Systematic Implementation of an Advance Directive Program in Nursing Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although advance directives are commonly used in the community, little is known about the effects of their systematic implementation. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of systematically implementing an advance directive in nursing homes on patient and family satisfaction with involvement in decision making and on health care costs. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted June 1, 1994, to August 31, 1998. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1292 residents in 6 Ontario nursing homes with more than 100 residents each. INTERVENTION: The Let Me Decide advance directive program included educating staff in local hospitals and nursing homes, residents, and families about advance directives and offering competent residents or next-of-kin of mentally incompetent residents an advance directive that provided a range of health care choices for life-threatening illness, cardiac arrest, and nutrition. The 6 nursing homes were pair-matched on key characteristics, and 1 home per pair was randomized to take part in the program. Control nursing homes continued with prior policies concerning advance directives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Residents' and families' satisfaction with health care and health care services utilization over 18 months, compared between intervention and control nursing homes. RESULTS: Of 527 participating residents in intervention nursing homes, 49% of competent residents and 78% of families of incompetent residents completed advance directives. Satisfaction was not significantly different in intervention and control nursing homes. The mean difference (scale, 1-7) between intervention and control homes was -0.16 (95 % confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to 0.10) for competent residents and 0.07 (95% CI, -0.08 to 0.23) for families of incompetent residents. Intervention nursing homes reported fewer hospitalizations per resident (mean, 0.27 vs 0.48; P = .001) and less resource use (average total cost per patient, Can $3490 vs Can $5239; P = .01) than control nursing homes. Proportion of deaths in intervention (24%) and control (28%) nursing homes were similar (P = .20). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that systematic implementation of a program to increase use of advance directives reduces health care services utilization without affecting satisfaction or mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".