IMPORTANCE Seriously ill hospitalized patients have identified communication and decision making about goals of care as high priorities for quality improvement in end-of-life care. Interventions to improve care are more likely to succeed if tailored to existing barriers.OBJECTIVE To determine, from the perspective of hospital-based clinicians, (1) barriers impeding communication and decision making about goals of care with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families and (2) their own willingness and the acceptability for other clinicians to engage in this process. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter survey of medical teaching units of nurses, internal medicine residents, and staff physicians from participating units at 13 university-based hospitals from 5 Canadian provinces. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESImportance of 21 barriers to goals of care discussions rated on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). RESULTS Between September 2012 and March 2013, questionnaires were returned by 1256 of 1617 eligible clinicians, for an overall response rate of 77.7% (512 of 646 nurses [79.3%], 484 of 634 residents [76.3%], 260 of 337 staff physicians [77.2%]). The following family member-related and patient-related factors were consistently identified by all 3 clinician groups as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions: family members' or patients' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score, 5.8 [1.2] and 5.6 [1.3], respectively), family members' or patients' difficulty understanding the limitations and complications of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.2] for both groups), disagreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]), and patients' incapacity to make goals of care decisions (5.6 [1.2]). Clinicians perceived their own skills and system factors as less important barriers. Participants viewed it as acceptable for all clinician groups to engage in goals of care discussions-including a role for advance practice nurses, nurses, and social workers to initiate goals of care discussions and be a decision coach.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospital-based clinicians perceive family member-related and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions. All health care professionals were viewed as playing important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication and decision making about goals of care.
ObjectiveTo understand patients’ preferences for physician behaviours during end-of-life communication.MethodsWe used interpretive description methods to analyse data from semistructured, one-on-one interviews with patients admitted to general medical wards at three Canadian tertiary care hospitals. Study recruitment took place from October 2012 to August 2013. We used a purposive, maximum variation sampling approach to recruit hospitalised patients aged ≥55 years with a high risk of mortality within 6–12 months, and with different combinations of the following demographic variables: race (Caucasian vs non-Caucasian), gender and diagnosis (cancer vs non-cancer).ResultsA total of 16 participants were recruited, most of whom (69%) were women and 70% had a non-cancer diagnosis. Two major concepts regarding helpful physician behaviour during end-of-life conversations emerged: (1) ‘knowing me’, which reflects the importance of acknowledging the influence of family roles and life history on values and priorities expressed during end-of-life communication, and (2) ‘conditional candour’, which describes a process of information exchange that includes an assessment of patients’ readiness, being invited to the conversation, and sensitive delivery of information.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that patients prefer a nuanced approach to truth telling when having end-of-life discussions with their physician. This may have important implications for clinical practice and end-of-life communication training initiatives.
Background Advanced lung cancer patients face significant physical and psychological burden leading to reduced physical function and quality of life. Separately, physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management interventions have been shown to improve functioning in this population, however no study has combined all three in a multimodal intervention. Therefore, we assessed the feasibility of a multimodal physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention in advanced lung cancer. Methods Participants received an individually tailored 12-week intervention featuring in-person group-based exercise classes, at-home physical activity prescription, behaviour change education, and nutrition and palliative care consultations. Patients reported symptom burden, energy, and fatigue before and after each class. At baseline and post-intervention, symptom burden, quality of life, fatigue, physical activity, dietary intake, and physical function were assessed. Post-intervention interviews examined participant perspectives. Results The multimodal program was feasible, with 44% (10/23) recruitment, 75% (75/100) class attendance, 89% (8/9) nutrition and palliative consult attendance, and 85% (17/20) assessment completion. Of ten participants, 70% (7/10) completed the post-intervention follow-up. Participants perceived the intervention as feasible and valuable. Physical activity, symptom burden, and quality of life were maintained, while tiredness decreased significantly. Exercise classes prompted acute clinically meaningful reductions in fatigue, tiredness, depression, pain, and increases in energy and well-being. Conclusion A multimodal physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention is feasible and shows potential benefits on quality of life that warrant further investigation in a larger cohort trial. Trial registration NCT04575831, Registered 05 October 2020 – Retrospectively registered.
BackgroundDespite the recognized importance of end‐of‐life (EOL) communication between patients and physicians, the extent and quality of such communication is lacking.ObjectiveWe sought to understand patient perspectives on physician behaviours during EOL communication.DesignIn this mixed methods study, we conducted quantitative and qualitative strands and then merged data sets during a mixed methods analysis phase. In the quantitative strand, we used the quality of communication tool (QOC) to measure physician behaviours that predict global rating of satisfaction in EOL communication skills, while in the qualitative strand we conducted semi‐structured interviews. During the mixed methods analysis, we compared and contrasted qualitative and quantitative data.Setting and ParticipantsSeriously ill inpatients at three tertiary care hospitals in Canada.ResultsWe found convergence between qualitative and quantitative strands: patients desire candid information from their physician and a sense of familiarity. The quantitative results (n = 132) suggest a paucity of certain EOL communication behaviours in this seriously ill population with a limited prognosis. The qualitative findings (n = 16) suggest that at times, physicians did not engage in EOL communication despite patient readiness, while sometimes this may represent an appropriate deferral after assessment of a patient's lack of readiness.ConclusionsAvoidance of certain EOL topics may not always be a failure if it is a result of an assessment of lack of patient readiness. This has implications for future tool development: a measure could be built in to assess whether physician behaviours align with patient readiness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.