Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of reflection and communication of a person’s future health care preferences, and has been shown to improve end-of-life (EOL) care for patients. The aim of this systematic review is to present an evidence-based overview of ACP in patients with primary malignant brain tumors (pmBT). A comprehensive literature search was conducted using medical and health science electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, ProQuest, Social Care Online, Scopus, and Web of Science) up to July 2016. Manual search of bibliographies of articles and gray literature search were also conducted. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodologic quality of the studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program’s appraisal tools. All studies were included irrespective of the study design. A meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity amongst included studies; therefore, a narrative analysis was performed for best evidence synthesis. Overall, 19 studies were included [1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), 17 cohort studies, 1 qualitative study] with 4686 participants. All studies scored “low to moderate” on the methodological quality assessment, implying high risk of bias. A single RCT evaluating a video decision support tool in facilitating ACP in pmBT patients showed a beneficial effect in promoting comfort care and gaining confidence in decision-making. However, the effect of the intervention on quality of life and care at the EOL were unclear. There was a low rate of use of ACP discussions at the EOL. Advance directive completion rates and place of death varied between different studies. Positive effects of ACP included lower hospital readmission rates, and intensive care unit utilization. None of the studies assessed mortality outcomes associated with ACP. In conclusion, this review found some beneficial effects of ACP in pmBT. The literature still remains limited in this area, with lack of intervention studies, making it difficult to identify superiority of ACP interventions in pmBT. More robust studies, with appropriate study design, outcome measures, and defined interventions are required to inform policy and practice.

This ACP programme is feasible, but needs robust process evaluation and longer term follow-up to assess the impact of outcomes in public hospital settings on care quality.

No abstract

Objective: To assess the utility of the modified Post-Stroke Checklist (mPSC) to identify impairments and care needs of patients with stroke (PwS) in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Methods: Prospective observational design with consecutive admission of PwS (n = 44) at a tertiary rehabilitation facility. The post-stroke checklist was administered at hospital discharge (T1) and 3 months post-discharge (T2). Furthermore, validated questionnaires assessed function and participation, including the Clinical Functioning Information Tool (ClinFIT) on admission (T0), T1 and T2. Results: Participants’ mean age was 67.7 years (standard deviation; SD) 14.6), 58% of participants were female, and the mean length of inpatient stay was 32.7 days (SD 22.4). At T1, 80% and at T2 only 60% of participants reported ≥1 stroke-related problem (mean 5.3 (SD 3.3) and 3.6 (SD 2.8), respectively). Half of participants were referred to physiotherapy/occupational therapy, and 36% to specialist clinics following discharge. The most prevalent problems included: life after stroke (62.2%), fatigue (55.6%), activities of daily living, and mobility (51.1% each). Compared with T1, at T2 there was an observed reduction in all mPSC items, except pain and incontinence. Participants showed improved function at T1 and T2 (Extension Index, ClinFIT set), from T0 to T1 and T0 to T2 (p<0.001, with large effect sizes). Conclusion: The mPSC is feasible to implement in an inpatient rehabilitation setting and community. It can identify relevant stroke-related problems, and hence facilitate targeted intervention.