right time.” The steps chosen for recruitment were consistent with local IRB guidelines, local and national VA practices, and were influenced by veteran feedback [32]. To our knowledge, there is no specific literature outlining the development of a veteran-centric recruitment model for telehealth-based ACP.

    Objective

    This manuscript describes a recruitment protocol for engaging veterans who have not been reached through existing opportunities to participate in a tSICC and ACP within VHA.


    Study Context

    This paper reports on the methodology of an initial pilot study that is part of a larger clinical work-flow QI project to increase veteran engagement in and documentation of ACP within VHA. Our team is developing a telehealth-based approach to an existing clinical intervention, the SICC, with a focus on allowing the veteran and their chosen support persons to participate in ACP on their own timeline and in a setting that is convenient and comfortable for them. This is especially important for rural veterans who may face a significant travel burden to access care at VHA. Veterans and their families often accommodate this burden by cramming many of their medical appointments into one day. However, reducing the travel burden can lead to a busy, medically-focused schedule and increased fatigue. The lack of time during clinical visits is a barrier for interventions like SICC that promote ACP [31,39,44]. By removing this clinical intervention from an already taxing day and creating a space for this important conversation to occur outside of stressful clinical visit days, we hypothesized that veterans would be better able to participate in ACP. Consequently, as this discussion is documented in the EHR and veterans are guided on how to have future ACP conversations, there is a prospect for increased efficacy in future discussions of ACP among veteran participants and their VHA medical providers and social workers.

    Engaging participants in research or QI studies can be difficult, especially if participants are seriously ill or the study is focused on a sensitive issue such as ACP. Further study of clinical interventions can help identify better strategies for recruitment and participation in research focused on ACP and palliative care [44,45]. Studies have shown that using multiple strategies in the recruiting phase may help increase participation related to ACP [46-48]. Chau and colleagues [46] demonstrated that mailing information along with making phone calls to participants is an effective method for increasing their willingness to engage in the ACP process. For this QI project, an assortment of methods were used to recruit participants to the ACP process.

    Study Design

    The tSICC intervention was implemented in a medium-sized VA health care system in a Midwestern city in the central United States with a regional metropolitan population of 171,000. VHA EHR system was used for population-based identification of medically at-risk veterans. The pilot cohort was recruited from July 2021 to October 2021 using a project-developed risk metric that identifies and categorizes by risk level those who might experience a serious health episode in the next 5 years. Veterans were identified as not having an AD or other VHA-based ACP documentation in their EHR within the last 2 years. Veterans were receiving care through VHA but may also be supplementing it with community-based care. The recruitment goal was for 200 veterans to participate in the intervention.

    While the intervention was planned as a telehealth intervention, recruitment was initially done during a clinical appointment starting in April 2021. The project team quickly identified that in-clinic recruitment was difficult due to existing workflows that did not easily integrate the recruitment process. This experience is noted in the literature, with previous works [33,40] showing that having ACP conversations as part of the clinical workflow is challenging and does not engage populations that may have significant comorbidities and more pressing medical concerns. In October 2021, the study team transitioned to an entirely remote, multimodal recruitment process.

    Applying CBPR principles to further enhance veteran-centricity, veteran participants were invited to take part in a concise survey of their experience in both the recruitment process and the intervention. Evaluation questions from the CollaboRATE survey, based on core elements of shared decision-making [49], were used in a postintervention call to assess if participants felt informed about the purpose of the intervention and if they felt they were part of the decision-making process [50]. The collaboRATE questions have been delivered through multiple modalities (eg, paper, digital tablet, and social media) [50,51], which makes this short survey a viable option for individualized projects such as our QI pilot. Feedback from these questions was an important element in adapting the pilot study to veteran-identified concerns and wishes.

    Study Protocol

    The required steps of local IRB and VA offices at the time of this intervention development were mail notification before placing up to 3 unsolicited phone calls and leaving up to 1 unsolicited voicemail. The parameter aligns with evidence that 3 phone calls promote engagement and minimize fatigue [34]. In addition to institutional guidelines, the recruitment strategy was shaped by our work with the VEP, which identified 3 concepts that became guideposts for the recruitment strategy: personalization, continuity of information, and the benefit of participating in ACP now. See Figure 1 below for an overview of the major steps in our pilot project. Figure 2 offers a more detailed view of our process.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Overview of the quality improvement recruitment process. ACP: advanced care planning.
    ‎
    Figure 2. A detailed view of the personalized recruiting process. ACP: advanced care planning; IRB: institutional review board; tSICC: telehealth serious illness care conversations.

    To personalize the mailing phase of recruitment, special attention was given to the items being sent to the veteran. Large manilla envelopes were hand-addressed in blue ink to appear unique among other pieces of mail and later be referenced by color and size during recruitment phone calls.

    Several strategies were available during phone recruitment to personalize the experience for the veteran. The recruiter, trained on the components of ACP, reviewed the veteran’s medical record before the call to ensure familiarity with the veteran’s preferred name and correct address, identify any recent major medical events, and obtain the name of the veteran’s emergency contact or next of kin (inviting the veteran to include them in the tSICC if they wished). During the call, attention was paid to the veteran’s health literacy and comfort with technology. The recruiter estimated the veteran’s understanding of the project and if the veteran might need technical assistance (ie, in preparing for video chat) to participate in the telehealth intervention. When needed, further explanation was provided, or plans were made to provide technical assistance before the intervention.

    Continuity of information can be challenging in any large health care system, and veterans may feel that information is not shared among members of the health care team. This was reported as a negative experience by the VEP and indicated decreased confidence in both competency and compassion from their care team. To address that concern, the recruitment team used a formal hand-off to ensure that concerns and topics raised by the veteran during the recruitment call were passed on to the next team member. During recruitment, veterans were informed that they would have an opportunity to talk with a VA medical provider about their general concerns related to ACP. Concerns shared during the recruitment phone call would be relayed to the provider and could be discussed further during the telehealth visit.

    The final concept proffered by the VEP regarded the benefit of this ACP intervention and said that every interaction with the veteran should be of potential benefit. Early in the disease process, veterans are active decision makers, and tSICCs are grounded in patient autonomy. The tSICC protocol offers ACP at the veteran’s convenience rather than during a busy clinic schedule or a time of medical crisis, creating time and space for veterans to ask for help with medical decision-making. In line with the project’s objective to enhance veteran comprehension of ACP and the support available from VA, veterans were informed that the health care provider involved in this intervention could assist them in translating their values, goals, and wishes into future treatment decisions, all of which would be recorded in their VA EHR. This included how completing an AD can be a significant step in gaining agency in their future medical decision-making.

    How the Principle of Tailoring Follows Through Subsequent Steps

    Veterans successfully recruited for the project participated in the tSICC intervention and a postintervention follow-up call. During the intervention, the VA provider was sure to ask about topics important to the veteran and their family that may have been identified during the recruiting phone call. The VA provider then documented the ACP conversation in the veteran’s EHR. As needed, appropriate referrals were made to VA providers, and relevant resources were shared with the veteran.

    Following the intervention, veterans were invited to participate in the evaluation of the recruitment and intervention protocols. To assess the appropriateness, timeliness, and usefulness of the intervention, there was a 3-item questionnaire as well as a query of their opinion about the intervention and any suggestions they may have for improving the process. An iterative process was used to incorporate input from veterans that shaped continued recruitment procedures. The concluding phone call also provided a chance to address any inquiries regarding ACP or the tSICC and to ensure the completion of any previous tasks.

    Analysis of Project-Generated Engagement Data

    Data collection on recruitment focused on monitoring the number of attempts, the results of these attempts, and veteran-reported satisfaction with the recruitment process. The structure of the phone call outcomes gave insight into the challenges of reaching veterans at home (Textbox 1).

    Textbox 1. The possible outcomes for telephone recruiting.

    Outcomes of phone calls

    • Message left
    • Did not leave message
    • Telephone problem
    • Wrong number or disconnected
    • Deceased
    • Call back requested
    • Declined
    • Asked for more information
    • Resend letter
    • Agreed to participate
    • Refused to participate

    If the recruiter got a message “No longer in service,” “Busy signal,” or “Unable to leave a message,” it was not logged as first contact; those were simple telephone problems or technical issues. Some cellular services provide a message if the call cannot be completed as dialed. If the issue was telephone company-related and not customer-related, it was not considered a contact.

    Ethical Considerations

    This project was determined as quality improvement nonhuman participants research by the University of Iowa IRB for January 2020 (#201911479), March 2020 (#202002148), and April 2021 (#202102175). We did not require a waiver or informed consent as this intervention was nonhuman subject research. All study data for this QI project has been deidentified, and no personal information has been reported in this paper. There was no compensation since this project was nonhuman subject research.


    This project seeks to understand how VHA can deliver ACP that supports “the right care, for the right veteran, at the right time.” Here we report the results of the feedback received from veterans in the development of the recruitment process and its integration into our ongoing recruitment for this multiyear project. VEP and intervention participants provided the insight that 3 concepts should be at the forefront of our approach: personalization, continuity of information, and a benefit to the veteran now.

    Personalization occurred at all levels of the recruitment protocol. Our team aimed to have mailed materials “stand out” against mail that could otherwise be perceived as junk by using larger envelopes and hand-addressing them. We also customized recruitment discussions (and subsequent intervention discussions) to align with the veteran’s ACP experiences to date. Further, project team members recognized and addressed the individual needs of the veteran as identified in the EHR and from previous interactions with the project team. By not repeating already shared information, veterans, and staff saved time. This allowed conversations to move to solutions for veterans’ concerns and building next steps for planning more efficiently.

    Immediate benefits to veterans from the intervention included: provider documentation of veterans’ values and personal health goals to be used as guidance to future proxy decision makers; updating incorrect or incomplete next-of-kin information stored in the EHR; and assistance in the completion of AD to be entered into the EHR. Further, increasing a veteran’s understanding of ACP and how VHA can help the veteran with future medical decision-making was a vital component of the clinical intervention and, as such, was integrated into every contact, starting at recruitment. To facilitate this, our recruiter was knowledgeable of ACP principles and the tSICC intervention and had the necessary resources to explain the project and the background verbally in electronic and paper form.

    The impact of the recruitment strategy was that of the 343 veterans successfully reached during recruitment by phone, 199 agreed to participate, and 196 completed the intervention. From this group, 146 completed the post call evaluation. Veteran satisfaction with the intervention is reported in Table 1. Notably, 50% (98/196) of veterans who completed the intervention then requested to have AD forms mailed to them for completion. When asked whether the timing of the tSICC was appropriate and timely for them, 66.4% (97/146) of respondents agreed it was.

    Table 1. Veterans’ satisfaction with a telehealth Serious Illness Care Conversation intervention (N=146).
    Veteran agreement with elements of satisfactionValue, n (%)
    Provider understood patient’s values

    		Rurala86 (76.1)

    		Urbana23 (65.7)

    		Total109 (74.7)
    Provider includes what matters most

    		Rurala83 (73.4)

    		Urbana22 (66.7)

    		Total105 (71.9)
    Appropriate timing of conversation

    		Rurala75 (66.3)

    		Urbana22 (66.7)

    		Total97 (66.4)

    aRural-Urban Commuting Area Codes guidelines were used to determine rural or urban status [52].

    The intervention and related data collection for the ongoing QI project are expected to be completed in the fiscal year 2024. The results of that data are forthcoming.


    The results of this QI project support the hypothesis that veterans are more likely to engage in ACP if the conversation is timely, not perceived as burdensome, and addresses veterans’ current medical and related concerns [5,14,41]. The recruitment method outlined herein offers personalized strategies to engage veterans in ACP outside of a clinical setting that were informed and evaluated by veterans.

    The QI team adapted VA trainings on advance care and serious illness conversations to be used in a short, home telehealth setting and focused on identifying a process to engage veterans in a way that fits their unique needs. The digital divide was identified as a significant barrier for rural veterans [42-44]. Our findings are consistent with previous results, which show that offering lower tech communication options as well as support for connectivity in the form of personalized assistance lowered systemic barriers to access [43,46].

    Data reported in the literature and gathered from our dedicated VEP underscores the importance of the veteran’s perception that their unique needs and perspectives are important to the ACP process [39]. This both serves to build rapport and to tailor subsequent information offered in the course of the intervention about ACP. Particular focus was on how engaging in ACP now can help inform their current medical decision-making as well as the benefit of formal documentation of ACP within the veteran’s EHR [9,14].

    A notable limitation of this study is that while we documented increases in ACP behaviors across the sample, we did not capture uniform, preintervention data that may have provided insight into the unique barriers and facilitators that influence an individual’s engagement in ACP. Another limitation is the study’s small size, at 1 Midwest VA medical center. This important limitation will require further study before any generalization, ideally as a multisite pilot.

    The recruitment strategies used over the course of this QI project support veterans in accessing and understanding ACP by addressing both common and unique barriers to engaging in ACP. Furthermore, this project demonstrates that telehealth is a viable mechanism to provide meaningful and satisfactory recruitment of veterans into the ACP process. Overall, we show that personalization in recruitment allows veterans to see that their needs are being met by VHA services. Demonstrating sensitivity to current veteran needs can increase access to the delivery of ACP. This approach is clinically feasible as a telehealth intervention. We demonstrate that a telehealth protocol with personalization and continuity of communication increases the engagement of veterans in clinical interventions about sensitive issues such as ACP and SICC. Engaging veterans in these conversations and documenting the results in the EHR is the first important step in ensuring veteran-centric care in times of medical crisis.

    Acknowledgments

    This material is based upon work supported (or supported in part) by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Rural Health, and Veterans Rural Health Resource Center-Iowa City (Project 03522 and Project 03861).

    Part of MBS’s time was covered by the Veterans Rural Health Resource Center—Iowa City (Project 03522 and Project 03861). The authors are grateful to Andrea Holcombe, PhD, for providing statistical consultation and Keith Swetz, MD, for providing feedback on a draft of this paper.

    The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    1. Matthieu MM, Ounpraseuth ST, Williams JS, Hu B, Adkins DA, Taylor LD, et al. "Advancing" advance care planning to veterans in the Veterans Health Administration. Mil Med. Mar 20, 2023;188(3-4):786-791. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Health care ethics resources for veterans, patients, and families. US Dept of Veterans Affairs. 2023. URL: https://www.ethics.va.gov/for_veterans.asp [accessed 2023-03-26]
    3. Advance care planning: advance directives for health care. National Institutes of Health. URL: https:/​/www.​nia.nih.gov/​health/​advance-care-planning/​advance-care-planning-advance-directives-health-care [accessed 2024-01-14]
    4. Advance care planning and management of advance directives. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. 2013. URL: https://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/policy/VHA_Handbook_1004_02_Advance_Care_Planning.pdf [accessed 2024-01-11]
    5. Fried TR, Redding CA, Robbins ML, Paiva AL, O'Leary JR, Iannone L. Development of Personalized Health Messages to Promote Engagement in Advance Care Planning. J Am Geriatr Soc. Feb 2016;64(2):359-364. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Rao JK, Anderson LA, Lin FC, Laux JP. Completion of advance directives among U.S. consumers. Am J Prev Med. Jan 2014;46(1):65-70. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. About the department. US Department of Veterans Affairs. URL: https:/​/department.​va.gov/​about/​#:~:text=Veterans%20Health%20Care,million%20enrolled%20Veterans%20each%20year [accessed 2024-01-17]
    8. Tripken JL, Elrod C, Bills S. Factors Influencing Advance Care Planning Among Older Adults in Two Socioeconomically Diverse Living Communities. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. Jan 2018;35(1):69-74. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Bernacki RE, Block SD, American College of Physicians High Value Care Task Force. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med. Dec 2014;174(12):1994-2003. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Ladin K, Buttafarro K, Hahn E, Koch-Weser S, Weiner DE. "End-of-Life Care? I'm not Going to Worry About That Yet." Health literacy gaps and end-of-life planning among elderly dialysis patients. Gerontologist. Mar 19, 2018;58(2):290-299. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Melhado L, Bushy A. Exploring uncertainty in advance care planning in African Americans: does low health literacy influence decision making preference at end of life. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. Nov 2011;28(7):495-500. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Nouri SS, Barnes DE, Volow AM, McMahan RD, Kushel M, Jin C, et al. Health Literacy Matters More Than Experience for Advance Care Planning Knowledge Among Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 2019;67(10):2151-2156. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Rose BL, Leung S, Gustin J, Childers J. Initiating advance care planning in primary care: a model for success. J Palliat Med. Apr 2019;22(4):427-431. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. You JJ, Downar J, Fowler RA, Lamontagne F, Ma IWY, Jayaraman D, et al. Canadian Researchers at the End of Life Network. Barriers to goals of care discussions with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families: a multicenter survey of clinicians. JAMA Intern Med. Apr 2015;175(4):549-556. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Del Rosario C, Kutney-Lee A, Sochalski J, Ersek M. Does quality of end-of-life care differ by urban-rural location? A comparison of processes and family evaluations of care in the VA. J Rural Health. Sep 2019;35(4):528-539. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Lakin JR, Koritsanszky LA, Cunningham R, Maloney FL, Neal BJ, Paladino J, et al. A systematic intervention to improve serious illness communication in primary care. Health Aff (Millwood). Jul 01, 2017;36(7):1258-1264. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Lu H, Trancik E, Bailey FA, Ritchie C, Rosenfeld K, Shreve S, et al. Families' perceptions of end-of-life care in Veterans Affairs versus non-Veterans Affairs facilities. J Palliat Med. Aug 2010;13(8):991-996. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Kupensky D, Hileman BM, Emerick ES, Chance EA. Palliative Medicine Consultation Reduces Length of Stay, Improves Symptom Management, and Clarifies Advance Directives in the Geriatric Trauma Population. J Trauma Nurs. 2015;22(5):261-265. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Lee JS, Khan AD, Dorlac WC, Dunn J, McIntyre RC, Wright FL, et al. The patient's voice matters: the impact of advance directives on elderly trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. Feb 01, 2022;92(2):339-346. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care: life-sustaining treatment decisions: eliciting, documenting, and honoring patients' values, goals, and preferences. VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care. URL: https://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/policy/VHA_Handbook_1004_03_LST.pdf [accessed 2024-01-12]
    21. Enterprise-wide initiatives. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Rural Health. URL: https://www.ruralhealth.va.gov/providers/Enterprise_Wide_Initiatives.asp [accessed 2024-02-13]
    22. Farmer CM, Hosek SD, Adamson DM. Balancing demand and supply for veterans' health care: a summary of three RAND assessments conducted under the Veterans Choice Act. Rand Health Q. Jun 20, 2016;6(1):12. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    23. Schooley BL, Horan TA, Lee PW, West PA. Rural veteran access to healthcare services: investigating the role of information and communication technologies in overcoming spatial barriers. Perspect Health Inf Manag. Apr 01, 2010;7(Spring):1f. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    24. Kelley AS, Bollens-Lund E. Identifying the Population with Serious Illness: The "Denominator" Challenge. J Palliat Med. Mar 2018;21(S2):S7-S16. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Sullivan E, Zahnd WE, Zhu JM, Kenzie E, Patzel M, Davis M. Mapping rural and urban veterans' spatial access to primary care following the MISSION Act. J Gen Intern Med. Sep 2022;37(12):2941-2947. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Irvin S, McGowan M, Zavala A. Advance care planning and advance directives completion of elderly patients at a rural health clinic on a regional medical campus. J Reg Med Campuses. Aug 14, 2020;3(2). [CrossRef]
    27. Tasseff TL, Tavernier SS, Neill KS, Watkins PR. Exploring perceptions of palliative care among rural dwelling veterans. Online J Rural Nurs Health Care. 2019;19(1):159-178. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    28. West AN, Charlton ME. Insured veterans' use of VA and non-VA health care in a rural state. J Rural Health. Sep 2016;32(4):387-396. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Coughlin SS, Young L. A review of dual health care system use by veterans with cardiometabolic disease. J Hosp Manag Health Policy. Aug 2018;2:39. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Serious illness conversation guide. Ariadne Labs. 2015. URL: https:/​/www.​ariadnelabs.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2023/​05/​Serious-Illness-Conversation-Guide.​2023-05-18.​pdf [accessed 2024-02-13]
    31. Ouchi K, George N, Schuur JD, Aaronson EL, Lindvall C, Bernstein E, et al. Goals-of-Care Conversations for Older Adults With Serious Illness in the Emergency Department: Challenges and Opportunities. Ann Emerg Med. Aug 2019;74(2):276-284. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Goals of care conversation skills training for clinicians. Veterans Affairs Healthcare. 2019. URL: https://www.ethics.va.gov/GoCC.asp [accessed 2024-02-13]
    33. Combes S, Gillett K, Norton C, Nicholson CJ. The importance of living well now and relationships: a qualitative study of the barriers and enablers to engaging frail elders with advance care planning. Palliat Med. Jun 2021;35(6):1137-1147. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Gerger H, van Dijk-de Vries A, Moser A, Jochem I, Veenstra M, Perry M, et al. Adjusting advance care planning to older people's needs: results from focus groups and interviews. BMC Health Serv Res. Jan 10, 2024;24(1):51. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. DeVoe ER, Ross AM, Paris R. Build it together and they will come: the case for community-based participatory research with military populations. Adv Soc Work. 2012;13(1):149-165.
    36. Riffin C, Kenien C, Ghesquiere A, Dorime A, Villanueva C, Gardner D, et al. Community-based participatory research: understanding a promising approach to addressing knowledge gaps in palliative care. Ann Palliat Med. Jul 2016;5(3):218-224. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Holkup PA, Tripp-Reimer T, Salois EM, Weinert C. Community-based participatory research: an approach to intervention research with a Native American community. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2004;27(3):162-175. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Community-Based Participatory Research Program. National Institutes of Health. 2018. URL: https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/programs/extramural/community-based-participatory.html [accessed 2024-02-13]
    39. Gordon HS, Solanki P, Bokhour BG, Gopal RK. "I'm Not Feeling Like I'm Part of the Conversation" Patients' Perspectives on Communicating in Clinical Video Telehealth Visits. J Gen Intern Med. Jun 2020;35(6):1751-1758. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Seecof OM, Allanoff M, Liantonio J, Parks S. Lessons Learned From a Pilot Project on Telemedicine Advance Care Planning in an Urban Geriatric Primary Care Office. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. Jun 2022;39(6):701-704. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Soliman AA, Akgün KM, Coffee J, Kapo J, Morrison LJ, Hopkinson E, et al. Quality of telehealth-delivered inpatient palliative care during the early COVID-19 pandemic. J Pain Symptom Manage. Jan 2023;65(1):6-15. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Ko JS, El-Toukhy S, Quintero SM, Wilkerson MJ, Nápoles AM, Stewart AL, et al. Disparities in telehealth access, not willingness to use services, likely explain rural telehealth disparities. J Rural Health. Jun 2023;39(3):617-624. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Cortelyou-Ward K, Atkins DN, Noblin A, Rotarius T, White P, Carey C. Navigating the Digital Divide: Barriers to Telehealth in Rural Areas. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2020;31(4):1546-1556. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Chatland LE, Harvey C, Kelly K, Paradine S, Bhagat M, Hudson BF. Research participation in palliative medicine-benefits and barriers for patients and families: rapid review and thematic synthesis. BMJ Support Palliat Care. Mar 2023;13(1):35-44. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. LeBlanc TW, Wheeler JL, Abernethy AP. Research in end-of-life settings: an ethical inquiry. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. Sep 2010;24(3):244-250. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Chau AJ, Sudore RL, Hays RD, Tseng CH, Walling AM, Rahimi M, et al. Telephone Outreach Enhances Recruitment of Underrepresented Seriously Ill Patients for an Advance Care Planning Pragmatic Trial. J Gen Intern Med. Jun 2023;38(8):1848-1853. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Schmidt ME, Daly JM, Xu Y, Levy BT. Improving Iowa Research Network Patient recruitment for an advance care planning study. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021;12:21501327211009699. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Stewart RR, Dimmock AEF, Green MJ, Van Scoy LJ, Schubart JR, Yang C, et al. An analysis of recruitment efficiency for an end-of-life advance care planning randomized controlled trial. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2019;36(1):50-54. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM. Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(1):102-107. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Forcino RC, Barr PJ, O'Malley AJ, Arend R, Castaldo MG, Ozanne EM, et al. Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making: results from three clinical settings in the United States. Health Expect. Feb 2018;21(1):82-89. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Barr PJ, Forcino RC, Thompson R, Ozanne EM, Arend R, Castaldo MG, et al. Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection. BMJ Open. Mar 24, 2017;7(3):e014681. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Rural-urban commuting area codes. U.S. Department of Agriculture. URL: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes/documentation/ [accessed 2024-02-13]

    ‎
    ACP: advanced care planning
    AD: advance directive
    CBPR: community-based participatory research
    EHR: electronic health record
    IRB: institutional review board
    LST: life-sustaining treatment
    QI: quality improvement
    SICC: serious illness care conversations
    tSICC: telehealth serious illness care conversations
    VA: Veterans Administration
    VEP: Veteran Engagement Panel
    VHA: Veterans Health Administration

    Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 01.12.23; peer-reviewed by C Stults, R Gopal, M Ersek; comments to author 24.12.23; revised version received 26.01.24; accepted 31.01.24; published 12.04.24.

    Copyright

    ©Tammy Walkner, Daniel W Karr, Sarah Murray, Amanda Heeren, Maresi Berry-Stoelzle. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 12.04.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.