Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32107203›Full record

ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2020

Feasibility and acceptability of introducing advance care planning on a thoracic medicine inpatient ward: an exploratory mixed method study.

Nina Elisabeth Hjorth, Margrethe Aase Schaufel, Katrin Ruth Sigurdardottir, Dagny R Faksvåg Haugen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Nina Elisabeth HjorthDepartment of Anaesthesia and Surgical Services, Specialist Palliative Care Team, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway nina.elisabeth.hjorth@helse-bergen.no.ORCID 0000-0003-1306-5439
Margrethe Aase SchaufelDepartment of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9273-2345
Katrin Ruth SigurdardottirRegional Centre of Excellence for Palliative Care, Western Norway, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8192-7470
Dagny R Faksvåg HaugenDepartment of Clinical Medicine K1, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8592-4995
Haukeland University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsAdvance care planning (ACP) is communication about wishes and preferences for end-of-life care. ACP is not routinely used in any Norwegian hospitals. We performed a pilot study (2014-2017) introducing ACP on a thoracic medicine ward in Norway. The aims of this study were to explore which topics patients discussed during ACP conversations and to assess how patients, relatives and clinicians experienced the acceptability and feasibility of performing ACP.

methodsConversations were led by a study nurse or physician using a semistructured guide, encouraging patients to talk freely. Each conversation was summarised in a report in the patient's medical record. At the end of the pilot period, clinicians discussed their experiences in focus group interviews. Reports and transcribed interviews were analysed using systematic text condensation.

resultsFifty-one patients participated in ACP conversations (41-86 years; 9 COPD, 41 lung cancer, 1 lung fibrosis; 11 women); 18 were accompanied by a relative. Four themes emerged: (1) disturbing symptoms, (2) existential topics, (3) care planning and (4) important relationships. All participants appreciated the conversations. Clinicians (1 physician and 7 nurses) participated in two focus group interviews. Reports from ACP conversations revealed patient values previously unknown to clinicians; important information was passed on to primary care. Fearing they would deprive patients of hope, clinicians acted as gatekeepers for recruitment. Although they reported barriers during recruitment, many clinicians saw ACP as pertinent and called for time and skills to integrate it into their daily clinical practice.

conclusionsPatients, relatives and clinicians showed a positive attitude towards ACP. Focusing on present and future symptom control may be an acceptable way to introduce ACP. Important aspects for implementing ACP in this patient group are management support, education, training, feasible routines and allocated time to perform the conversations.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningAttitudeAdaptation, PsychologicalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHospitalizationHumansLung DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedCOPD exacerbationsinterstitial fibrosislung cancernon-small cell lung cancerpalliative careperception of asthma/breathlessnesspulmonary rehabilitationsmall cell lung cancer

Identifiers

PMID32107203
PMCPMC7047484
OpenAlexW3007703893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.