Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Advance care planning: the future
  1. Judith Rietjens1,
  2. Ida Korfage1 and
  3. Mark Taubert2,3
  1. 1 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  2. 2 Palliative Medicine, Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
  3. 3 Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mark Taubert, Palliative Medicine, Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff CF15 7QZ, UK; mtaubert{at}


Objectives There is increased global focus on advance care planning (ACP) with attention from policymakers, more education programmes, laws and public awareness campaigns.

Methods We provide a summary of the evidence about what ACP is, and how it should be conducted. We also address its barriers and facilitators and discuss current and future models of ACP, including a wider look at how to best integrate those who have diminished decisional capacity.

Results Different models are analysed, including new work in Wales (future care planning which includes best interest decision-making for those without decisional capacity), Asia and in people with dementia.

Conclusions ACP practices are evolving. While ACP is a joint responsibility of patients, relatives and healthcare professionals, more clarity on how to apply best ACP practices to include people with diminished capacity will further improve patient-centred care.

  • end of life care
  • clinical decisions
  • communication
  • cultural issues
  • terminal care

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Twitter @DrMarkTaubert

  • Contributors MT had the idea for the article. JR, IK and MT worked on drafts by reviewing, adding and editing through multiple versions until a final manuscript was agreed on.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.