scholarly journals A scoping review of nurse-led advance care planning

Author(s):  
Phyllis Whitehead ◽  
Erica Frechman ◽  
Marianne Johnstone-Petty ◽  
Jeannette Kates ◽  
Djin L. Tay ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2021-003193
Author(s):  
Sophie Gloeckler ◽  
Tanja Krones ◽  
Nikola Biller-Andorno

Various indicators have been used to evaluate advance care planning, including completion rates, type of care received, and satisfaction. Recent consensus suggests, though, that receiving care consistent with one’s goals is the primary outcome of advance care planning and assessment should capture this metric. Goal concordant care is challenging to measure, and there is little clarity about how best to do so. The aim of this scoping review is to explore what methods have been used to measure goal concordant care in the evaluation of advance care planning. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane were searched in September 2020 to identify studies that aimed to track whether advance care planning affected the likelihood of patients receiving care that matched their preferred care. 135 original studies were included for review. Studies used retrospective chart review (36%, n=49), questionnaire (36%, n=48) and interview (31%, n=42), focusing on both patients and proxies. Studies considered both actual care received (55%, n=74) and hypothetical scenarios anticipating possible future care (49%, n=66); some studies did both. While the reviewed studies demonstrate the possibility of working towards a solid methodology, there were significant weaknesses. Notably, studies often lacked enough reporting clarity to be reproducible and, relatedly, key concepts, such as end-of-life or preferred care, were left undefined. The recommendations that follow from these findings inform future research approaches, supporting the development of a strong evidence base to guide advance care planning implementation in practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (13-14) ◽  
pp. 2069-2082
Author(s):  
Anne Kuusisto ◽  
Jenni Santavirta ◽  
Kaija Saranto ◽  
Päivi Korhonen ◽  
Elina Haavisto

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelien R. Spelten ◽  
Olaf Geerse ◽  
Julia Vuuren ◽  
Jennifer Timmis ◽  
Bev Blanch ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Andrea Giordano ◽  
Ludovica De Panfilis ◽  
Marta Perin ◽  
Laura Servidio ◽  
Marta Cascioli ◽  
...  

Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly acknowledged as a key step to enable patients to define their goals/preferences for future medical care, together with their carers and health professionals. We aimed to map the evidence on ACP in neurodegenerative disorders. We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed (inception-December 28, 2020) in addition to trial, review, and dissertation registers. From 9367 records, we included 53 studies, mostly conducted in Europe (45%) and US-Canada (41%), within the last five years. Twenty-six percent of studies were qualitative, followed by observational (21%), reviews (19%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 19%), quasi-experimental (11%), and mixed-methods (4%). Two-thirds of studies addressed dementia, followed by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (13%), and brain tumors (9%). The RCT interventions (all in dementia) consisted of educational programs, facilitated discussions, or videos for patients and/or carers. In conclusion, more research is needed to investigate barriers and facilitators of ACP uptake, as well as to develop/test interventions in almost all the neurodegenerative disorders. A common set of outcome measures targeting each discrete ACP behavior, and validated across the different diseases and cultures is also needed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-338
Author(s):  
Peter Kim ◽  
Jeanette M. Daly ◽  
Maresi A. Berry-Stoelzle ◽  
Megan E. Schmidt ◽  
LeAnn C. Michaels ◽  
...  

Dementia ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 825-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerry Jones ◽  
Giles Birchley ◽  
Richard Huxtable ◽  
Linda Clare ◽  
Tony Walter ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2021-003310
Author(s):  
Julie Stevens ◽  
Luc Deliens ◽  
Peter Pype ◽  
Aline De Vleminck ◽  
Koen Pardon

ContextAdvance care planning (ACP) interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for patients with chronic serious illness. Yet the rationale for outcome choices and the mechanisms by which outcomes are achieved are not always clear.ObjectivesTo identify and map proposed mechanisms on how complex ACP interventions can impact outcomes for patients with chronic serious illness and to explore factors that might explain intervention outcomes.MethodsThis is a scoping review of randomised controlled trials of complex ACP interventions for patients with chronic serious illness which explicitly stated the mechanism(s) by which the intervention was thought to work. We searched six databases and hand-searched key journals and reference lists.ResultsInclusion yielded 16 articles. Inclusion procedures and mapping of mechanisms and outcomes indicated that causality between components and outcomes was not always clearly described. Tailoring intervention content to patients’ needs was linked to the greatest number of different outcome categories, while promoting competence and confidence to engage in ACP was most often explicitly linked to a primary outcome. Three main factors which might have affected intended outcomes were identified: participant characteristics, such as illness experience or cultural differences; the setting of implementation; or methodological limitations of the study.ConclusionFindings highlighted two main points of consideration for future ACP intervention studies: the need for clearly stated logic in how interventions are expected to impact primary outcomes and the importance of considering how an intervention may function for patients with chronic serious illnesses within a specific setting.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document