Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34965781›Full record

Observational studyPalliative medicine2022

Differences in goals of care discussion outcomes among healthcare professionals: an observational cross-sectional study.

Karen Ho, Krystyna Wang, Adam Clay, Elizabeth Gibbings

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Palliative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Karen HoDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine, Regina, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7608-7152
Krystyna WangDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine, Regina, SK, Canada.
Adam ClayDepartment of Academic Family Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6464-513X
Elizabeth GibbingsDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine, Regina, SK, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGoals of care discussions ensure patients receive the care that they want. Recent studies have recognized the opportunity for allied health professionals, such as nurses, in facilitating goals of care discussions. However, the outcomes of such interventions are not well studied.

aimTo compare the outcomes of goals of care discussions led by physicians and nurses.

designThis is a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to an Internal Medicine unit from January 2018 to August 2019. A comprehensive chart review was performed on a random sample of patients. Patient's decision to accept or refuse cardiopulmonary resuscitation was recorded and analyzed. Analysis was stratified by patients' comorbidity burden and illness severity. SETTING/

participantsThe study took place at a tertiary care center and included 200 patients. Patients aged ⩾ 18 were included. Patients who have had pre-existing goals of care documentation were excluded.

resultsAbout 52% of the goals of care discussions were completed by nurses and 48% by physicians. Patients were more likely to accept cardiopulmonary resuscitation in nurse-led discussions compared to physician-led ones (80.8% vs 61.4%,

conclusionsThere was a significant difference between the outcomes of goals of care discussions led by nurses and physicians. Patients were more likely to accept aggressive resuscitative measures in nurse-led goals of care discussions. Further research efforts are needed to identify the factors contributing to this discrepancy, and to devise ways of improving goals of care discussion delivery.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareHumansPatient Care PlanningRetrospective StudiesAdvance care planningcommunicationnursesphysiciansresuscitation ordersterminal care

Identifiers

PMID34965781
PMCPMC8894680

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.