ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2015
Evaluating Residents' Readiness to Elicit Advance Care Plans.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Training Residents in Advance Care Planning: A Task-Based Needs Assessment Using the 4-Component Instructional Design.Journal of graduate medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrainees are responsible for conducting advance care discussions but are often stressed by this role.
objectiveWe developed an instrument to determine whether residents could identify a clinical scenario that necessitated an examination of a patient's goals and preferences as they pertain to clinical care, and subsequently measured their readiness to engage in such discussions.
methodsParticipants responded verbally to open-ended case presentations and completed survey items. We scored responses according to proximity to idealized answers.
resultsThe sample consisted of 44 internal medicine residents, 12 students, 5 hospitalists, and 3 palliative care attendings, all of whom volunteered for the study and participated in standard interviews. Residents had widely varying scores (range 0-12, maximum score of 15) on the scored open response items. For eliciting values, mean score increased with training, and students, trainees, and attending physicians had mean scores of 3.7, 5.7, and 8.7, respectively (P = .01). For recommending care, mean scores were 3.0, 6.5, and 9.3, respectively (P < .001). Scores were correlated closely with increasing clinical experience and inversely with self-reported stress when conducting a goals-of-care discussion. The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability for the instrument was 0.52. Interrater reliability for sections about eliciting and recommending care were 0.64 (P < .001) and 0.50 (P < .001), respectively. The 1-week test-retest reliability was 0.91 for open response items and 0.76 for Likert responses.
conclusionsA verbally administered instrument can readily and rapidly characterize a trainee's readiness to participate in advance care planning with patients.
Indexed as
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.