Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30103692›Full record

Trial reportBMC geriatrics2018

Implementing advance care planning in nursing homes - study protocol of a cluster-randomized clinical trial.

Trygve Johannes Lereim Sævareid, Lillian Lillemoen, Lisbeth Thoresen, Reidun Førde, Elisabeth Gjerberg, Reidar Pedersen

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Trygve Johannes Lereim SævareidCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Frederik Holsts hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway. t.j.l.savareid@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0001-9062-7787
Lillian LillemoenCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Frederik Holsts hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
Lisbeth ThoresenDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Oslo, Forskningsveien 3A Harald Schjelderups hus, 0373, Oslo, Norway.
Reidun FørdeCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Frederik Holsts hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
Elisabeth GjerbergCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Frederik Holsts hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
Reidar PedersenCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Frederik Holsts hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClose to half of all deaths in Norway occur in nursing homes, which signals a need for good communication on end-of-life care. Advance care planning (ACP) is one means to that end, but in Norwegian nursing homes, ACP is not common. This paper describes the protocol of a project evaluating an ACP-intervention in Norwegian nursing homes. The aims of this research project were to promote the possibility for conversations about the end of life with patients and relatives; promote patient autonomy; create a better foundation for important decisions in the case of medical emergencies and at the end of life; and gain experiences in order to find out what characterizes good ACP and good implementation strategies. METHODS/

designThis study was a mixed method study including a cluster-randomized clinical trial. Eight nursing home wards or "clusters" were pair-matched, and one ward from each pair was randomly selected for a 12-month intervention. The intervention consisted of implementing an ACP-guideline. Implementation strategies were training and supervision of project teams and staff in using the guideline, written information to patients and next of kin, and information meetings with nursing home staff. The project was evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative data, and both outcome and process evaluation. Quantitative data included patient chart reviews of ACP, diagnoses, patient preferences for decision-making and treatment, values and wishes that are more general, documented life-prolonging treatment and hospitalizations, and concordance between patient wishes and treatment. The primary outcome was documented ACP. Qualitative data included observations of conversations, interviews with patients, next of kin and health care personnel, logs from project coordinators and conversations, and transcripts from meetings with project teams in the intervention group. DISCUSSION: This project attempted to increase the quality and use of ACP in Norwegian nursing homes (NH). A mixed methods approach, inclusion of patients with dementia, attempts to involve, as many patients as possible, and a sustainable implementation plan adapted to real life in nursing homes were strengths of the project.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningHomes for the AgedNursing HomesAgedAged, 80 and overCluster AnalysisDementiaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHospitalizationHumansMaleNorwayPatient PreferenceTerminal CareAdvance care planningAutonomyComplex interventionDecision-making capacity assessmentDementiaMixed-methodsNursing homeTrain the trainer

Identifiers

PMID30103692
PMCPMC6090595
OpenAlexW2885680366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.