Dataset Information

Stakeholder involvement in care transition planning for older adults and the factors guiding their decision-making: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To synthesise the existing literature on care transition planning from the perspectives of older adults, caregivers and health professionals and to identify the factors that may influence these stakeholders' transition decision-making processes.

Design

A scoping review guided by Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted on 7 January 2021 to identify articles in five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and AgeLine). Records were included when they described care transition planning in an institutional setting from the perspectives of the care triad (older adults, caregivers and health professionals). No date or study design restrictions were imposed.

Setting

This review explored care transitions involving older adults from an institutional care setting to any other institutional or non-institutional care setting. Institutional care settings include communal facilities where individuals dwell for short or extended periods of time and have access to healthcare services.

Participants

Older adults (aged 65 or older), caregivers and health professionals.

Results

39 records were included. Stakeholder involvement in transition planning varied across the studies. Transition decisions were largely made by health professionals, with limited or unclear involvement from older adults and caregivers. Seven factors appeared to guide transition planning across the stakeholder groups: (a) institutional priorities and requirements; (b) resources; (c) knowledge; (d) risk; (e) group structure and dynamic; (f) health and support needs; and (g) personality preferences and beliefs. Factors were described at microlevels, mesolevels and macrolevels.

Conclusions

This review explored stakeholder involvement in transition planning and identified seven factors that appear to influence transition decision-making. These factors may be useful in advancing the delivery of person and family-centred care by determining how individual-level, group-level and system-level values guide decision-making. Further research is needed to understand how various stakeholder groups balance these factors during transition planning in different health contexts.

SUBMITTER: Carbone S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9196186 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This review summarises the information available for clinicians counselling older patients with kidney failure about treatment options, focusing on prognosis, quality of life, the lived experiences of treatment and the information needs of older adults. DESIGN:We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews. The final report conforms to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, TRIP and online repositories (for dissertations, guidelines and recommendations from national renal associations). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION:Articles in English studying older adults with advanced kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30?mL/min/1.73?m2); published between January 2000 and August 2018. Articles not addressing older patients separately or those comparing between dialysis modalities were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion and grouped them by topic as per the objectives above. Quantitative data were presented as tables and charts; qualitative themes were identified and described. RESULTS:248 articles were included after screening 15?445 initial results. We summarised prognostic scores and compared dialysis and non-dialytic care. We highlighted potentially modifiable factors affecting quality of life. From reports of the lived experiences, we documented the effects of symptoms, of ageing, the feelings of disempowerment and the need for adaptation. Exploration of information needs suggested that patients want to participate in decision-making and need information, in simple terms, about survival and non-survival outcomes. CONCLUSION:When discussing treatment options, validated prognostic scores are useful. Older patients with multiple comorbidities do not do well with dialysis. The modifiable factors contributing to the low quality of life in this cohort deserve attention. Older patients suffer a high symptom burden and functional deterioration; they have to cope with significant life changes and feelings of disempowerment. They desire greater involvement and more information about illness, symptoms and what to expect with treatment.

Project description:BackgroundA range of evidence informs decision-making on innovation in health care, including formal research findings, local data and professional opinion. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of evidence for innovations into practice. In addition to the characteristics of evidence, it is known that processes at the individual level influence its impact on decision-making. Less is known about the ways in which processes at the professional, organisational and local system level shape evidence use and its role in decisions to adopt innovations.MethodsA systematic scoping review was used to review the health literature on innovations within acute and primary care and map processes at the professional, organisational and local system levels which influence how evidence informs decision-making on innovation. Stakeholder feedback on the themes identified was collected via focus groups to test and develop the findings.ResultsFollowing database and manual searches, 31 studies reporting primary qualitative data met the inclusion criteria: 24 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the thematic analysis. Evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by multi-level processes (professional, organisational, local system) and interactions across these levels. Preferences for evidence vary by professional group and health service setting. Organisations can shape professional behaviour by requiring particular forms of evidence to inform decision-making. Pan-regional organisations shape innovation decision-making at lower levels. Political processes at all levels shape the selection and use of evidence in decision-making.ConclusionsThe synthesis of results from primary qualitative studies found that evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by processes at multiple levels. Interactions between different levels shape evidence use in decision-making (e.g. professional groups and organisations can use local systems to validate evidence and legitimise innovations, while local systems can tailor or frame evidence to influence activity at lower levels). Organisational leaders need to consider whether the environment in which decisions are made values diverse evidence and stakeholder perspectives. Further qualitative research on decision-making practices that highlights how and why different types of evidence come to count during decisions, and tracks the political aspects of decisions about innovation, is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. METHODS:We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. RESULTS:We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ??4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Hospitalized older adults often lack decisional capacity, but outside of the intensive care unit and end-of-life care settings, little is known about the frequency of decision making by family members or other surrogates or its implications for hospital care. OBJECTIVE:To describe the scope of surrogate decision making, the hospital course, and outcomes for older adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Prospective, observational study conducted in medicine and medical intensive care unit services of 2 hospitals in 1 Midwestern city in 1083 hospitalized older adults identified by their physicians as requiring major medical decisions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Clinical characteristics, hospital outcomes, nature of major medical decisions, and surrogate involvement. RESULTS:According to physician reports, at 48 hours of hospitalization, 47.4% (95% CI, 44.4%-50.4%) of older adults required at least some surrogate involvement, including 23.0% (20.6%-25.6%) with all decisions made by a surrogate. Among patients who required a surrogate for at least 1 decision within 48 hours, 57.2% required decisions about life-sustaining care (mostly addressing code status), 48.6% about procedures and operations, and 46.9% about discharge planning. Patients who needed a surrogate experienced a more complex hospital course with greater use of ventilators (2.5% of patients who made decisions and 13.2% of patients who required any surrogate decisions; P <?.001), artificial nutrition (1.7% of patients and 14.4% of surrogates; P <?.001), and length of stay (median, 6 days for patients and 7 days for surrogates; P <?.001). They were more likely to be discharged to an extended-care facility (21.2% with patient decisions and 40.9% with surrogate decisions; P <?.001) and had higher hospital mortality (0.0% patients and 5.9% surrogates; P <?.001). Most surrogates were daughters (58.9%), sons (25.0%), or spouses (20.6%). Overall, only 7.4% had a living will and 25.0% had a health care representative document in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Surrogate decision making occurs for nearly half of hospitalized older adults and includes both complete decision making by the surrogate and joint decision making by the patient and surrogate. Surrogates commonly face a broad range of decisions in the intensive care unit and the hospital ward setting. Hospital functions should be redesigned to account for the large and growing role of surrogates, supporting them as they make health care decisions.