ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning (ACP) aims to create conditions for more person-centred care. We aimed to explore variations in person-centred care discussions and treatment-centred care discussions within ACP conversations in the Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention and how person-centred care discussions could be encouraged. The MUTUAL intervention consists of the following: (i) timely patient selection, (ii) the patient and healthcare professionals preparing for the conversation, (iii) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and (iv) documentation. METHODS: We conducted a narrative analysis of ACP conversations. A narrative summary template was created and used to analyse 18 audio-recordings. RESULTS: We noticed variations in person-centred and treatment-centred focus within the ACP conversations. We identified three important strategies that facilitated person-centred care discussions within ACP conversations. First, healthcare professionals' acceptance that ACP is an individual process. We believe it is important that healthcare professionals recognise and accept where the patient is in his or her individual ACP process; not making decisions right away can also be part of a decisional process. Secondly, exploring the underlying motivation for treatment wishes can give insights into patient's wishes, values and needs. Lastly, healthcare professionals who demonstrated an adaptive, curious and engaged attitude throughout the ACP process achieved more person-centred ACP conversations. This coincided with elaborating on the patient's emotions, fears and worries. CONCLUSION: Person-centred and treatment-centred focus varied within the ACP conversations in the MUTUAL intervention. Certain strategies by healthcare professionals facilitated a more person-centred focus.
Subject(s)
Advance Care Planning , Male , Female , Humans , Health Personnel , Decision Making , Emotions , CommunicationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The surprise question is widely used to identify patients nearing the last phase of life. Potential differences in accuracy between timeframe, patient subgroups and type of healthcare professionals answering the surprise question have been suggested. Recent studies might give new insights. AIM: To determine the accuracy of the surprise question in predicting death, differentiating by timeframe, patient subgroup and by type of healthcare professional. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception till 22nd January 2021. Studies were eligible if they used the surprise question prospectively and assessed mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and c-statistic were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, including 88.268 assessments. The meta-analysis resulted in an estimated sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI [66.3-76.4]) and specificity of 74.0% (95% CI [69.3-78.6]). The negative predictive value varied from 98.0% (95% CI [97.7-98.3]) to 88.6% (95% CI [87.1-90.0]) with a mortality rate of 5% and 25% respectively. The positive predictive value varied from 12.6% (95% CI [11.0-14.2]) with a mortality rate of 5% to 47.8% (95% CI [44.2-51.3]) with a mortality rate of 25%. Seven studies provided detailed information on different healthcare professionals answering the surprise question. CONCLUSION: We found overall reasonable test characteristics for the surprise question. Additionally, this study showed notable differences in performance within patient subgroups. However, we did not find an indication of notable differences between timeframe and healthcare professionals.