Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 18, 2025

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Confrontational but important - A mixed-methods evaluation of the MUTUAL (Multidisciplinary timely undertaken advance
Eline Vtj van Lummel1, Emma Pe Maats1, Elena P Kenswil2
1Department of Intensive Care, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, Netherlands; Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Introduction:
The Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention was developed to facilitate early initiated and structured advance care planning (ACP) at outpatient clinics. This study explores stakeholder evaluations of MUTUAL after its implementation.
Methods:
A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted at seven outpatient clinics at one non-academic Dutch hospital. Patients, nurses, and physicians completed questionnaires after participating in an ACP conversation. Quantitative analysis of the questionnaire results was supplemented by a qualitative analysis of open comments, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and proxies.
Results:
For 216 ACP conversations, responses were received from 121 patients (response rate 57.9 %) and from 136 nurses and 116 physicians (response rates 65.1 % and 55.5 %). Overall, 80.1 % of conversations were evaluated by at least one stakeholder. All stakeholders rated the ACP conversations as worthwhile (4.6-4.8 out of 5) and expressed satisfaction (scores of 8.6, 7.8, and 8.3 out of 10 for patients, nurses, and physicians, respectively). Three themes were identified. First, we found a diversity of patient paths within the ACP process. MUTUAL facilitated reflection and open dialog at various stages, leading to valuable discussions despite sometimes confrontational end-of-life topics. Second, stakeholders had varying perspectives on what makes the ACP conversation valuable. Some HCPs emphasize the importance of making treatment decisions. Others value the opportunity to address patient concerns even without changes to the treatment decisions of the patient. Third, having time and a structured setting outside regular outpatient consultations fostered trust and openness; HCPs' empathy and expertise were appreciated, seemingly regardless of prior established relationships.
Conclusion:
MUTUAL was positively received by stakeholders, even when evoking mixed emotions. By encouraging broader discussions beyond immediate treatment decisions, the intervention promoted reflection, reassurance, and ongoing conversations. Findings support an adaptable, multi-stakeholder ACP approach in which HCPs act as guiding partners for patients during their (chronic) illness journeys.
More Related Videos
14:43A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
08:13Development and Implementation of a Multi-Disciplinary Technology Enhanced Care Pathway for Youth and Adults with Concussion
Published on: January 20, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Nursing Evaluation
Methods of Documentation III: PIE
Interdisciplinary Care: The Health Care Team-II
Physical Therapist
A physical therapist (PT) aims to restore function or prevent additional impairment in a patient following an injury or disease. Massage, heat, cold, water, sonar waves, exercises, and electrical stimulation are some treatments used by PTs to treat...
Community Based Intervention
Foundations of Community Mental Health Programs
Central to the success of community-based interventions is the...
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care