A Retrospective Study Reviewing Interprofessional Advance Care Planning Group Discussions in Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Proof-of-Concept and Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of reflection and discussion wherein a patient, in consultation with a health-care provider, family, and/or loved ones, clarifies values and treatment preferences and establishes goals, including a plan for end-of-life (EOL) care. Advance care planning encompasses appreciating and understanding illness and treatment options, elucidating patient values and beliefs, and identifying a substitute decision maker (SDM) or designating a power of attorney (POA) for personal care. These discussions have proven to be effective in improving patient-family satisfaction, reducing anxiety regarding EOL care in patients and family members, and improving patient-centered care by empowering patients to direct their care at EOL. However, ACP conversations are often difficult to have due to the sensitive nature of such discussions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether group facilitation for teaching and discussing ACP enhances participants' understanding of ACP and allows them to feel comfortable and supported when discussing these sensitive issues. METHODS: Patients who were registered in North York General Hospital's (NYGH) pulmonary rehabilitation program from June 2016 until August 2017 were given the opportunity to attend two 1-hour sessions related to ACP. The first session was dedicated to educating patients on ACP, explaining the hierarchy of the SDM and the role of the POA for personal care. The second session, provided a short time later, was devoted to discussions of values, wishes, fears, and trade-offs for future medical and EOL care. These discussions led by the supportive care nurse practitioner and a physician who are members of the NYGH Freeman Palliative Care Team were held in a group-facilitated format. Anonymous feedback forms, including both qualitative and quantitative feedback, were completed by the participants and analyzed. PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of a sample of 30 participants who attended 1 or 2 of the ACP sessions revealed that 21 identified as female and 9 identified as male. The average age of the participants was 76 years. FINDINGS: Participants felt the content was relevant to their needs and were comfortable asking questions with all feedback averages ranging from good to very good. Participants appreciated the opportunity to share their thoughts in an open and interactive format. CONCLUSION: Discussing issues relevant to ACP, including providing information about ACP, sharing fears, wishes, and tradeoffs, were well-received in a group-support environment. Future studies should assess the impact of ACP group discussion on the individual, such as identifying a POA, having discussions regarding wishes and values with the SDM/POA, and examining the clinical impact of such sessions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».