Background A team-based approach has been advocated for advance care planning in nursing homes. While nurses are often put forward to take the lead, it is not clear to what extent other professions could be involved as well. Objectives To examine to what extent engagement in advance care planning practices (e.g. conversations, advance directives), knowledge and self-efficacy differ between nurses, care assistants and allied care staff in nursing homes. Design Survey study. Participants/setting The study involved a purposive sample of 14 (...) nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium. Nurses, care assistants and allied care staff (e.g. social workers, physical therapists) completed a survey. Ethical considerations The study was approved by the University Hospital of Brussels (B.U.N. 143201834759), as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03521206). Results One hundred ninety-six nurses, 319 care assistants and 169 allied staff participated (67% response rate). After adjusting for confounders, nurses were significantly more likely than care assistants to have carried out advance care planning conversations (odds ratio 4; 95% confidence interval 1.73–9.82; p < 0.001) and documented advance care planning (odds ratio 2.67; 95% confidence interval 1.29–5.56; p < 0.001); differences not found between allied staff and care assistants. Advance care planning knowledge total scores differed significantly, with nurses (estimated mean difference 0.13 (score range 0–1); 95% confidence interval 0.08–0.17; p < 0.001) and allied staff (estimated mean difference 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.03–0.12; p < 0.001) scoring higher than care assistants. We found no significant differences regarding self-efficacy. Discussion While nursing home nurses conducted more advance care planning conversations and documentation than allied care staff and care assistants, these two professional groups may be a valuable support to nurses in conducting advance care planning, if provided with additional training. Conclusions Allied care staff and care assistants, if trained appropriately, can be involved more strongly in advance care planning to enhance relational and individual autonomy of nursing home residents, alongside nurses. Future research to improve and implement advance care planning should consider this finding at the intervention development stage. (shrink)

Background: Serious Illness Conversations aim to discuss patient goals. However, on acute medicine units, seriously ill patients may undergo distressing interventions until death. Objectives: To investigate the feasibility of using the Surprise Question, “Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?” to identify patients who would benefit from early Serious Illness Conversations and study any changes in the interdisciplinary team’s beliefs, confidence, and engagement as a result of asking the Surprise Question. Design: A prospective cohort pilot (...) study with two Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Participants/context: Fifty-eight healthcare professionals working on Acute Medicine Units participated in pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. The intervention involved asking participants the Surprise Question for each patient. Patient charts were reviewed for Serious Illness Conversation documentation. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was granted by the institutions involved. Findings: Equivocal overall changes in the beliefs, confidence, and engagement of healthcare professionals were observed. Six out of 23 patients were indicated as needing a Serious Illness Conversation; chart review provided some evidence that these patients had more Serious Illness Conversation documentation compared with the 17 patients not flagged for a Serious Illness Conversation. Issues were identified in equating the Surprise Question to a Serious Illness Conversation. Discussion: Appropriate support for seriously ill patients is both a nursing professional and ethical duty. Flagging patients for conversations may act as a filtering process, allowing healthcare professionals to focus on conversations with patients who need them most. There are ethical and practical issues as to what constitutes a “serious illness” and if answering “no” to the Surprise Question always equates to a conversation. Conclusion: The barriers of time constraints and lack of training call for institutional change in order to prioritise the moral obligation of Serious Illness Conversations. (shrink)