van Delden J J M
UMC Utrecht, Julius Centrum voor Gezondheidswetenschappen en Eerstelijns Geneeskunde, Utrecht.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2017;161:D1981.
This commentary reflects on a study to determine the efficacy of an advance care planning (ACP) website in increasing planning documentation. It is interesting to see that ACP is considered to be a regular intervention. ACP thus ceases to be something to believe in or not and becomes a normal intervention, the efficacy of which can be studied. The study also shows that ACP is a concept which can take many forms, that ACP in itself is almost an umbrella term and that physicians need not take the central role in ACP. The main point of critique of the study, however, is that the endpoint of the study is documentation. One can question whether that is the right objective of ACP as the worth of ACP would seem to lie more in the process of enabling a patient to reflect on treatment goals and personal values than in writing a living will.
本评论围绕一项旨在确定预立医疗计划（ACP）网站在增加计划文件记录方面功效的研究展开。有意思的是，ACP被视为一种常规干预措施。如此一来，ACP不再是信与不信的问题，而是成为了一种可对其功效进行研究的常规干预措施。该研究还表明，ACP是一个可以有多种形式的概念，ACP本身几乎是一个总括性术语，而且医生不一定需要在ACP中扮演核心角色。然而，该研究的主要批评点在于，研究的终点是文件记录。有人可能会质疑这是否是ACP的正确目标，因为ACP的价值似乎更多地在于让患者思考治疗目标和个人价值观的过程，而非在于撰写生前预嘱。
