ArticleJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology2025
Increasing Advance Care Planning Discussions and Documentation.
Article in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Survivorship and Advance Care Planning in Cancer.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is an important aspect of care for the oncology patient population, leading to improved outcomes, less aggressive care toward the end of life, and reduced costs. Purpose: The objective of this project was to increase ACP discussions and easily accessible documentation for patients with hematologic malignancies at increased risk of mortality based on a mortality prediction model. Additionally, the project aimed to avoid increasing perceived provider disruption to workflow. Methods: A validated mortality prediction model utilized objective patient data to predict inpatient mortality. Providers caring for at-risk patients were notified, asked to consider an ACP discussion, and instructed on consistent and easily accessible ACP documentation. Retrospective chart reviews evaluated whether ACP discussions were documented and whether they used the suggested bookend format. After 4 months, a provider education session reinforced the importance of ACP and included a demonstration of the documentation process. After another 4 months, chart reviews assessed ACP documentation rates. Rates were compared before and after education to determine the effectiveness of the implementation. A provider survey assessed perceived disruption to workflow. Results: Fifteen at-risk patients (eight before the education session and seven after the education session) were identified over 8 months. Three of eight patients (37.5%) had a documented ACP before the education session, and three of seven patients (42.9%) had a documented ACP discussion after the education session, which was not statistically significant. Most providers (83%) did not find the ACP implementation disruptive to workflow. Advance care planning documentation did not significantly increase after a provider education session, possibly due to low numbers of identified patients. However, 43% of at-risk patients after the education session had a documented ACP conversation, and most providers found bookends an efficient way to document ACP. Conclusion: The survey findings suggest that the project received provider buy-in and that continuing the bookend documentation expectation is reasonable.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.