{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Clinicians' experiences implementing an advance care planning pathway in two Canadian provinces: a qualitative study.
{Author}: Stevens J;Elston D;Tan A;Barwich D;Carter RZ;Cochrane D;Frenette N;Howard M;
{Journal}: BMC Prim Care
{Volume}: 25
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: 2024 Jun 15
暂无{DOI}: 10.1186/s12875-024-02468-4
{Abstract}: BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process which enables patients to communicate wishes, values, fears, and preferences for future medical care. Despite patient interest in ACP, the frequency of discussions remains low. Barriers to ACP may be mitigated by involving non-physician clinic staff, preparing patients ahead of visits, and using tools to structure visits. An ACP care pathway incorporating these principles was implemented in longitudinal generalist outpatient care, including primary care/family medicine and general internal medicine, in two Canadian provinces. This study aims to understand clinician experiences implementing the pathway.
METHODS: The pathway was implemented in one family practice in Alberta, two family practices in British Columbia (BC), and one BC internal medicine outpatient clinic. Physicians and allied health professionals delivered structured pathway visits based on the Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Twelve physicians and one social worker participated in interviews or focus groups at the end of the study period. Qualitative data were coded inductively using an iterative approach, with regular meetings between coders.
RESULTS: Clinicians described experiences with the ACP care pathway, impact at the clinician level, and impact at the patient level. Within each domain, clinicians described barriers and facilitators experienced during implementation. Clinicians also reflected candidly about potential for future implementation and the sustainability of the pathway.
CONCLUSIONS: While the pathway was implemented slightly differently between provinces, core experiences were that implementation of the pathway, and integration with current practice, were feasible. Across settings, similar themes recurred regarding usefulness of the pathway structure and its tools, impact on clinician confidence and interactions with patients, teamwork and task delegation, compatibility with existing workflow, and patient preparation and readiness. Clinicians were supportive of ACP and of the pathway.
BACKGROUND: The study was prospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03508557). Registered April 25, 2018. https://classic.
RESULTS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03508557 .