增加预先护理计划讨论和文件。

Allison K Mclendon, Annmarie L Walton, Mariah S Prince, Julie A Thompson, Thomas LeBlanc, Mary L Affronti
{"title":"增加预先护理计划讨论和文件。","authors":"Allison K Mclendon, Annmarie L Walton, Mariah S Prince, Julie A Thompson, Thomas LeBlanc, Mary L Affronti","doi":"10.6004/jadpro.2025.16.7.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance care planning (ACP) is an important aspect of care for the oncology patient population, leading to improved outcomes, less aggressive care toward the end of life, and reduced costs.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this project was to increase ACP discussions and easily accessible documentation for patients with hematologic malignancies at increased risk of mortality based on a mortality prediction model. Additionally, the project aimed to avoid increasing perceived provider disruption to workflow.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A validated mortality prediction model utilized objective patient data to predict inpatient mortality. Providers caring for at-risk patients were notified, asked to consider an ACP discussion, and instructed on consistent and easily accessible ACP documentation. Retrospective chart reviews evaluated whether ACP discussions were documented and whether they used the suggested bookend format. After 4 months, a provider education session reinforced the importance of ACP and included a demonstration of the documentation process. After another 4 months, chart reviews assessed ACP documentation rates. Rates were compared before and after education to determine the effectiveness of the implementation. A provider survey assessed perceived disruption to workflow.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen at-risk patients (eight before the education session and seven after the education session) were identified over 8 months. Three of eight patients (37.5%) had a documented ACP before the education session, and three of seven patients (42.9%) had a documented ACP discussion after the education session, which was not statistically significant. Most providers (83%) did not find the ACP implementation disruptive to workflow. Advance care planning documentation did not significantly increase after a provider education session, possibly due to low numbers of identified patients. However, 43% of at-risk patients after the education session had a documented ACP conversation, and most providers found bookends an efficient way to document ACP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The survey findings suggest that the project received provider buy-in and that continuing the bookend documentation expectation is reasonable.</p>","PeriodicalId":94110,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11982135/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Increasing Advance Care Planning Discussions and Documentation.\",\"authors\":\"Allison K Mclendon, Annmarie L Walton, Mariah S Prince, Julie A Thompson, Thomas LeBlanc, Mary L Affronti\",\"doi\":\"10.6004/jadpro.2025.16.7.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance care planning (ACP) is an important aspect of care for the oncology patient population, leading to improved outcomes, less aggressive care toward the end of life, and reduced costs.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this project was to increase ACP discussions and easily accessible documentation for patients with hematologic malignancies at increased risk of mortality based on a mortality prediction model. Additionally, the project aimed to avoid increasing perceived provider disruption to workflow.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A validated mortality prediction model utilized objective patient data to predict inpatient mortality. Providers caring for at-risk patients were notified, asked to consider an ACP discussion, and instructed on consistent and easily accessible ACP documentation. Retrospective chart reviews evaluated whether ACP discussions were documented and whether they used the suggested bookend format. After 4 months, a provider education session reinforced the importance of ACP and included a demonstration of the documentation process. After another 4 months, chart reviews assessed ACP documentation rates. Rates were compared before and after education to determine the effectiveness of the implementation. A provider survey assessed perceived disruption to workflow.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen at-risk patients (eight before the education session and seven after the education session) were identified over 8 months. Three of eight patients (37.5%) had a documented ACP before the education session, and three of seven patients (42.9%) had a documented ACP discussion after the education session, which was not statistically significant. Most providers (83%) did not find the ACP implementation disruptive to workflow. Advance care planning documentation did not significantly increase after a provider education session, possibly due to low numbers of identified patients. However, 43% of at-risk patients after the education session had a documented ACP conversation, and most providers found bookends an efficient way to document ACP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The survey findings suggest that the project received provider buy-in and that continuing the bookend documentation expectation is reasonable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11982135/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2025.16.7.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2025.16.7.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:提前护理计划(ACP)是肿瘤患者群体护理的一个重要方面,可改善预后,减少临终护理的侵略性,并降低成本。目的:该项目的目的是增加ACP的讨论和易于获取的文献,以死亡率预测模型为基础的血液恶性肿瘤患者增加死亡风险。此外,该项目旨在避免增加对工作流程的感知提供者中断。方法:采用经过验证的死亡率预测模型,利用客观患者数据预测住院患者死亡率。通知了照顾高危患者的提供者,要求他们考虑ACP讨论,并指导他们制定一致且易于获取的ACP文件。回顾性图表回顾评估了ACP讨论是否被记录下来,以及他们是否使用了建议的书尾格式。4个月后,提供者教育会议加强了ACP的重要性,并包括文件编制过程的演示。又过了4个月,图表审查评估了ACP文件率。比较教育前后的比率,以确定实施的有效性。供应商调查评估了感知到的工作流程中断。结果:在8个月内确定了15例高危患者(教育前8例,教育后7例)。8例患者中有3例(37.5%)在教育前有ACP记录,7例患者中有3例(42.9%)在教育后有ACP记录,差异无统计学意义。大多数供应商(83%)不认为ACP的实施会破坏工作流程。预先护理计划文件在提供者教育会议后没有显著增加,可能是由于确定的患者数量少。然而,在教育课程之后,43%的高危患者进行了记录在案的ACP对话,大多数提供者发现书挡是记录ACP的有效方法。结论:调查结果表明,该项目得到了提供商的支持,并且继续对终端文档的期望是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Increasing Advance Care Planning Discussions and Documentation.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is an important aspect of care for the oncology patient population, leading to improved outcomes, less aggressive care toward the end of life, and reduced costs.

Purpose: The objective of this project was to increase ACP discussions and easily accessible documentation for patients with hematologic malignancies at increased risk of mortality based on a mortality prediction model. Additionally, the project aimed to avoid increasing perceived provider disruption to workflow.

Methods: A validated mortality prediction model utilized objective patient data to predict inpatient mortality. Providers caring for at-risk patients were notified, asked to consider an ACP discussion, and instructed on consistent and easily accessible ACP documentation. Retrospective chart reviews evaluated whether ACP discussions were documented and whether they used the suggested bookend format. After 4 months, a provider education session reinforced the importance of ACP and included a demonstration of the documentation process. After another 4 months, chart reviews assessed ACP documentation rates. Rates were compared before and after education to determine the effectiveness of the implementation. A provider survey assessed perceived disruption to workflow.

Results: Fifteen at-risk patients (eight before the education session and seven after the education session) were identified over 8 months. Three of eight patients (37.5%) had a documented ACP before the education session, and three of seven patients (42.9%) had a documented ACP discussion after the education session, which was not statistically significant. Most providers (83%) did not find the ACP implementation disruptive to workflow. Advance care planning documentation did not significantly increase after a provider education session, possibly due to low numbers of identified patients. However, 43% of at-risk patients after the education session had a documented ACP conversation, and most providers found bookends an efficient way to document ACP.

Conclusion: The survey findings suggest that the project received provider buy-in and that continuing the bookend documentation expectation is reasonable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信