Gynecologic oncology patient perspectives and knowledge on advance care planning: A quality improvement intervention
Gynecologic Oncology Reports, ISSN: 2352-5789, Vol: 43, Page: 101060
2022
- 1Citations
- 50Usage
- 16Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- Usage50
- Downloads44
- Abstract Views6
- Captures16
- Readers16
- 16
Article Description
Assess and improve advance care planning (ACP) awareness and uptake among gynecologic oncology patients. Using a quality improvement Plan-Do-Check-Act framework, we completed a single institution needs assessment and intervention. The needs assessment was a 26-question survey assessing baseline ACP knowledge and preferences of gynecologic oncology patients. We used this survey to implement an outpatient intervention in which patients were offered ACP resources (pamphlet, discussion with their gynecologic oncologist, and/or social work referral). We conducted a post-intervention survey among patients who had and had not received ACP resource(s) to assess whether our intervention increased ACP knowledge, discussions, or uptake. Among 106 patients surveyed in the needs assessment, 33 % had ACP documents, 26 % had discussed ACP with a physician, and 82 % thought discussing ACP was important. The majority preferred these conversations in the outpatient setting (52 %) with their gynecologic oncologist (80 %) instead of nurses or trainees. In the intervention, 526 patients were offered ACP resources. Compared to women who did not receive resources (n = 324), patients who received ACP resource(s) (n = 202) were more likely to have ACP discussions with their gynecologic oncologist (38 % vs 68 %, P = 0.001) and had greater proficiency regarding how to create ACP documents (median score 5/10 vs 8/10, P = 0.048), although they were no more likely to have ACP documented in their electronic medical record (27 % vs 9 %, p = 0.08). ACP uptake among gynecologic oncology patients is low, but ACP discussions with an oncologist during outpatient visits are important to patients and improve their knowledge regarding completing ACP documents.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352578922001400; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2022.101060; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85135916884&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36032812; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352578922001400; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/oa_4/1625; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2623&context=oa_4; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2022.101060
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know