A Retrospective Study Reviewing Interprofessional Advance Care Planning Group Discussions in Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Proof-of-Concept and Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".