Exploring the Role of Nurses in Advance Care Planning Within Long-Term Care Homes: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundResidents in long-term care homes (LTCHs) are often diagnosed with chronic, life-limiting illnesses, and it is now a common site to provide high levels of care and eventual death. There is an urgent need to address communication gaps and uncertainties surrounding resident's end of life preferences. Nurses are well situated to be key facilitators of necessary advance care planning (ACP), ensuring residents have discussions with family, substitute decision-makers and healthcare providers regarding future health and personal care preferences. However, LTCHs present unique challenges for nurses due to not only complex comorbidities but also staffing dynamics.PurposeThis study explored the experiences and perceptions of Registered Nurses (RNs) and Registered Practical Nurse (RPNs) in LTCHs regarding their role in engaging residents and families in ACP discussions.MethodsQualitative interpretive descriptive methodology was used. Data were collected from two LTCHs in Southern Ontario with a sample of 15 nurses (7 RNs and 8 RPNs). Analysis involved review of semistructured interviews, field notes, and utilizing constant comparison within an inductive approach.ResultsPower and authority dynamics in LTCH's was an overarching theme in the data, with four subthemes: (1) Nurses lacking clarity about ACP, (2) nurses’ uncertainty regarding their role in ACP, (3) nurses feeling uncomfortable engaging in ACP discussions, and (4) nurses struggling to support families in ACP discussions.ConclusionRecommendations for nurses, healthcare providers, LTCH administrators, and policy makers include: (1) development of policies which support, from a systemic level, nurses to feel safe while engaging in ACP; (2) reassessing LTCH's hierarchical structure, and clarifying RN, RPN, and interdisciplinary team members roles in ACP; (3) developing culture change that allows a team and person-centered approach to ACP; and (4) providing ongoing education and mentorship for nurses to manage family dynamics and expand their understanding of ACP beyond a biomedical lens.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".