Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35562712›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

Implementing and evaluating online advance care planning training in UK nursing homes during COVID-19: findings from the Necessary Discussions multi-site case study project.

Emily Cousins, Nancy Preston, Julie Doherty, Sandra Varey, Andrew Harding, Adrienne McCann, Karen Harrison Dening, Anne Finucane, Gillian Carter, Gary Mitchell and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Emily CousinsDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Nancy PrestonDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Julie DohertySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Sandra VareyDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Andrew HardingDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Adrienne McCannInnovation Value Institute, Maynooth University, Maynooth & Age Friendly Ireland, Ireland.
Karen Harrison DeningSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester & Dementia UK, London, UK.
Anne FinucaneClinical Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh & Marie Curie Hospice Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Gillian CarterSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Gary MitchellSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Kevin BrazilSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. k.brazil@qub.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvance care planning in nursing homes is important to ensure the wishes and preferences of residents are recorded, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, care staff and family members frequently report feeling unprepared for these conversations. More resources are needed to support them with these necessary discussions. This research aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a website intervention for care staff and family members to provide training and information about advance care planning during COVID-19.

methodsThe research was a primarily qualitative case study design, comprising multiple UK nursing home cases. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with care staff and family members which were coded and analysed thematically. A narrative synthesis was produced for each case, culminating in a thematic cross-case analysis of the total findings. Theoretical propositions were refined throughout the research.

resultsEight nursing homes took part in the study, involving 35 care staff and 19 family members. Findings were reported according to the RE-AIM framework which identified the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance of the intervention. Themes included: website content that was well received; suggestions for improvement; implementation barriers and facilitators; examples of organisational and personal impact.

conclusionsFour theoretical propositions relating to advance care planning in nursing homes are presented, relating to: training and information needs, accessibility, context, and encouraging conversations. Implications for practice and training include an awareness of diverse learning styles, re-enforcing the right to be involved in advance care planning and encouraging opportunities for facilitated discussion.

trial registrationISRCTN registry (ID 18003630 ) on 19.05.21.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningCOVID-19HumansNursing HomesPandemicsUnited KingdomAdvance care planningCOVID-19Nursing homesOnlineTraining

Identifiers

PMID35562712
PMCPMC9098790

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.