A Quality Assessment of Goals of Care Forms in a Sample of Older Patients in Various Care Settings in Quebec, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the completion and content of the Goals of Care (GOC) forms in three care settings in the province of Quebec, Canada. METHODS: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional, mixed methods analysis of data extracted from the charts and GOC forms of patients aged over 65 who received services during the year 2018 in one of the three following care settings: (i) long-term care facility, (ii) acute care hospital, and (iii) home support services of a regional healthcare and social services center. The completion of the GOC form includes six essential sections. If one or more of the sections were not fulfilled, we considered the form incomplete. We used descriptive analysis to look at the information in the six sections and a thematic analysis to assess the information in an open-ended section. RESULTS: We audited 589 charts, of which 67% contained a GOC form and only 96 (16%) a completed one. The most popular goal of care was ensuring comfort as a priority over prolonging life, selected on 40% of the forms. The majority of the included patients (89%) did not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to be attempted in the case of cardiac arrest. There was no indication of the use of advance medical directives, and scarce indication of the use of former GOC forms (18%) and living wills (2%) in completing the forms. Comments were included in 65% of the open-ended sections. The most frequent themes related to the use or non-use of interventions and to potential transfers to the hospital or to an intensive care unit. We found that the open-ended section was used on 24 forms to specify a different goal of care applicable in the event of further health deterioration. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of charts (84%) did not contain a completed GOC form; key aspects of advance care planning were rarely considered in establishing the patient's goal of care, and the form itself lacked utility given the frequency and nature of qualitative comments. As a final product of serious illness communication and decision-making, our findings suggest that there are significant quality issues, that patients are at risk of intensification of care at the end of life, and that more needs to be done to improve serious illness decision-making and documentation.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».