Acceptability of a nurse-led, person-centred, anticipatory care planning intervention for older people at risk of functional decline: A qualitative study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
28
09
2020
accepted:
06
05
2021
entrez:
20
5
2021
pubmed:
21
5
2021
medline:
25
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As the population of older adults increases, the complexity of care required to support those who choose to remain in the community amplifies. Anticipatory Care Planning (ACP), through earlier identification of healthcare needs, is evidenced to improve quality of life, decrease aggressive interventions, and prolong life. With patient acceptability of growing importance in the design, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare interventions, this study reports on the acceptability of a primary care based ACP intervention on the island of Ireland. As part of the evaluation of a feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) testing an ACP intervention for older people at risk of functional decline, intervention participants [n = 34] were interviewed in their homes at 10-week follow-up to determine acceptability. The intervention consisted of home visits by specifically trained registered nurses who assessed participants' health, discussed their health goals and plans, and devised an anticipatory care plan in collaboration with participants' GPs and adjunct clinical pharmacist. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze interview data. The feasibility cRCT involved eight general practitioner (GP) practices as cluster sites, stratified by jurisdiction, four in Northern Ireland (NI) (two intervention, two control), and four in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) (two intervention, two control). Participants were assessed for risk of functional decline. A total of 34 patients received the intervention and 31 received usual care. Thematic analysis resulted in five main themes: timing of intervention, understanding of ACP, personality & individual differences, loneliness & social isolation, and views on healthcare provision. These map across the Four Factor Model of Acceptability ('4FMA'), a newly developed conceptual framework comprising four components: intervention factors, personal factors, social support factors, and healthcare provision factors. Acceptability of this primary care based ACP intervention was high, with nurses' home visits, GP anchorage, multidisciplinary working, personalized approach, and active listening regarded as beneficial. Appropriate timing, and patient health education emerged as vital.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
As the population of older adults increases, the complexity of care required to support those who choose to remain in the community amplifies. Anticipatory Care Planning (ACP), through earlier identification of healthcare needs, is evidenced to improve quality of life, decrease aggressive interventions, and prolong life. With patient acceptability of growing importance in the design, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare interventions, this study reports on the acceptability of a primary care based ACP intervention on the island of Ireland.
METHODS
As part of the evaluation of a feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) testing an ACP intervention for older people at risk of functional decline, intervention participants [n = 34] were interviewed in their homes at 10-week follow-up to determine acceptability. The intervention consisted of home visits by specifically trained registered nurses who assessed participants' health, discussed their health goals and plans, and devised an anticipatory care plan in collaboration with participants' GPs and adjunct clinical pharmacist. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze interview data. The feasibility cRCT involved eight general practitioner (GP) practices as cluster sites, stratified by jurisdiction, four in Northern Ireland (NI) (two intervention, two control), and four in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) (two intervention, two control). Participants were assessed for risk of functional decline. A total of 34 patients received the intervention and 31 received usual care.
FINDINGS
Thematic analysis resulted in five main themes: timing of intervention, understanding of ACP, personality & individual differences, loneliness & social isolation, and views on healthcare provision. These map across the Four Factor Model of Acceptability ('4FMA'), a newly developed conceptual framework comprising four components: intervention factors, personal factors, social support factors, and healthcare provision factors.
CONCLUSION
Acceptability of this primary care based ACP intervention was high, with nurses' home visits, GP anchorage, multidisciplinary working, personalized approach, and active listening regarded as beneficial. Appropriate timing, and patient health education emerged as vital.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34015046
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251978
pii: PONE-D-20-30516
pmc: PMC8136649
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0251978Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Aging Health. 2014 Apr 30;26(5):703-723
pubmed: 24788715
Lancet. 2012 Jul 7;380(9836):37-43
pubmed: 22579043
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 16;7(10):e018023
pubmed: 29042389
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Mar;29(3):529-37
pubmed: 24081443
J Aging Health. 1997 Aug;9(3):396-414
pubmed: 10182400
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
J Aging Health. 2010 Apr;22(3):267-91
pubmed: 20103687
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
Age Ageing. 2015 Jan;44(1):148-52
pubmed: 25355618
Patient Educ Couns. 1989 Apr;13(2):117-31
pubmed: 10318208
J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Feb;57(2):187-94
pubmed: 15125629
Trials. 2020 Feb 11;21(1):168
pubmed: 32046767
Ann Fam Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;9(2):100-3
pubmed: 21403134
Res Nurs Health. 2010 Aug;33(4):288-98
pubmed: 20645421
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Oct;27(4):391-9
pubmed: 22004782
Rev Bras Enferm. 2017 Jul-Aug;70(4):792-799
pubmed: 28793110
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Jan;15(1):42-6
pubmed: 24169306
Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:469-500
pubmed: 15760298
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jun;103(6):e38-46
pubmed: 23597377
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Inquiry. 2017 Jan 1;54:46958017731963
pubmed: 28965434
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 03;(3):CD010523
pubmed: 25733495
BMJ. 2012 Sep 03;345:e5205
pubmed: 22945950
Health Policy. 2017 Dec;121(12):1280-1287
pubmed: 29031934
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Dec;57(12):2328-37
pubmed: 20121991
BMJ. 2016 Jan 28;352:h6817
pubmed: 26822070
Health Policy Open. 2020 May 12;1:100005
pubmed: 37383310
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780