Trial · NCT07889830
Inpatient Hospice Transitions Checklist
NCT07889830, Not applicable, Not yet recruiting, New York University
3 sourcestrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0
Cite this record
ConductScience Library. Inpatient Hospice Transitions Checklist. Trials, record NCT07889830. Release trials-2026-11-12-0.5.0, 12 Nov 2026. https://conductscience.org/library/trials/NCT07889830
On this page
Trial
As registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, in the graph's capture of the registry.
- Title
- Inpatient Hospice Transitions Checklist
- NCT number
- NCT07889830
- Status
- Not yet recruiting
- Phases
- Not applicable
- Enrollment
- 150 participants, estimated
- Lead sponsor
- New York University
- Conditions
- Dementia
- Interventions
- I-HTC
- First posted
- 2026-10-22
- Last updated
- 2026-11-02
Source ClinicalTrials.gov
Registered outcomes6
Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.
| List | Outcome | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Feasibility of the I-HTC Checklist EHR Intervention (Reported by Clinicians) | Within 1 month of trial completion | Frequency and proportion of I-HTC use during eligible encounters, clinician activation (accessing the I-HTC at least once), fidelity of ACP and hospice-related EHR documentation, and integration into clinical workflows. |
| Secondary | Usability of the I-HTC Intervention as Reported by Clinicians | Within 1 month of intervention delivery to surrogate | Usability: Clinician-reported ease of use and usability of the I-HTC, assessed using the System Usability Scale. The SU scale is generally used after the respondent has had an opportunity to use the system being evaluated, but before any debriefing or discussion takes place. Respondents should be asked to record their immediate response to each item, rather than thinking about items for a long time. SUS yields a single number representing a composite measure of the overall usability of the system being studied. Note that scores for individual items are not meaningful on their own. To calculate the SUS score, first sum the score contributions from each item. Each item's score contribution will range from 0 to 4. For items 1,3,5,7,and 9 the score contribution is the scale position minus 1. For items 2,4,6,8 and 10, the contribution is 5 minus the scale position. Multiply the sum of the scores by 2.5 to obtain the overall value of SU. |
| Secondary | Hospice enrollment of the PLWD | Within 1 month of intervention receipt (PLWD-EHR data) | Proportion of participating PLWD who enroll in hospice, determined through EHR review. |
| Secondary | Surrogate understanding of hospice care | within 1 month of intervention receipt (surrogate) | (Investigator Initiated) - This brief questionnaire focused on surrogate-reported understanding of hospice services and their role in supporting the person living with dementia. The six-item Hospice Understanding Assessment will measure surrogate decision-makers' self-reported understanding of hospice care following clinician-led discussions. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with total scores ranging from 6 to 30. Higher scores indicate greater perceived understanding of hospice eligibility, services, care options, and confidence in decision-making. Mean scores and standard deviations will be calculated, and individual item responses will be examined to identify areas of limited understanding. Scores will be interpreted descriptively, as the assessment does not have established clinical cutoffs. |
| Secondary | Surrogate satisfaction | within 1 month of intervention receipt (surrogate) | Satisfaction with care, assessed using the FAMCARE scale. The original 20-item FAMCARE scale will assess surrogate decision-makers' satisfaction with care provided to their family member. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very satisfied) to 5 (Very dissatisfied). Responses will be reverse-coded and summed to generate a total score ranging from 20 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with care. Mean scores, standard deviations, and individual item responses will be examined descriptively to evaluate overall satisfaction and identify areas for improvement in care delivery and communication. |
| Secondary | Quality of communication as reported by the surrogate after receiving the I-HTC intervention | within 1 month of intervention receipt (surrogate) | Quality of communication: Surrogate-reported quality of clinician-surrogate communication, assessed using the Quality of Communication questionnaire. The Quality of Communication (QOC) Questionnaire, developed by Engelberg et al. (2006), assesses perceived quality of clinician communication using 13 items across two subscales: general communication skills (6 items) and end-of-life communication (7 items). Each item is rated on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (Worst imaginable) to 10 (Best imaginable). Subscale scores are calculated as the mean of the corresponding item ratings, with higher scores indicating better perceived communication quality. |
Source ClinicalTrials.gov
Outcomes0
Each outcome the trial posted results for, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.
None in this release.
Results by group0
Each measurement the trial posted, group by group, in the words and numbers it posted.
None in this release.
Participant flow0
How many started, completed or left each group, period by period.
None in this release.
Adverse events0
Each adverse event the trial posted, group by group: the participants affected out of those at risk.
None in this release.
Adverse event totals0
The totals the trial posted for each group.
None in this release.
Papers0
The papers the trial lists on ClinicalTrials.gov.
None in this release.
Grants1
The grants NIH RePORTER links to the trial, newest funded first: NIH's, and some of AHRQ's, CDC's, FDA's and VA's. Each shows its title, principal investigators, organization and funder in its newest year.
| Project | Title | Principal investigators | Organization | Funder | Fiscal years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U54AG093230 | Advancing the Science of Palliative Care Research Across the Lifespan (ASCENT) Consortium | KUTNER, JEAN S; ALDRIDGE, MELISSA DIANE; BRODY, ABRAHAM AIZER; FEUDTNER, JOHN CHRIS; JOHNSON, KIMBERLY S. | UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER | NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING | 2025 |
Source NIH RePORTER
Trial comparisons0
Comparisons of the trial's two groups, calculated by ConductScience from the counts it posted.
None in this release.
Tests0
The ConductCognition tests this trial's registered outcomes name, as ScienceGraph matched them in trial-tests-2026-11-12-0.2.1.
None in this release.
Data dates
The day each source was copied for this release.
Sources 3
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
- ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain
Each source's terms
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
- ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)
ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.
For software
Read this trial from software.
The record and each of its lists are JSON, twenty rows a page. No key.
GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT07889830
GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT07889830/registered