Enabling Advance Care Planning in Dementia Care: A Primary Care Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of tools to support advance care planning (ACP) has been identified as a significant barrier to implementing these discussions. AIM: We pilot tested an ACP framework tool for use with persons living with dementia (PLWD) in primary care-based memory clinics and an Adult Day Program; this study describes user and recipient experiences with this framework. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach. Health professionals completed an online survey following pilot testing and PLWD and substitute decision makers (SDM) completed survey immediately following the ACP discussion assessing their satisfaction (5-point scale) with the framework and exploring potential outcomes. Interviews with health professionals, PLWD, and SDM were conducted to gather more in-depth information on their perceptions of the ACP framework/ discussion. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 12 health professionals, 13 PLWD, and 16 SDM. While PLWD and SDM were satisfied with the ACP discussion (M = 4.0/5), health professionals were minimally satisfied with the ease of use of the framework (M = 2.0/5), acceptability for patients (M = 2.4/5) and feasibility in practice (M = 1.9/5). Sixteen interviews were completed with 8 health professionals, 1 PLWD, and 7 SDM. While health professionals valued ACP, lack of time and training were identified barriers to framework use. SDM felt better prepared for future decisions and PLWD were put at ease, knowing that their wishes for care were understood. CONCLUSION: PLWD and SDM value the opportunity for ACP, and although health professionals identified some concerns with framework administration, they acknowledge the value and importance of ACP. Continuing efforts to refine ACP processes are justified.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".