Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36334244›Full record

ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2022

Shared decision-making in advance care planning among hospitalized older COVID-19 patients: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

Victoria Johanna Jacoba Hendriks, Miriam C Faes, Jop B L van der Meer, Emma S Janse, Nardo J M van der Meer, Carolien M J van der Linden

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria Johanna Jacoba HendriksCatharina Hospital Eindhoven, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. vicky.hendriks@catharinaziekenhuis.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-869X
Miriam C FaesAmphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Jop B L van der MeerAmphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Emma S JanseAmphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Nardo J M van der MeerCatharina Hospital Eindhoven, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Carolien M J van der LindenCatharina Hospital Eindhoven, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

Amphion Foundation 2021-1-010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Netherlands, it is customary to discuss directives regarding resuscitation, intubation, and ICU-admission with patients and/or their relatives upon hospital-admission. The outcome of this discussion is documented in a code status. Ideally, these advance care planning (ACP)-related decisions are made by a patient (and/or their relatives) and a professional together in a shared decision-making (SDM) process, to improve patient satisfaction and prevent undesired care. Given the bad outcomes in older COVID-19 patients, it is particularly important to discuss the code status upon admission. This study aims to describe the practice of SDM regarding code status during the COVID-pandemic. Specific aims were to find out to what extend patients took part in this decision-making process and whether all key elements of SDM for a shared decision were documented in medical reports.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we included COVID-19 patients aged 70 years and older, admitted to two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Data about code status and the decision-making process were extracted from electronic healthcare records.

resultsCode status was documented for 274 of 275 included patients. Patient participation in the decision-making process was described in 48%. In 19% all key elements of shared decision-making have been described. Key elements of SDM were defined as the presence of a completed code status form, the presence of clinical notes showing that both patient's wishes and values and the opinion of the healthcare professional about the predicted outcome was taken into consideration and clinical notes of a patient-healthcare professional interaction during the admission.

conclusionOur results show that a proper SDM process regarding code status is possible, even in hectic times like the COVID-19-pandemic. However, shared decision-making was not common practice in older patients with COVID-19 regarding code status (an ACP-related decision) in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only in 19% of the patients, all key elements of SDM regarding code status were described.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningCOVID-19AgedAged, 80 and overDecision MakingHumansPandemicsPatient ParticipationRetrospective StudiesAdvance care planningCode statusCOVID-19Older personsShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID36334244
PMCPMC9638468
OpenAlexW4308221237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.