Effect of the implementation of a regional advanced care planning (ACP) project in nursing homes. A standardized survey of the bereaved.

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

DRKS

Registry ID

DRKS00004493

Enrollment

128

Registered

2012-11-07

Start date

2011-07-25

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

age related death

Interventions

Group 1: The relatives' perception of the process of dying is assessed by structured interviews with the closest bereaved of those deceased residents who lived in one of the two facilities participati

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: The most involved relative (or legal representative) of all residents, deceased between March 2011 and August 2012, in each of the nursing homes, was interviewed by telephone. A reference person of the facility requested relatives' approval for contact of the interviewer.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Residents who lived less than one month in the facility are excluded.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Superiority of the intervention facilities in terms of the 11 point likert scale rating of the questionnaire item "F2a": From your point of view, to what extent has the medical treatment of [NAME] applied during the last month of life met his/her wishes ?	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Superiority of the intervention facilities with regard to a selection of specific items of the questionnaire, which can be expected to make a difference, as a result of the intervention “beizeiten begleiten”. These are: Rating F1 (quality of communication); Rating F2b (end-of-life-care); Rating F3 (symptom control); Rating F4 (contribution of the professional staff to a death the resident expected to have); Rating F5 (emotional support); A1 (place of death); A3 (degree of life-sustaining treatment); A4.1 (last month hospitalization); C1 ff. (conversations with the physicians); D1 (residents' treatment preferences for deceasing phase be known?); D4a (treatment against residents wishes); D6a (the presence of an advance-directive); D6b (the presence of a written instruction for the case of emergency of the legal proxy); D19 (treatment decisions without the legal proxy); D26 (conversation with the relatives about what to expect while the patient is dying); D27 (conversation with the relatives about what to do at the time of patients dying).	—

Measure

Time frame

Superiority of the intervention facilities with regard to a selection of specific items of the questionnaire, which can be expected to make a difference, as a result of the intervention “beizeiten begleiten”. These are: Rating F1 (quality of communication); Rating F2b (end-of-life-care); Rating F3 (symptom control); Rating F4 (contribution of the professional staff to a death the resident expected to have); Rating F5 (emotional support); A1 (place of death); A3 (degree of life-sustaining treatment); A4.1 (last month hospitalization); C1 ff. (conversations with the physicians); D1 (residents' treatment preferences for deceasing phase be known?); D4a (treatment against residents wishes); D6a (the presence of an advance-directive); D6b (the presence of a written instruction for the case of emergency of the legal proxy); D19 (treatment decisions without the legal proxy); D26 (conversation with the relatives about what to expect while the patient is dying); D27 (conversation with the relatives about what to do at the time of patients dying).

—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactThomas Otten

Forschungsstelle Ethik des Instituts für Geschichte und Ethik der Medizin der Universität zu Köln

thomas.otten@uk-koeln.de+49 (0) 221 96 52 88 8

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026