Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41479948›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2025

Barriers and facilitators in implementing advance care planning for frail older patients acutely admitted to geriatric hospital units: a nested qualitative study.

Linn Brøderud, Maria Romøren, Karin Berg Hermansen, Trygve Johannes Lereim Sævareid, Lisbeth Thoresen, Reidar Pedersen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05681585 (Implementing Advanced Care Planning in the Routine Care for Acutely Admitted Patients in Geriatric Units), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT05681585 narecruitingnot on this map

Implementing Advanced Care Planning in the Routine Care for Acutely Admitted Patients in Geriatric Units: a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OsloRan2023 to 2026Enrolled2,000ConditionsAdvance Care PlanningArmsImplementation support program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Linn BrøderudCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Maria RomørenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Karin Berg HermansenDepartment of Health Sciences, Aalesund, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Aalesund, Norway.
Trygve Johannes Lereim SævareidCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Lisbeth ThoresenDepartment of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Reidar PedersenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Appropriate communication with patients is increasingly crucial in a growing elderly population to prevent both over- and undertreatment. Advance care planning (ACP) is recognized as a valuable communication process for patients, their relatives and healthcare professionals that facilitates future care and medical decision-making. Despite its importance, the uptake remains low, particularly among frail, older patients in hospitals. Methods: This qualitative substudy is nested within a cluster randomized controlled trial. Data collection involved eight semi-structured interviews conducted in acute geriatric hospital units receiving our implementation support program, along with informal data from interactions with the units during the implementation process. The aim was to explore healthcare professionals' perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to ACP implementation and their experiences with the implementation support program. A semi-structured interview guide was used. The data was analyzed using content analysis. Results: Factors influencing ACP implementation were identified at three levels: a) the organizational level, b) the national level, and c) the clinical level. Participants recognized the critical role of timing, context, and patients' capacity. However, there was meaningful opportunities for ACP conversations in acute geriatric units. Overall, the experiences underscored the complex interplay of individual motivation and interest, organizational support, prioritization, available time and resources, and systemic factors that influence the integration of ACP into clinical practice, as well as the fact that research can act as both a barrier and a facilitator in implementation efforts. Discussion: This study illustrates the significant challenges in implementing ACP in acute hospital care. Despite a generally positive perception of ACP, its implementation was hindered by barriers such as overwhelming workload, production-oriented healthcare, the biomedical model, and lack of prioritization. These factors creates a cycle where short-term demands overshadow preventive and patient-centered interventions, limiting their perceived and documented benefits. Breaking this cycle will likely require targeted investment in the implementation of complex interventions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT05681585.

Indexed as

advance care planningcommunicationcomplex interventionsfrailtygeriatricshospitalimplementationolder adults

Identifiers

PMID41479948
PMCPMC12753930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.