MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366548556 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2768493/v1

Implementing Advance Care Planning in Palliative and End of Life Care: Perspectives from Community Nursing

2023· preprint· en· W4366548556 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Wilkin, Mei Lan Fang, Judith Sixsmith

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careNursingCompetence (human resources)Advance care planningDutyPsychological interventionMedicineEnd-of-life careContext (archaeology)PsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Advance care planning (ACP) is a priority topic within palliative care service provisions. Many healthcare professionals have a duty of care to engage patients in ACP discussions as early as possible. Family members of palliative patients are arguably best placed to encourage discussions of ACP, although often find this difficult. Therefore, community nurses immediately caring for these patients can encourage these discussions, utilising the built rapport and relationships they have with both patients and families. Despite this potential, nurses appear conflicted towards ACP discussions because of several barriers (e.g., education, time) or facilitators (e.g., relationships, patient readiness). This review was undertaken to explore these factors which influence how nurses apply ACP in the context of caring for their patients.Method To explore the perspectives of community nurses with ACP application, a scoping review was undertaken in June 2021 and the resultant database of 15 articles were thematically analysed to answer a research question: ‘What factors contribute to or hinder ACP discussion for community nurses, when providing care to palliative patients?’.Results Several ACP barriers and facilitators were identified from a nursing standpoint. Key barriers were – lack of confidence, competence, role, and prognostic uncertainty. Key facilitators identified the pertinence of the patient-practitioner relationship enabling ACP amongst nurses who had both competence and experience in ACP and/or palliative care.Conclusions This review suggests that community nurses’ perceived experience and competence is associated with implementing ACP effectively with palliative patients. Furthermore, it identified that future research is needed to develop interventions to promote ACP uptake in community settings, enabling confidence building and higher standards of palliative care via the implementation of ACPs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.334
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→