Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33243203›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2020

Exploration of the acceptability and usability of advance care planning tools in long term care homes.

Tamara Sussman, Sharon Kaasalainen, Rennie Bimman, Harveer Punia, Nathaniel Edsell, Jess Sussman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Tamara SussmanMcGill University School of Social Work, 3506 Rue University #300, Montréal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada. tamara.sussman@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1226-6450
Sharon KaasalainenHealth Sciences Centre, McMaster University School of Nursing, 2J20, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3863-184X
Rennie BimmanMcGill University School of Social Work, 3506 Rue University #300, Montréal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada.
Harveer PuniaHealth Sciences Centre, McMaster University School of Nursing, 2J20, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1878-3464
Nathaniel EdsellMcGill University School of Social Work, 3506 Rue University #300, Montréal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada.
Jess SussmanUniversity of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Medical Sciences Building, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.

Funding

Institute of Aging 354656
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite known benefits, advance care planning (ACP) is rarely a component of usual practice in long-term care (LTC). A series of tools and workbooks have been developed to support ACP uptake amongst the generable population. Yet, their potential for improving ACP uptake in LTC has yet to be examined. This study explored if available ACP tools are acceptable for use in LTC by (a) eliciting staff views on the content and format that would support ACP tool usability in LTC (b) examining if publicly available ACP tools include content identified as relevant by LTC home staff. Ultimately this study aimed to identify the potential for existing ACP tools to improve ACP engagement in LTC.

methodsA combination of focus group deliberations with LTC home staff (N = 32) and content analysis of publicly available ACP tools (N = 32) were used to meet the study aims.

resultsFocus group deliberations suggested that publicly available ACP tools may be acceptable for use in LTC if the tools include psychosocial elements and paper-based versions exist. Content analysis of available paper-based tools revealed that only a handful of ACP tools (32/611, 5%) include psychosocial content, with most encouraging psychosocially-oriented reflections (30/32, 84%), and far fewer providing direction around other elements of ACP such as communicating psychosocial preferences (14/32, 44%) or transforming preferences into a documented plan (7/32, 22%).

conclusionsACP tools that include psychosocial content may improve ACP uptake in LTC because they elicit future care issues considered pertinent and can be supported by a range of clinical and non-clinical staff. To increase usability and engagement ACP tools may require infusion of scenarios pertinent to frail older persons, and a better balance between psychosocial content that elicits reflections and psychosocial content that supports communication.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdvance Care PlanningFocus GroupsHumansLong-Term CareNursing HomesQualitative ResearchUncertaintyAdvance directiveAssisted livingDeath and dyingEnd-of-life communicationNursing homesPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID33243203
PMCPMC7756921

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.