A Quality Assessment of Goals of Care Forms in a Sample of Older Patients in Various Care Settings in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".