Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators for healthcare professionals to the implementation of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic (the MUTUAL intervention): a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Advance Care Planning (ACP) enables patients to define and discuss their goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. However, the structural implementation of ACP interventions remains challenging. The Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention has recently been developed which takes into account existing barriers and facilitators. We aimed to evaluate the MUTUAL intervention and identify the barriers and facilitators healthcare professionals experience in the implementation of the MUTUAL intervention and also to identify suggestions for improvement.

Methods

We performed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study at five outpatient clinics of one, 300-bed, non-academic hospital. Firstly, semi-structured interviews were performed with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals. The content of these interviews was used to specify the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI). The MIDI was sent to all healthcare professionals. The interviews and questionnaires were used to clarify the results.

Results

Eleven healthcare professionals participated in the interviews and 37 responded to the questionnaire. Eight barriers and 20 facilitators were identified. Healthcare professionals agreed that the elements of the MUTUAL intervention are clear, correct, complete, and simple - and the intervention is relevant for patients and their proxies. The main barriers are found within the user and the organisational domain. Barriers related to the organisation include: inadequate replacement of staff, insufficient staff, and insufficient time to introduce and invite patients. Several suggestions for improvement were made.

Conclusion

Our results show that healthcare professionals positively evaluate the MUTUAL intervention and are very receptive to implementing the MUTUAL intervention. Taking into account the suggestions for improvement may enhance further implementation.

SUBMITTER: van Lummel EVTJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10015131 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers and facilitators for healthcare professionals to the implementation of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic (the MUTUAL intervention): a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

van Lummel Eline V T J EVTJ Meijer Yoeki Y Tjan Dave H T DHT van Delden Johannes J M JJM

BMC palliative care 20230315 1

<h4>Background</h4>Advance Care Planning (ACP) enables patients to define and discuss their goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. However, the structural implementation of ACP interventions remains challenging. The Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention has recently been developed which takes into account existing barriers and facilitators. We aimed to evaluate the MUTUAL intervention and identify the barriers and facilitators healt ...[more]

PMID: 36922796

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients still receive non-beneficial treatments when nearing the end of life. Advance care planning (ACP) interventions have shown to positively influence compliance with end of life wishes. Hospital physicians seem to miss opportunities to engage in ACP, whereas patients visiting the outpatient clinic usually have one or more chronic conditions and are at risk for medical emergencies. So far, implemented ACP interventions have had limited impact. Structural implementation of ACP may be beneficial. We hypothesize that having ACP conversations more towards the end of life and involving the treating physician in the ACP conversation may help patient wishes and goals to become more concrete and more often documented, thus facilitating goal-concordant care.AimTo facilitate timely shared decision making and increase patient autonomy we aim to develop an ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic for frail patients and determine the feasibility of the intervention.MethodsThe United Kingdom's Medical Research Council framework was used to structure the development of the ACP intervention. Key elements of the ACP intervention were determined by reviewing existing literature and an iterative process with stakeholders. The feasibility of the developed intervention was evaluated by a feasibility study of 20 ACP conversations at the geriatrics and pulmonology department of a non-academic hospital. Feasibility was assessed by analysing evaluation forms by patients, nurses and physicians and by evaluating with stakeholders. A general inductive approach was used for analysing comments. The developed intervention was described using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR).ResultsWe developed a multidisciplinary timely undertaken ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic. Key components of the developed intervention consist of 1) timely patient selection 2) preparation of patient and healthcare professional 3) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and 4) documentation. 94.7% of the patients, 60.0% of the nurses and 68.8% of the physicians agreed that the benefits of the ACP conversation outweighed the potential burdens.ConclusionThis study showed that the developed ACP intervention is feasible and considered valuable by patients and healthcare professionals.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In oncology, Health Care Professionals often experience conducting Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations as difficult and are hesitant to start them. A structured approach could help to overcome this. In the ACTION trial, a Phase III multi-center cluster-randomized clinical trial in six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom), patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer are invited to have one or two structured ACP conversations with a trained facilitator. It is unclear how trained facilitators experience conducting structured ACP conversations. This study aims to understand how facilitators experience delivering the ACTION Respecting Choices (RC) ACP conversation. METHODS:A qualitative study involving focus groups with RC facilitators. Focus group interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, translated into English, and thematically analysed, supported by NVivo 11. The international research team was involved in data analysis from initial coding and discussion towards final themes. RESULTS:Seven focus groups were conducted, involving 28 of in total 39 trained facilitators, with different professional backgrounds from all participating countries. Alongside some cultural differences, six themes were identified. These reflect that most facilitators welcomed the opportunity to participate in the ACTION trial, seeing it as a means of learning new skills in an important area. The RC script was seen as supportive to ask questions, including those perceived as difficult to ask, but was also experienced as a barrier to a spontaneous conversation. Facilitators noticed that most patients were positive about their ACTION RC ACP conversation, which had prompted them to become aware of their wishes and to share these with others. The facilitators observed that it took patients substantial effort to have these conversations. In response, facilitators took responsibility for enabling patients to experience a conversation from which they could benefit. Facilitators emphasized the need for training, support and advanced communication skills to be able to work with the script. CONCLUSIONS:Facilitators experienced benefits and challenges in conducting scripted ACP conversations. They mentioned the importance of being skilled and experienced in carrying out ACP conversations in order to be able to explore the patients' preferences while staying attuned to patients' needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry 63110516 ( ISRCTN63110516 ) per 10/3/2014.

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:BackgroundHospitalization offers an opportunity for healthcare providers to initiate advance care planning (ACP) conversations, yet such conversations occur infrequently. Barriers to these conversations include attitudes, skill, and time. Our objective was to develop a theory-based, provider-level intervention to increase the frequency of ACP conversations in hospitals.MethodsWe followed a systematic process to develop a theory-based, provider-level intervention to increase ACP conversations between providers and their hospitalized patients. Using principles established in Intervention Mapping and the Behavior Change Wheel, we identified a behavioral target, a theory of behavior change, behavior change techniques, and a mode of delivery. We addressed a limitation of these two processes of intervention development by also establishing a framework of design principles to structure the selection of intervention components. We partnered with a game development company to translate the output into a video game.ResultsWe identified willingness to engage in ACP conversations as the primary contributor to ACP behavior, and attitudes as a modifiable source of this willingness. We selected self-determination theory, and its emphasis on increasing autonomous motivation, as a relevant theory of behavior change and means of changing attitudes. Second, we mapped the components of autonomous motivation (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) to relevant behavior change techniques (e.g., identity). Third, we decided to deliver the intervention using a video game and to use the narrative engagement framework, which describes the use of stories to educate, model behavior, and immerse the user, to structure our selection of intervention components. Finally, in collaboration with a game development company, we used this framework to develop an adventure video game (Hopewell Hospitalist).ConclusionsThe systematic development of a theory-based intervention facilitates the mechanistic testing of the efficacy of the intervention, including the specification of hypotheses regarding mediators and moderators of outcomes. The intervention will be tested in a randomized clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundFewer than half of the US population has an advance healthcare directive. Hospitalizations offer a key opportunity for clinicians to engage patients in advance care planning (ACP) conversations. Guidelines suggest screening for the presence of "serious illness" but do not further specify how to prioritize the 12.4 million patients hospitalized each year.ObjectiveTo establish a normative standard for prioritizing hospitalized patients for ACP conversations.Design and settingA modified Delphi study, with three iterative rounds of online surveys.ParticipantsMulti-disciplinary group of US-based clinicians with research and practical expertise in ACP.Main measuresIndirect and direct elicitation of short-term and 1-year risk of mortality that prompt experts to prioritize ACP conversations for hospitalized adults.Main resultsFifty-seven of 108 (52%) candidate panelists completed round 1, and 47 completed rounds 2 and 3. Panelists were primarily physicians (84%), with significant experience (mean years 23 [SD 9.8]), who either taught (55%) and/or performed research about ACP (55%). In round 1, > 70% of panelists agreed that all hospitalized adults ≥ 65 years should have an ACP conversation before discharge, but disagreed about the timing and content of the conversation. By round 3, > 70% of participants agreed that patients with either high (> 10%) short-term or high (≥ 34%) 1-year risk of mortality should have a goals of care conversation (i.e., focused on preferences for near-term treatment), while patients with low (≤ 10%) short-term and low (< 19%) 1-year risk of mortality warranted an ACP conversation (i.e., focused on preferences for future care) before discharge.LimitationsUse of case vignettes to elicit clinician judgment; response rate.ConclusionsPanelists agreed that clinicians should have an ACP conversation with all hospitalized adults over 65 years in an ACP conversation, adjusting the content and timing of the conversation conditional on the patient's risk of short-term and 1-year mortality.

Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators for healthcare professionals to the implementation of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic (the MUTUAL intervention): a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Barriers and facilitators for healthcare professionals to the implementation of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic (the MUTUAL intervention): a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets