Last month we published a podcast with Sean Morrison that garnered a great deal of attention, in which Sean Morrison argued that Advance Care Planning is an idea that is “clear, simple, and wrong.” This week, we have a fresh updated counterpoint from Rebecca Sudore and Ryan McMahan. These two published a paper this week in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, or JAGS, that argues that the field of advance care planning has come a long way. Early studies of advance care planning evaluated it with advance directives, and studies of advance directives showed little to no difference. However, In their review they find recent (since 2010) high quality trials demonstrate the potential of advance care planning by using modern conceptions of advance care planning as a longitudinal conversation to help surrogates prepare for in the moment decision making. These studies evaluated a broader (and more fitting) range of outcomes than prior work, including surrogate preparedness. My take away is that if we’re looking for advance care planning to result in “goal concordant care” - we’re asking too much of it. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful. It’s primary use is helping surrogates feel like they are prepared and satisfied with the difficult choices they have to make for seriously patients. Doesn’t that matter too, and, some would argue, just as much? The surrogates live with these decisions the rest of their lives. So the issue is nuanced. One of my favorite parts of the podcast is when Rebecca Sudore returns to Sean Morrison’s Ford Pinto analogy and really uncover the real world complexities of how it should be applied to advance care planning. That Ford Pinto analogy just keeps on giving! Enjoy! -@AlexSmithMD