Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38977313›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Proactive advance care planning conversations in general practice: a quality improvement project.

Tabitha Winnifrith, Catherine Millington-Sanders, Emma Husbands, Jane Haros, Helen Ballinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Attitudes to earlier advance care planning: a qualitative interview study in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Tabitha WinnifrithGloucestershire Health and Care NHS FoundationTrust, Brockworth, UK tabitha.winnifrith@nhs.net.
Catherine Millington-SandersRCGP, London, UK.
Emma HusbandsGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Jane HarosGloucestershire Health and Care NHS FoundationTrust, Brockworth, UK.
Helen BallingerGloucestershire Health and Care NHS FoundationTrust, Brockworth, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of discussion, reflection and communication, enabling planning for future medical treatment. Despite evidence of benefits of ACP to patients, families and the healthcare system, many die without an opportunity for such conversations, particularly those living with progressive non-malignant conditions. The Royal College of General Practitioners and Marie Curie Daffodil Standards launched in 2020 provide primary care with a structure for improving end-of-life care, including delivery of ACP. Proactive identification of patients is integral to the approach.We report on a quality improvement project which aimed to assess the take-up rate and acceptability in general practice of a timely and personalised ACP conversation using a 'What matters to you' (WMTY) framework, and to ensure that different diagnostic and demographic groups were included.Patients without previous ACP and potentially in the last year of life were offered an ACP conversation; a survey sought feedback.81% accepted the offer and in most cases, future care guidance was documented using the recognised format in Gloucestershire for recording ACP conversations, the Recommended Summary for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plan. Clinician and patient satisfaction was high.We concluded that an ACP discussion using a 'WMTY' format was highly acceptable to most. With recognised enablers in place and known barriers minimised, valuable personalised conversations occurred. Reframing the conversation to focus on how someone wants to live, while including their priorities for death, could alter how such conversations are perceived by clinicians and the public. It could remove negative associations (such as linking these conversations with an imminent death), which may increase motivation for all to initiate discussions.ACP conversations are evidenced best practice and could become routine in general practice with adjustments to practice processes and clinician education; the Daffodil Standards facilitate continued quality improvement.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningCommunicationGeneral PracticeQuality ImprovementAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminal CareAdvance care planEnd of LifeFrailty

Identifiers

PMID38977313
PMCPMC11256018

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.