ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2021
"Goals of Care Conversations Don't Fit in a Box": Hospice Staff Experiences and Perceptions of Advance Care Planning Quality Measurement.
Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Language Processing to Identify Advance Care Planning Documentation in a Multisite Pragmatic Clinical Trial.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2022Trial
- Increasing transparency of decision making in research practice: adding value or just more red tape?European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Hospice Quality, Race, and Disenrollment in Hospice Enrollees With Dementia.Journal of palliative medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextWith rising concerns about quality of care in hospice, federal agencies recently began mandating quality measurement in hospice, including measures of advance care planning (ACP).
objectivesTo characterize hospice providers' experiences with ACP quality measurement and their reflections on ways to improve it.
methodsSemi-structured in-depth interviews of fifty-one hospice providers from various clinical backgrounds and organizational roles in four geographically diverse non-profit, community-based hospices in the U.S. Participants were queried about their experiences with and barriers to ACP quality measurement processes in their organization, opinions about the impacts of federally mandated quality measures, and ideas for improvement. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with an interdisciplinary team, facilitated by ATLAS.ti and Excel.
resultsFour key findings of the ACP quality measurement experience for hospice staff included variation, barriers, attitudes, and recommendations for improvement. 1) Variation: Within and across organizations, participants applied a variety of processes to measure ACP quality, and exposure to and experiences with quality measurement varied based on organizational role. 2) Barriers: ACP quality measurement was impeded by limited resources, technological problems, and measurement challenges. 3) Attitudes: Participants' opinions of recently implemented federally mandated requirements for ACP quality measurement highlighted numerous downsides, unintended consequences, and few upsides. 4) Recommendations: improvements included personalizing ACP quality measures, elevating the importance of quality measurement, and streamlining processes.
conclusionHospice staff take ACP quality measurement seriously, but insufficient organizational resources and regulatory bureaucracy create challenges. Efforts to enhance ACP quality measure nuance and assess outcomes are needed to improve care.
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.