↓ Skip to main content

Validation of quality indicators for end-of-life communication: results of a multicentre survey

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of quality indicators for end-of-life communication: results of a multicentre survey
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, July 2017
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.160515
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daren K. Heyland, Peter Dodek, John J. You, Tasnim Sinuff, Tim Hiebert, Carolyn Tayler, Xuran Jiang, Jessica Simon, James Downar, for the ACCEPT Study Team and the Canadian Researchers at the End of Life Network

Abstract

The lack of validated quality indicators is a major barrier to improving end-of-life communication and decision-making. We sought to show the feasibility of and provide initial validation for a set of quality indicators related to end-of-life communication and decision-making. We administered a questionnaire to patients and their family members in 12 hospitals and asked them about advance care planning and goals-of-care discussions. Responses were used to calculate a quality indicator score. To validate this score, we determined its correlation with the concordance between the patients' expressed wishes and the medical order for life-sustaining treatments recorded in the hospital chart. We compared the correlation with concordance for the advance care planning component score with that for the goal-of-care discussion scores. We enrolled 297 patients and 209 family members. At all sites, both overall quality indicators and individual domain scores were low and there was wide variability around the point estimates. The highest-ranking institution had an overall quality indicator score (95% confidence interval) of 40% (36%-44%) and the lowest had a score of 18% (11%-25%). There was a strong correlation between the overall quality indicator score and the concordance measure (r = 0.72, p = 0.008); the estimated correlation between the advance care planning score and the concordance measure (r = 0.35) was weaker than that between the goal-of-care discussion scores and the concordance measure (r = 0.53). Quality of end-of-life communication and decision-making appears low overall, with considerable variability across hospitals. The proposed quality indicator measure shows feasibility and partial validity. Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01362855.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 28 25%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 21%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,165,656
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1,605
of 9,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,931
of 320,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#23
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.