ObjectivesPatients, physicians and the healthcare system are faced with the challenge of determining, and respecting, the medical wishes of an aging population. Our study sought to describe who participates in advance care planning (ACP) and decision-making for patients in long-term care and designated assisted living.MethodsIn 2008, Alberta Health Services initiated its ‘Advance Care Planning: Goals of Care Designation’ (Adult) policy in the Calgary zone. This policy encouraged discussions about goals of care and used a tracking form to capture these conversations. A postpolicy implementation chart review was performed at 3 time points: at baseline, at 6 months and at 18 months post implementation in long term care (LTC) and designated assisted living sites.Results166 charts were reviewed and 90% had a documented goals of care order. Less than half of residents (47%) were documented as participating in conversations and they were less likely to participate if they had cognitive impairment and were living in LTC. Documented family participation was more prevalent in LTC (51% vs 11%). Nurses participated in 67% of documented conversations with only 34% of discussions documenting physician involvement.ConclusionsThis study identifies the lack of documented resident participation in ACP in LTC. While this finding may be explained by the high prevalence of cognitive impairment in our population, it raises questions about the optimal approach to ACP in LTC. In this setting, ACP appears to be more about relational autonomy than it is about patient autonomy.

BackgroundIn 2014, the province of Alberta, Canada implemented a province-wide policy and procedures for advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care designation (GCD) across its complex, integrated public healthcare system. This study was conducted to identify and operationalise performance indicators for ACP/GCD to monitor policy implementation success and sustainment of ACP/GCD practice change.MethodsA systematic review and environmental scan was conducted to identify potential indicators of ACP/GCD uptake (n=132). A purposive sample of ACP/GCD stakeholders was invited to participate in a modified Delphi study to evaluate, reduce and refine these indicators through a combination of face-to-face meetings and online surveys.ResultsAn evidence-informed Donabedian by Institute of Medicine (IOM) framework was adopted as an organising matrix for the indicators in an initial face-to-face meeting. Three online survey rounds reduced and refined the 132 indicators to 18. A final face-to-face meeting operationalised the indicators into a measurable format. Nine indicators, covering 11 of the 18 Donabedian×IOM domains, were operationalised.ConclusionsNine ACP/GCD evidence-informed indicators mapping to 11 of 18 Donabedian×IOM domains were endorsed, and have been operationalised into an online ACP/GCD dashboard. The indicators provide a characterisation of ACP/GCD uptake that could be generalised to other healthcare settings, measuring aspects related to ACP/GCD documentation, patient satisfaction and agreement between medical orders and care received. The final nine indicators reflect the stakeholders’ expressed intent to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility within a large provincial healthcare system.

ObjectiveAdvance care planning (ACP) and goals of care designation (GCD) performance indicators were developed and implemented across Alberta, Canada, and have been used to populate an electronic ACP/GCD dashboard. The study objective was to investigate whether users found the indicators and dashboard usable and acceptable.MethodsThis study employed a survey among a convenience sample of ACP/GCD community of practice members. The survey included questions on demographics, clinical practices and a validated usability questionnaire for the dashboard, System Usability Scale (SUS).ResultsEighteen of 33 community of practice members (54.5%) answered the survey. Half of participants had a leadership or management role for ≥10 years. Most respondents (55.6%) had access to the ACP/GCD dashboard, and various ACP/GCD audit resources were used. Mean SUS was 70.83 (SD 19.72), which was above the threshold for acceptability (68). Approximately three-quarters of respondents (72.7%) found the indicators informative and meaningful for their practice, and over half (54.5%) were willing to use the dashboard and/or indicators to change their ACP/GCD practice.ConclusionThe nine indicators and dashboard were acceptable and usable for monitoring ACP/GCD performance. This set of indicators shows promise for describing and evaluating ACP/GCD uptake throughout a complex, multisector healthcare system.

No abstract