Implementing advance care planning in palliative and end of life care: a scoping review of community nursing perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planninganning (ACP) is a priority within palliative care service provision. Nurses working in the community occupy an opportune role to engage with families and patients in ACP. Carers and family members of palliative patients often find ACP discussions difficult to initiate. However, community nurses caring for palliative patients can encourage these discussions, utilising the rapport and relationships they have already built with patients and families. Despite this potential, implementation barriers and facilitators continue to exist. To date, no research synthesis has captured the challenges community nurses face when implementing ACP, nor the facilitators of community nurse-led ACP. Considering this, the review question of: 'What factors contribute to or hinder ACP discussion for nurses when providing care to palliative patients?' was explored. METHOD: To capture challenges and facilitators, a global qualitative scoping review was undertaken in June 2023. The Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews guided the review methodology. Six databases were searched identifying 333 records: CINAHL (16), MEDLINE (45), PUBMED (195), EMBASE (30), BJOCN (15), IJOPN (32). After de-duplication and title and abstract screening, 108 records remained. These were downloaded, hand searched (adding 5 articles) and subject to a full read. 98 were rejected, leaving a selected dataset of 15 articles. Data extracted into a data extraction chart were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Three key themes were generated: 'Barriers to ACP', 'Facilitators of ACP' and 'Understanding of professional role and duty'. Key barriers were - lack of confidence, competence, role ambiguity and prognostic uncertainty. Key facilitators concerned the pertinence of the patient-practitioner relationship enabling ACP amongst nurses who had both competence and experience in ACP and/or palliative care (e.g., palliative care training). Lastly, nurses understood ACP to be part of their role, however, met challenges understanding the law surrounding this and its application processes. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that community nurses' experience and competence are associated with the effective implementation of ACP with palliative patients. Future research is needed to develop interventions to promote ACP uptake in community settings, enable confidence building for community nurses and support higher standards of palliative care via the implementation of ACP.
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 | 0.048 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".