Advance care planning dashboard: quality indicators and usability testing.

Autor:	Xiao J; Covenant Health Palliative Institute, Covenant Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada jingjie1@ualberta.ca., Simon J; Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.; Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada., Wityk Martin TL; Provincial Palliative and End-of-Life Care, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada., Biondo P; Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada., Fassbender K; Covenant Health Palliative Institute, Covenant Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.; Division of Palliative Care Medicine, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	BMJ supportive & palliative care [BMJ Support Palliat Care] 2021 Nov 23. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Nov 23.
DOI:	10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003071
Abstrakt:	Objective: Advance 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. Methods: This 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). Results: Eighteen 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. Conclusion: The 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. Competing Interests: Competing interests: JS is the physician consultant for Advance Care Planning and Goals of Care, Calgary Zone, Alberta Health Services and reports funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Frailty Network and Alberta Health. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: