ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2022
Actual vs Documented Advance Care Planning in a Primary Care Clinic.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Documented follow-up to memory concerns reported at the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Core Elements of Goals of Care Initiatives Across Eight Health Systems.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2026Article
- Utility of advance care planning billing codes: a cross-sectional analysis of U.S. hospitalists' documentation.BMC research notes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Advance care planning (ACP) is a complex and multifaceted entity that has significant impact on patient care. ACP takes many forms, may be underbilled, and can have significant ramifications on quality care metrics. We performed a retrospective chart review for patients over 70 years in age in our family medicine resident clinic to evaluate the ways in which ACP is charted and the gap between billed and nonbilled ACP. Methods: The first 50 patients over 70 years in age seen between August 25, 2020 and September 25, 2020 were selected for standardized chart review. Billing for ACP was defined as Current Procedural Terminology codes=-10 codes 99497 or 99498. Primary outcomes were the percentage of patients with ACP and incidence of ACP documents. Secondary outcome was the proportion of documented ACP conversations in office visits which had billing for ACP. Results: Forty-eight patients over 70 years in age were identified with an average age of 80.9 years old. Forty-one of 48 patients (85.4%) had some form of ACP and 12 (25%) had formal ACP documents. Of 25 patients with documented ACP conversations in office visits, eleven patients (44%) had ACP which had been formally billed. Conclusion: The majority of our patients had some form of ACP ranging from inpatient discussions of code status to outpatient visits regarding end-of-life care. However, ACP was underbilled in our practice. Physicians are often evaluated based on quality care metrics such as billed ACP which may not accurately reflect the work physicians are doing.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.