ReviewDer Anaesthesist2020
[Advance Care Planning-further development of the patient advance directive : What the anesthetist must know].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- "SpezPat"- common advance directives versus disease-centred advance directives: a randomised controlled pilot study on the impact on physicians' understanding of non-small cell lung cancer patients' end-of-life decisions.BMC palliative care · 2022Trial
- Article
- Let's talk about death, dying, and what matters most to you in life: Pretest and piloting of a translated and adapted conversation game.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- [Indications, consent and treatment limitation in emergency medicine].Der Anaesthesist · 2022Article
- [Implementing patient-centered advance care planning in the outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic].MMW Fortschritte der Medizin · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the availability of the instruments of advance directives, power of attorney and healthcare proxy, the patient's preferences for life-sustaining medical treatment in a specific situation often remain unknown. The aim of the systemically designed German Advance Care Planning (ACP) program is the reflection, documentation and implementation of patients' preferences regarding future medical treatment in case they are incapable of legally binding decision-making. A specially trained ACP facilitator initially supports the verbalization of the attitudes towards life, severe illness and death on an individual level. Based on these principal views, concrete preferences on how to be treated under defined medical circumstances can be discussed and documented in an advance directive. This includes the three scenarios medical emergency, inpatient hospital treatment in situations with decisional incapability of unknown duration and the situation of permanent cognitive impairment. Through cautious, nondirective conversational techniques in the sense of shared decision-making, the person is enabled to reflect and decide well-informed according to the informed consent standard. All persons participating in decisions regarding future medical treatment, especially future surrogate decision makers, are involved in the process as early as possible. A systematic institutional and regional implementation of the concept is necessary to ensure that the carefully assessed and documented preferences of the patients will be known and honored. The new German § 132g of the Social Code Book V (SGB V) enables institutions for long-term care and for the care of disabled persons, to offer facilitated ACP to all residents at the expense of the statutory health insurance funds. An increased dissemination of this concept is to be expected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31820016What 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.