2025 PACUPrep BCCCP Preparatory Course Goals of Care & Advance Care Planning Patient Stratification and Prioritization for Advance Care Planning
Patient Stratification for Advance Care Planning

Patient Stratification and Prioritization for Advance Care Planning

Objective Icon A crosshair target, symbolizing a key objective.

Objective

Apply objective criteria and risk stratifiers to identify and prioritize ICU patients for timely advance care planning (ACP) and surrogate decision–maker designation.

1. Identification of High-Priority Clinical Scenarios

Summary: Early recognition of patients with critical trajectories is essential to align treatment with patient values and avoid unwanted interventions. Identifying these scenarios promptly allows for timely goals-of-care discussions.

Tier 1 Triggers for Urgent ACP

  • Multi–organ failure: Dysfunction of two or more organ systems is a hallmark of critical illness, carrying an ICU mortality of 40–50% or higher.
  • Refractory shock: Defined as persistent hypotension requiring a norepinephrine equivalent dose >0.1 µg/kg/min for at least 6 hours. This state is associated with a 28-day mortality exceeding 60%.
  • High expected mortality: An estimated mortality risk >50% based on clinical gestalt or validated disease-specific calculators (e.g., MELD score >25 for liver failure, INTERMACS profile 1 for cardiogenic shock).

Urgency: For any of these Tier 1 scenarios, the goal is to initiate a goals-of-care discussion within 24–48 hours of ICU admission.

Pearl IconA shield with an exclamation mark. Key Clinical Pearls Expand/Collapse Icon
  • Use vasopressor dosing thresholds (e.g., norepinephrine >0.1 µg/kg/min) as a simple, objective bedside prompt to trigger an ACP review.
  • Document high-risk triggers and the timing of their onset in the electronic health record (EHR) to create accountability and ensure follow-up by the clinical team.
Case Vignette IconA clipboard representing a patient case. Case Vignette Expand/Collapse Icon

A 68-year-old patient with septic shock is on a norepinephrine infusion at 0.12 µg/kg/min. Their SOFA score has increased from 6 to 9 over the past 48 hours. This patient meets multiple criteria for high mortality risk (refractory shock, worsening multi-organ failure). An ACP discussion should be initiated within the next 24 hours.

2. Prognostic Scoring Systems

Summary: Standardized scoring systems like APACHE II and SOFA provide objective mortality risk stratification. They are valuable tools to guide the timing and intensity of ACP, complementing clinical judgment.

Comparison of APACHE II and SOFA Scoring Systems
Feature APACHE II Score SOFA Score
Core Components 12 physiologic variables, age points, and chronic health points. Six organ systems: respiratory, coagulation, hepatic, cardiovascular, neurologic, renal.
Scoring Range 0–71. A score ≥25 correlates with high mortality. 0–24 (0–4 points per organ system).
Timing of Use Calculated using the worst values in the first 24 hours of ICU admission. Can be calculated daily to track organ dysfunction over time.
Key Clinical Utility Provides a single-timepoint risk assessment upon ICU admission. Sensitivity ~0.75, specificity ~0.80 for mortality. Excellent for tracking dynamic trends. An increase of ≥2 points over 48 hours predicts >80% mortality in sepsis.

Integration into Workflow

  • Define automated triggers: An APACHE II score ≥25 or a SOFA score ≥8 can generate an automated EHR alert for the clinical team.
  • Promote interdisciplinary review: These alerts should prompt an interdisciplinary case conference involving palliative care, social work, and nursing within 72 hours to formulate an ACP strategy.
Pearl IconA shield with an exclamation mark. Key Clinical Pearls Expand/Collapse Icon
  • APACHE II is best for single-timepoint discrimination at admission, while SOFA’s strength lies in reflecting the trajectory of evolving organ failure.
  • Always combine score-driven alerts with holistic clinical judgment to avoid premature conclusions, especially in patients with potentially reversible conditions.

3. Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) Influencing ACP

Summary: Health literacy, cultural beliefs, and socioeconomic barriers profoundly impact a patient’s ability and willingness to engage in ACP. Systematic screening and tailored strategies are required to ensure equitable access to these crucial conversations.

  • Health Literacy: Utilize validated tools like the Brief Health Literacy Screen. For patients with identified needs, provide low-literacy decision aids, such as the PREPARE website, which uses simple language and videos.
  • Cultural Beliefs: Recognize that decision-making norms vary. Some cultures prioritize family-centered decisions over individual autonomy. Engage cultural mediators or faith leaders and provide materials in the patient’s primary language.
  • Socioeconomic & Access Barriers: Screen for social needs like transportation, housing, and food insecurity. Leverage patient navigators, who have been shown to double ACP documentation rates in some populations.

Workflow Strategies for Equity

Delegate specific ACP tasks, such as introducing concepts or providing educational materials, to trained nurses or social workers. This team-based approach is reimbursable under CMS guidelines (requiring ≥16 minutes of conversation). Furthermore, linking SDOH screening results directly to ACP order sets and prompts within the EHR can hardwire equity into the clinical workflow.

4. Chronic Disease Considerations in ACP

Summary: The content and timing of ACP should be tailored to specific chronic disease trajectories. Discussions should be anchored to key clinical milestones rather than being reserved for end-of-life crises.

  • Dementia: Initiate ACP at the time of diagnosis or when mild cognitive impairment is first noted. It is vital to engage surrogates early and use structured decision aids (e.g., ACT-Plan) to boost their confidence and self-efficacy.
  • COPD: Revisit ACP iteratively, especially at the first hospitalization for an exacerbation, initiation of home oxygen, or with increasing frequency of exacerbations. Key topics include preferences for noninvasive ventilation and goals for dyspnea management.
  • Heart Failure: Plan for future decisions regarding device management, such as ICD deactivation. Tie ACP conversations to transitions to NYHA Class III–IV symptoms, new inotrope dependence, or frequent hospitalizations.

ACP as an Ongoing Process: Consensus guidelines emphasize that ACP is a dynamic, continuous communication process that evolves over a person’s life course, not a one-time event focused on completing a form.

5. Clinical Decision Algorithm for Patient Prioritization

Summary: A structured, stepwise algorithm ensures systematic identification and timely initiation of ACP conversations across care teams, minimizing missed opportunities and standardizing care.

ACP Prioritization Algorithm A flowchart showing a 5-step process for prioritizing patients for Advance Care Planning. Step 1 is Identify Triggers. Step 2 is Calculate Scores. Step 3 is Screen SDOH. Step 4 is Review Chronic Disease. Step 5 is Assign Urgency Tier, leading to Tier 1, 2, or 3. 1. Identify High-Risk Triggers 2. Calculate Prognostic Scores 3. Screen for SDOH 4. Review Chronic Disease Status 5. Assign Urgency Tier Tier 1: Urgent Tier 2: Soon Tier 3: Routine
Figure 1: ACP Prioritization Algorithm. This framework ensures all key domains—acute severity, prognostic scores, social context, and chronic illness trajectory—are considered when determining the urgency of ACP. Embedding this logic into daily ICU rounds checklists can minimize missed triggers and standardize care.

References

  1. McMahan RD, Hickman SE, Sudore RL, et al. What clinicians and researchers should know about the evolving field of advance care planning: a narrative review. J Gen Intern Med. 2024;39(4):652–660.
  2. SUPPORT Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1995;274(20):1591–1598.
  3. Prendergast TJ. Advance care planning: pitfalls, progress, promise. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(2 Suppl):N34–N39.
  4. Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469–478.
  5. Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c1345.
  6. Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, et al. Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA. 2008;300(14):1665–1673.
  7. Khan IA, Fatima T, Khan A, et al. Comparison of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of APACHE II, SAPS II and SOFA scoring systems in mortality prediction in ICU patients. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(12):3364–3370.
  8. Tee YS, Luo J, Singh A, et al. Serial evaluation of the SOFA score is reliable for predicting mortality in acute pancreatitis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(7):e9789.
  9. Walter JM, Kwan L, DeYoung K, et al. Quality improvement study using a machine learning mortality risk prediction model notification system on advance care planning in high-risk patients. BHM Scholastica. 2024;[Epub ahead of print].
  10. Butler M, Ratner E, McCreedy E, Shippee N, Kane RL. Decision aids for advance care planning: an overview of the state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):408–418.
  11. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Integrating social care into the delivery of health care: moving upstream to improve the nation’s health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2019.
  12. Sudore RL, Lum HD, You JJ, et al. Defining advance care planning for adults: a consensus definition from a multidisciplinary Delphi panel. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53(5):821–832.e1.
  13. Sudore RL, Heyland DK, Lum HD, et al. Outcomes that define successful advance care planning: a Delphi panel consensus. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018;55(2):245–255.e8.
  14. Sudore RL, Boscardin J, Feuz MA, et al. Effect of the PREPARE website vs an easy-to-read advance directive on advance care planning documentation and engagement among veterans: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(8):1102–1109.
  15. Lyon ME, Squires L, D’Angelo LJ, et al. Family-centered (FACE) advance care planning among African-American and non-African-American adults living with HIV in Washington, DC: a randomized controlled trial to increase documentation and health equity. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019;57(3):607–616.
  16. Fischer SM, Kline DM, Min SJ, et al. Effect of Apoyo con Cariño (Support With Caring) trial of a patient navigator intervention to improve palliative care outcomes for Latino adults with advanced cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(12):1736.
  17. Bonner GJ, Wang E, Wilkie DJ, et al. Advance care treatment plan (ACT-Plan) for African American family caregivers: a pilot study. Dementia (London). 2014;13(1):79–95.
  18. Agar M, Luckett T, Luscombe G, et al. Effects of facilitated family case conferencing for advanced dementia: a cluster randomised clinical trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0181020.
  19. Lindvall C, Deng CY, Moseley E, et al. Natural language processing to identify advance care planning documentation in a multisite pragmatic clinical trial. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2022;63(1):e29–e36.
  20. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The Medicare Learning Network: Advance Care Planning Fact Sheet. 2023.
  21. Johnson KS. Racial and ethnic disparities in palliative care. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329–1334.
Previous Topic
Back to Lesson
Next Topic