Dataset Information

'We DECide optimized' - training nursing home staff in shared decision-making skills for advance care planning conversations in dementia care: protocol of a pretest-posttest cluster randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Due to the gradual loss of function, it is crucial for persons with dementia to discuss advance care planning in due course. However, nursing home staff, residents and their families feel uncomfortable to start this type of conversation, resulting in unknown (care) preferences. 'We DECide optimized' will provide tools to nursing home staff for discussing advance care planning. The primary objective is to enhance the level of shared decision-making in advance care planning conversations. We hypothesize that the training will enhance the perception of the importance, competence and frequency in which participants engage in advance care planning conversations. The secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators in the implementation of advance care planning policies at the ward level. METHODS:'We DECide optimized' will consist of two four-hour workshops and a homework assignment between sessions. Training components will include information on advance care planning and shared decision-making, role-play exercises and group discussions on implementation barriers at the ward level. Participating wards will receive supporting materials to stimulate residents and their families to initiate conversations. The study uses a cluster randomized controlled design, with 65 Flemish nursing home wards taking part (311 staff members). Data will be collected through a pretest-posttest model, with measurements up to 9?months after training. The RE-AIM framework will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation. Quantitative and qualitative data at the clinical, organizational and resident level will be collected. DISCUSSION:This study describes a hands-on, in-depth and multi-level training approach to improve shared decision-making in advance care planning conversations. By providing tools to ward staff, engaging the management and informing residents and their families, 'We DECide optimized' aims to decrease evidence-based barriers and to provide all stakeholders with incentives to engage in conversations about (care) preferences in an informative and participatory manner.

SUBMITTER: Goossens B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6360673 | biostudies-other | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRegional, facility, and racial and ethnic variability in intensity of care provided to nursing home residents with advanced dementia is well documented but poorly understood.ObjectiveTo assess the factors associated with facility and regional variation in the intensity of care for nursing home residents with advanced dementia.Design, setting, and participantsIn the ADVANCE (Assessment of Disparities and Variation for Alzheimer Disease Nursing Home Care at End of Life) qualitative study, conducted from June 1, 2018, to July 31, 2021, nationwide 2016-2017 Medicare Minimum Data Set information identified 4 hospital referral regions (HRRs) with high (n = 2) and low (n = 2) intensity of care for patients with advanced dementia based on hospital transfer and tube-feeding rates. Within those HRRs, 14 facilities providing relatively high-intensity and low-intensity care were recruited. A total of 169 nursing home staff members were interviewed, including administrators, directors of nursing, nurses, certified nursing assistants, social workers, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, dieticians, medical clinicians, and chaplains.Main outcomes and measuresData included 275 hours of observation, 169 staff interviews, and abstraction of public nursing home material (eg, websites). Framework analyses explored organizational factors and staff perceptions across HRRs and nursing homes in the following 4 domains: physical environment, care processes, decision-making processes, and implicit and explicit values.ResultsAmong 169 staff members interviewed, 153 (90.5%) were women, the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (4.7) years, and 54 (32.0%) were Black. Tube-feeding rates ranged from 0% in 5 low-intensity facilities to 44.3% in 1 high-intensity facility, and hospital transfer rates ranged from 0 transfers per resident-year in 2 low-intensity facilities to 1.6 transfers per resident-year in 1 high-intensity facility. The proportion of Black residents in facilities ranged from 2.9% in 1 low-intensity facility to 71.6% in 1 high-intensity facility, and the proportion of Medicaid recipients ranged from 45.3% in 1 low-intensity facility to 81.3% in 1 high-intensity facility. Factors distinguishing facilities providing the lowest-intensity care from those providing the highest-intensity care facilities included more pleasant physical environment (eg, good repair and nonmalodorous), standardized advance care planning, greater staff engagement in shared decision-making, and staff implicit values unfavorable to tube feeding. Many staff perceptions were ubiquitous (eg, adequate staffing needs), with no distinct pattern across nursing homes or HRRs. Staff in all nursing homes expressed assumptions that proxies for Black residents were reluctant to engage in advance care planning and favored more aggressive care. Except in nursing homes providing the lowest-intensity care, many staff believed that feeding tubes prolonged life and had other clinical benefits.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that variability in the care of patients with advanced dementia may be reduced by addressing modifiable nursing home factors, including enhancing support for low-resource facilities, standardizing advance care planning, and educating staff about evidence-based care and shared decision-making. Given pervasive staff biases toward proxies of Black residents, achieving health equity for nursing home residents with advanced dementia must be the goal behind all efforts aimed at reducing disparities in their care.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making provides an approach to discuss advance care planning in a participative and informed manner, embodying the principles of person-centered care. A number of guided approaches to achieve shared decision-making already exist, such as the three-talk model. However, it is uncertain whether daily practice methods in nursing home wards for persons with dementia comply with the underpinnings of this model. It is also uncertain whether professionals consider shared decision-making to be important in this context, and whether they perceive themselves sufficiently competent to practice this approach frequently.MethodsThe study has a cross-sectional design, with 65 wards (46 Belgian nursing homes) participating in the study. We compared nursing home professionals' and residents' perspectives on the level of shared decision-making during advance care planning conversations with ratings from external raters. Residents and professionals rated the level of shared decision-making by means of a questionnaire, which included the topic of the conversation. External raters assessed audio recordings of the conversations. Professionals filled in an additional self-report questionnaire on the importance of shared decision-making, their competence in practicing the approach, and with what frequency.ResultsAt ward level, professionals and residents rated the average achieved level of shared decision-making 71.53/100 (σ = 16.09) and 81.11/100 (σ = 19.18) respectively. Meanwhile, raters gave average scores of 26.97/100 (σ = 10.45). Only 23.8% of residents referred to advance care planning as the topic of the conversation. Professionals considered shared decision-making to be important (x̄=4.48/5, σ = 0.26). This result contrasted significantly with the frequency (x̄=3.48/5, σ = 0.51) and competence (x̄=3.76/5, σ = 0.27) with which these skills were practiced (P < 0.001).ConclusionsResidents with dementia are grateful when involved in discussing their care, but find it difficult to report what is discussed during these conversations. Receiving more information about advance care planning could provide them with the knowledge needed to prepare for such a conversation. External raters observe a discrepancy between the three-talk model and daily practice methods. Training programs should focus on providing professionals with better knowledge of and skills for shared decision-making. They should also promote team-based collaboration to increase the level of person-centered care in nursing home wards for persons with dementia.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough it is often recommended that general practitioners (GPs) initiate advance care planning (ACP), little is known about their experiences with ACP. This study aimed to identify GP experiences when conducting ACP conversations with palliative patients, and what factors influence these experiences.MethodsDutch GPs (N = 17) who had participated in a training on timely ACP were interviewed. Data from these interviews were analysed using direct content analysis.ResultsFour themes were identified: ACP and society, the GP's perceived role in ACP, initiating ACP and tailor-made ACP. ACP was regarded as a 'hot topic'. At the same time, a tendency towards a society in which death is not a natural part of life was recognized, making it difficult to start ACP discussions. Interviewees perceived having ACP discussions as a typical GP task. They found initiating and timing ACP easier with proactive patients, e.g. who are anxious of losing capacity, and much more challenging when it concerned patients with COPD or heart failure. Patients still being treated in hospital posed another difficulty, because they often times are not open to discussion. Furthermore, interviewees emphasized that taking into account changing wishes and the fact that not everything can be anticipated, is of the utmost importance. Moreover, when patients are not open to ACP, at a certain point it should be granted that choosing not to know, for example about where things are going or what possible ways of care planning might be, is also a form of autonomy.ConclusionsACP currently is a hot topic, which has favourable as well as unfavourable effects. As GPs experience difficulties in initiating ACP if patients are being treated in the hospital, future research could focus on a multidisciplinary ACP approach and the role of medical specialists in ACP. Furthermore, when starting ACP with palliative patients, we recommend starting with current issues. In doing so, a start can be made with future issues kept in view. Although the tension between ACP's focus on the patient's direction and the right not to know can be difficult, ACP has to be tailored to each individual patient.

Project description:BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) conversations are associated with improved end-of-life healthcare outcomes and patients want to engage in ACP with their healthcare providers. Despite this, ACP conversations rarely occur in primary care settings. The objective of this study was to implement ACP through adapted Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) training sessions, and to understand primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of implementing ACP into practice.MethodsWe conducted a quality improvement project guided by the Normalization Process Theory (NPT), in an interprofessional academic family medicine group in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. NPT is an explanatory model that delineates the processes by which organizations implement and integrate new work. PCPs (physicians, family medicine residents, and allied health care providers), completed pre- and post-SICP self-assessments evaluating training effectiveness, a survey evaluating program implementability and sustainability, and semi-structured qualitative interviews to elaborate on barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for successful implementation. Descriptive statistics and pre-post differences (Wilcoxon Sign-Rank test) were used to analyze surveys and thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative interviews.Results30 PCPs participated in SICP training and completed self-assessments, 14 completed NoMAD surveys, and 7 were interviewed. There were reported improvements in ACP confidence and skills. NoMAD surveys reported mixed opinions towards ACP implementation, specifically concerning colleagues' abilities to conduct ACP and patients' abilities to participate in ACP. Physicians discussed busy clinical schedules, lack of patient preparedness, and continued discomfort or lack of confidence in having ACP conversations. Allied health professionals discussed difficulty sharing patient prognosis and identification of appropriate patients as barriers.ConclusionsTraining in ACP conversations improved PCPs' individual perceived abilities, but discomfort and other barriers were identified. Future iterations will require a more systematic process to support the implementation of ACP into regular practice, in addition to addressing knowledge and skill gaps.

Project description:Introduction: The majority of nursing home (NH) patients suffer from complex diseases, including dementia. This makes advance care planning (ACP) particularly important. Objectives: The aim was to investigate the effect of an ACP intervention on communication among NH staff, patient, and family. We further investigated whether the intervention affected nursing staff distress. Methods: The ACP intervention was a part of the 4-month cluster randomized controlled COSMOS trial with a 9-month follow-up. Norwegian NH units (n = 72), with 765 patients were invited, and eligible units were cluster randomized to usual care or the intervention group. The ACP intervention consisted of an education program targeting all NH staff (nurses and physicians) and managers. Implementation was supported by a train-the-trainer approach, with regular phone calls from the researchers. The effect of the intervention was assessed by a data collection form and questionnaires. Nursing staff distress was assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory -Nursing Home version. Results: Five hundred and forty five patients from 67 NH units were included and randomized to the intervention (N = 297; 36 units) and control group (N = 248; 31 units). Organized meetings between the family, patient, and nurses were conducted more frequently in the intervention compared to the control group at month 4 (OR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.6 to 9.4, p = 0.002). Monthly contact between family and nurses was also more frequent in the intervention group (OR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.6 to 3.5, p = 0.010). Nurses and families were more satisfied with their communication in the intervention compared to the control group. Staff distress was reduced in the intervention group at month 4 (B = -1.8, 95% CI = -3.1 to -0.4, p = 0.012). The intervention effect at month 4 did not persist during follow-up at month 9. Conclusion: Compared to control, the ACP intervention improved the communication, and family and staff satisfaction as well as reduced staff distress. However, during the follow-up period these positive effects were not persistent. Indicating the necessity for ongoing staff support regarding ACP. Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02238652).

Dataset Information

'We DECide optimized' - training nursing home staff in shared decision-making skills for advance care planning conversations in dementia care: protocol of a pretest-posttest cluster randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets