ContextAdvance Care Plans (ACPs) enable patients to discuss and negotiate their preferences for the future including treatment options at the end of life. Their implementation poses significant challenges.ObjectiveTo investigate barriers and facilitators to the implementation of ACPs, focusing on their workability and integration in clinical practice.DesignAn explanatory systematic review of qualitative implementation studies.Data sourcesEmpirical studies that reported interventions designed to support ACP in healthcare. Web of Knowledge, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index and PubMed databases were searched.MethodsDirect content analysis, using Normalization Process Theory, to identify and characterise relevant components of implementation processes.Results13 papers identified from 166 abstracts were included in the review. Key factors facilitating implementation were: specially prepared staff utilizing a structured approach to interactions around ACPs. Barriers to implementation were competing demands of other work, the emotional and interactional nature of patient-professional interactions around ACPs, problems in sharing decisions and preferences within and between healthcare organizations.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that doing more of the things that facilitate delivery of ACPs will not reduce the effects of those things that undermine them. Structured tools are only likely to be partially effective and the creation of a specialist cadre of ACP facilitators is unlikely to be a sustainable solution. The findings underscore both the challenge and need to find ways to routinely incorporate ACPs in clinical settings where multiple and competing demands impact on practice. Interventions most likely to meet with success are those that make elements of Advance Care Planning workable within complex and time pressured clinical workflows.

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides an incentive for practices to establish a cancer register and conduct a review with cancer patients within 6 months of diagnosis, but implementation is unknown.

ObjectivesTo identify the factors that promote and inhibit the implementation of interventions that improve communication and decision-making directed at goals of care in the event of acute clinical deterioration.Design and methodsA scoping review was undertaken based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley for conducting this type of review. Searches were carried out in Medline and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to identify peer-reviewed papers and in Google to identify grey literature. Searches were limited to those published in the English language from 2000 onwards. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and only papers that had a specific focus on implementation in practice were selected. Data extracted were treated as qualitative and subjected to directed content analysis. A theory-informed coding framework using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was applied to characterise and explain implementation processes.ResultsSearches identified 2619 citations, 43 of which met the inclusion criteria. Analysis generated six themes fundamental to successful implementation of goals of care interventions: (1) input into development; (2) key clinical proponents; (3) training and education; (4) intervention workability and functionality; (5) setting and context; and (6) perceived value and appraisal.ConclusionsA broad and diverse literature focusing on implementation of goals of care interventions was identified. Our review recognised these interventions as both complex and contentious in nature, making their incorporation into routine clinical practice dependent on a number of factors. Implementing such interventions presents challenges at individual, organisational and systems levels, which make them difficult to introduce and embed. We have identified a series of factors that influence successful implementation and our analysis has distilled key learning points, conceptualised as a set of propositions, we consider relevant to implementing other complex and contentious interventions.

Needs and concerns of the partners of cancer survivors in caring for patients are often not addressed. There is a scope for primary care to elicit these needs and provide greater support. Changes to clinical practice in primary care could lead to greater involvement of and to better outcomes for cancer survivors and their partners. A proactive approach to patients and their partners or other close family members at the time of diagnosis through an offer of support and the inclusion in a designated review appointment at the end of initial treatment would be useful.