MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402351035 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.07.24313154

Exploring the impact of a context-adapted decision aid and online training about shared decision making about goals of care with elderly patients in the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods study

2024· preprint· en· W4402351035 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ariane Plaisance, J. Turgeon, Lucas Gomes Souza, France Légaré, Stéphane Turcotte, Nathalie Germain, Tommy Jean, Maude Dionne, Félix Antoine Fortier, Patrick Plante, Diane Tapp, Véronique Gélinas, Emmanuelle Bélanger, Mark H. Ebell, Christian Chabot, Tom H van de Belt, Alexis F. Turgeon, Patrick Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Training (meteorology)Intensive care unitUnit (ring theory)Elderly careClinical decision makingMedicineComputer sciencePsychologyNursingKnowledge managementIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To explore the impact of a context-adapted decision aid and an online training about shared decision-making (SDM) about goals of care on the level of involvement of elderly patients by intensivists in SDM about goals of care and quality of goals of care discussions (GCD) in an intensive care unit. Methods This was a three-phase before-after mixed-methods implementation study conducted in an ICU in Lévis, Quebec, Canada. We followed the StaRI and COREQ reporting guidelines. We recruited patients aged ≥ 65 and their attending intensivists. We video-recorded GCD in three phases: Phase I: GCD without a decision aid; Phase II: GCD with a decision aid about goals of care but no online training; and Phase III: GCD with both a decision aid about goals of care following online training about SDM. All GCD recordings were transcribed verbatim. We measured the level of patient engagement by intensivists in SDM about goals of care through the OPTION scale and evaluated GCD quality using the Audit of Communication, Care Planning, and Documentation (ACCEPT) indicators. A qualitative thematic analysis of the encounters transcriptions was also performed. Results Out of 359 eligible patients, the study included 21 patients (71% males; median age, 77 years; 57% without high school diploma) and 5 intensivists (80% male; median age, 35). Despite completing online training, the decision aid was never used in recorded encounters. We did not perform any tests of statistical significance to compare results in each study phase because of small sample sizes over each phase. OPTION and ACCEPT scores were low in each phase, but physicians did engage in GCD. We found that 76% of the goals of care recorded in medical records after the discussion were consistent with preferences expressed by patients during recorded observations. Several patients expressed confusion about GCD. Barriers identified by intensivists leading GCD include physician attitudes, challenges to performing GCD along with the demands of the intensive care unit, misunderstandings, and lack of training. Facilitators include a patient-centered approach, a clear decision aid, and positive patient attitudes. In future work, an environment that supports physicians in performing GCD, promotes earlier and higher quality patient GCD before admission to the intensive care unit, and encourages meaningful SDM in critical care must be assessed as pathways to successful intensive care unit GCD. Conclusion A context-adapted decision aid about goals of care was created in addition to a complementary online training module. The online training was completed by all participating physicians but no increased involvement of patients in SDM during intensive care unit GCD was observed, and use of the decision aid was also not observed. We found several communication barriers that will need to be explored to improve intensive care unit GCD. Trial registration number: NCT04034979 Key points Misunderstandings and concerns among older adult patients about goals of care and invasive interventions in the ICU contribute to delayed decision-making. An online training regarding shared decision making with a corresponding decision aid for discussing goals of care was completed by all participating intensivists, but no increased involvement of patients nor use of the decision aid was observed in the ICU. Facilitators to the uptake of shared decision making may include the involvement of non-intensivist health professionals, mandating documentation discussions and their results in patient files, and challenging a long-held reluctance to discuss death as an outcome.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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