Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Advance care planning dashboard: quality indicators and usability testing
  1. Jingjie Xiao1,
  2. Jessica Simon2,3,4,
  3. Tracy Lynn Wityk Martin5,
  4. Patricia Biondo2 and
  5. Konrad Fassbender1,6
  1. 1 Covenant Health Palliative Institute, Covenant Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  2. 2 Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  3. 3 Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  4. 4 Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  5. 5 Provincial Palliative and End-of-Life Care, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  6. 6 Division of Palliative Care Medicine, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jingjie Xiao, Covenant Health Palliative Institute, Edmonton, AB T6L 0A3, Canada; jingjie1{at}


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.

  • communication
  • education and training
  • clinical decisions

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • X @JjXiao, @K_Fassbender

  • Contributors The first author drafted the manuscript and had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data, revised the article for important intellectual content, approved the version to be published and participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

  • Funding This work was supported by Alberta Innovates (Collaborative Research and Innovation Opportunities (CRIO) Programme Grant #201201157: Advance Care Planning and Goals of Care Alberta: A population Based Knowledge Translation Intervention Study).

  • Disclaimer The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

  • 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.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.