4.5 Review

An integrative review of stakeholder views on Advance Care Directives (ACD): Barriers and facilitators to initiation, documentation, storage, and implementation

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 102, Issue 6, Pages 1067-1079

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.01.007

Keywords

Advance care planning; Advance Care Directive; End-of-life care; Patient views

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [GNT1058094]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the views and experiences of patients and their health care providers on developing advance care planning (ACP) and advance care directives (ACD); and determine barriers and facilitators to ACD development, storage, and use, including implications for people with communication disability. Method: An integrative review of 93 studies, analysed according to their content themes. Results: Content themes encapsulated the initiation, documentation, and implementation stages of ACP/ACD. Lack of guidance for initiating and supporting ACP/ACD impedes discussions, and both patients and healthcare providers avoid discussions owing to fear of dying and reluctance to think about end-of-life. Conclusions: There are several barriers and facilitators to the initiation of ACP discussions, documentation and implementation of ACD, and little research exploring the views of legal professionals on the development, storage, or use of ACP documents. Further research is needed to explore the timing and responsibility of both legal and health professionals in initiating and supporting ACP discussions. Practice Implications: It is important for healthcare providers to raise ACP discussions regularly so that patients have time to make informed advance care decisions. Storage of the document in an electronic health record might facilitate better access to and implementation of patients' end-of-life care decisions. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available