4.5 Article

Advance care planning for nursing home residents with dementia: Influence of 'we DECide' on policy and practice

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 100, 期 1, 页码 139-146

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.08.010

关键词

Advance care planning; Dementia; Shared decision making; Nursing homes; Intervention study

资金

  1. Flemish government agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie) [SBO IWT] [100036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: (1) To pilot 'we DECide' in terms of influence on advance care planning policy and practice in nursing home dementia care units. (2) To investigate barriers and facilitators for implementing 'we DECide'. Methods: This was a pre-test-post-test study in 18 nursing homes. Measurements included: compliance with best practice of advance care planning policy (ACP-audit); advance care planning practice (ACP criteria: degree to which advance care planning was discussed, and OPTION scale: degree of involvement of residents and families in conversations). Results: Advance care planning policy was significantly more compliant with best practice after 'we DECide'; policy in the control group was not. Advance care planning was not discussed more frequently, nor were residents and families involved to a higher degree in conversations after 'we DECide'. Barriers to realizing advance care planning included staff's limited responsibilities; facilitators included support by management staff, and involvement of the whole organization. Conclusion: 'We DECide' had a positive influence on advance care planning policy. Daily practice, however, did not change. Future studies should pay more attention to long-term implementation strategies. Practice implications: Long-term implementation of advance care planning requires involvement of the whole organization and a continuing support system for health care professionals. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据