4.2 Article

'Not yet' and 'Just ask': barriers and facilitators to advance care planning-a qualitative descriptive study of the perspectives of seriously ill, older patients and their families

Journal

BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 54-62

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2013-000487

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Michael Smith Health Services Research Foundation in British Columbia
  3. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions in Alberta
  4. Alternate Funding Plan Innovation Fund in Ontario

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To explore seriously ill, older hospitalised patients' and their family members' perspectives on the barriers and facilitators of advance care planning (ACP). Methods We used qualitative descriptive study methodology to analyse data from an interviewer administered, questionnaire-based, Canadian multicentre, prospective study of this population. Results Three main categories described these barriers and facilitators: (1) person (beliefs, attitudes, experiences, health status), (2) access (to doctors and healthcare providers, information, tools and infrastructure to communicate ACP preferences) and (3) the interaction with the doctor (who and how initiated, location, timing, quality of communication, relationship with doctor). Conclusions Based on the findings, we suggest strategies for both healthcare systems and individual healthcare providers to improve the quality and quantity of ACP with this population. These include assessing readiness for participation in ACP and personalising relevance of ACP to each individual, routinely offering scheduled family meetings for exploring a person's own goals and sharing information, ensuring systems and policies are in place to access previous ACP documentation and ensuring doctors' education includes ACP communication skills.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available