ArticleCMAJ open
Evaluation of a program using a physician assistant and an electronic patient-provider communication tool to facilitate discussions about goals of care in older adults in hospital: a pilot study.
Article in CMAJ open. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany patients receive unwanted, low-value, high-intensity care at the end of life because of poor communication with health care providers. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of using a physician assistant and an electronic tool to facilitate discussions about goals of care.
methodWe conducted a pilot study for the intervention (physician assistant-led discussion using an electronic tool) from Apr. 1 to Aug. 31, 2019. Patients aged 79 years or older admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital (Barrie, Ontario) with either (i) no documented resuscitation preferences or (ii) a request for life-sustaining treatments in the event of a life-threatening illness were eligible for the intervention. The goal of this study was to complete more than 30 interventions. The primary outcomes included the proportion of consenting eligible patients, the time required and the proportion of patients changing their resuscitation preferences.
resultsA total of 763 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 337 eligible for the intervention. Of these, 49 cases were contacted for consent, and 37 interventions were completed (75.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1%-86.6%). On average, the intervention required 50 minutes (standard deviation 21) to complete. Overall, 31 interventions resulted in a change in resuscitation preferences (83.7%, 95% CI 68.0%-93.8%), with 22 patients choosing to forgo any access to life-sustaining treatments in the event of a life-threatening illness (59.4%, 95% CI 42.1%-75.2%).
interpretationIn this pilot study, the intervention was completed in a minority of eligible patients and required substantial time; however, it led to many changes in resuscitation preferences. Before designing a study to evaluate its impact, the intervention needs to be revised to make it more efficient to administer.
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.