Advance care planning evaluation: a scoping review of best research practice

Abstract

Various indicators have been used to evaluate advance care planning, including completion rates, type of care received, and satisfaction. Recent consensus suggests, though, that receiving care consistent with one’s goals is the primary outcome of advance care planning and assessment should capture this metric. Goal concordant care is challenging to measure, and there is little clarity about how best to do so. The aim of this scoping review is to explore what methods have been used to measure goal concordant care in the evaluation of advance care planning. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane were searched in September 2020 to identify studies that aimed to track whether advance care planning affected the likelihood of patients receiving care that matched their preferred care. 135 original studies were included for review. Studies used retrospective chart review (36%, n=49), questionnaire (36%, n=48) and interview (31%, n=42), focusing on both patients and proxies. Studies considered both actual care received (55%, n=74) and hypothetical scenarios anticipating possible future care (49%, n=66); some studies did both. While the reviewed studies demonstrate the possibility of working towards a solid methodology, there were significant weaknesses. Notably, studies often lacked enough reporting clarity to be reproducible and, relatedly, key concepts, such as end-of-life or preferred care, were left undefined. The recommendations that follow from these findings inform future research approaches, supporting the development of a strong evidence base to guide advance care planning implementation in practice.

Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and Clinical Decision-Making: A Qualitative Pilot Study Exploring Perspectives of Those Directly Affected, Their Next of Kin, and Treating Clinicians

“…Probabilistic thinking is necessary in decision-making for which no certain statements regarding mortality or future morbidity/functional status can be made. This is demanding and requires guidance through excellent decision aids, drawing, e.g., on the possibilities of digitalization [ 64 ], and points to the need for evaluation if the care delivered is goal-concordant, i.e., corresponds to patients’ preferences [ 65 ]. The results show the need for a decision-making aid that might better prepare those affected and their next of kin for upcoming interventions, decisions, and challenges in a lay-oriented manner at an early stage.…”