Background Advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care discussions are important instruments that enable respect for patient autonomy, especially in patients with a life-threatening disease, such as cancer. Despite their well-established benefits, ACP and goals of care discussions are still not frequently performed in clinical oncology practice. Understanding the barriers to this topic is the first step toward developing future interventions that are more likely to improve professional practice and patient satisfaction with care. Aim To explore Brazilian oncologists’ barriers to discuss goals of care and advance care planning. Methods A cross-sectional study was developed to identify Brazilian oncologists’ barriers to discussing goals of care and ACP. The Decide-Oncology questionnaire was used to identify the importance of these barriers according to oncologists’ perceptions. Participants were asked to rank the importance of various barriers to discussing goals of care, ranging from 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important). A quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics was used, including median and interquartile intervals and a qualitative analysis based on Bardin content analysis of the two open questions. Results Sixty-six oncologists participated in this study. Most of them perceived the patient and family’s related barriers as the most important, such as patients’ difficulty in understanding their diagnosis and accepting their prognosis. Physician and external related factors, such as lack of training and lack of time for this conversation, were also described as important barriers. Participants with formal training regarding goals of care communication and with experience in palliative care perceived the lack of patients’ advanced directives as a significant barrier and manifested more willingness to participate in decision-making about goals of care. The lack of access and of support for referral to palliative care was also considered a significant barrier for ACP and goals of care discussion. Conclusion The identification of barriers that limit the discussion of ACP and early palliative care referrals can certainly help to prioritise the next steps for future studies aimed at improving ACP and helping clinicians to better support patients through shared decision-making based on the patient’s values and experiences.
The literature about the factors associated with cancer treatment refusal, especially by the older patients is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to identify predictive factors associated with treatment refusal by older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted using three databases, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus with the key concepts, "refusal treatment" and "cancer" and "decision making" and "elderly" or "aged". The search took place in July 2020 and it included articles published in the last 5 years.Of the 211 articles found, 22 were included in the review. Most studies have focused on head and neck and breast cancer treatment decisions and used a quantitative design. The majority of studies evaluated refusal of surgery interventions. Important factors associated with refusal cancer treatment include gender, marital status, race, having government insurance, advanced cancer, poor performance status (cancer stage III or IV) and Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2. Thus, there are socio-demographic and clinical variables associated with treatment refusal. More studies with the elderly are needed. Understanding these factors may be useful to recognize situations where active education and support can help elderly patients accept optimal care.
Objectives: to develop a flow to ensure care for all people with severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2, offering from intensive care to palliative care, in an equitable and fair manner. Methods: the modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus on a flow and a prioritization index among specialists, the regional council of medicine, members of the healthcare system and the local judicial sector. Results: the score was incorporated into the flow as the final phase for building the list of patients who will be referred to intensive care, whenever a ventilator is available. Patients with lower scores should have priority access to the ICU. Patients with higher scores should receive palliative care associated with available curative measures. However, curative measures must be proportionate to the severity of the overall clinical situation and the prognosis. Conclusions: this tool could and will prevent patients from being excluded from access to the necessary health care so that their demands are assessed, their suffering is reduced, and their illnesses are cured, when possible.
Introduction Breaking bad news althoughfrequent among healthcare professionals and their patients is still considered a very difficult task. These communication skill main determinants in the physician-patient relationship. Objective In view of the need to promote academic spaces that provide opportunities to learn breaking bad news , thisstudy aims to evaluate the medical residentsin relation to their interest in learning communication skills, as well as their skills in breaking bad news, before and after a workshop on the topic. Methods All the medical residents in the first year ofnternal edicine of a public general hospital in Belém-Pará, Brazil inwere invited to answer a questionnaire sociodemographic data and questions about their communication skills in clinical practice, as well as the Communication Skills Attitude Scale (CSAS), which addressed their interest in learning communication skills. The questionnaire. This research uses both uantitative and qualitative methods. The quantified data were statisticallyanalyzed by the Wilcoxon test (),Chi-Square test G-test adherence (quantitative variables of the questionnaire on communication skills). The qualitative evaluation Content Analysis based on Bardin. Results Ten residents attended the workshop. The results show that after taking part in the workshop, the resident’s perceptions of the practice of breaking bad news had improved (in 80% of the participants), as well as their attitudes to learning communication skills ( CSAS = 99.5 and 105, before and after the course, respectively p = 0.0039). Conclusion Eighty percent of residents (n = 08) considered their communication skills have improved as a result of the workshop (p = 0.0078). Most of the participantsbecame more aware of the importance of considering the patient’s perspective, and admitted positive changes following the course. Conclusion A positive effect on the participants’ perceptions of communication skills and on their interest in learning these skills, were identified after an intervention focused on the context of breaking bad news.
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.