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.

Resumo O planejamento antecipado de cuidados é um processo de discussões entre profissionais de saúde e pacientes que permite a tomada de decisão compartilhada quanto a objetivos de cuidados de saúde, atuais e/ou futuros, com base nos desejos e valores do paciente e em questões técnicas do cuidado. É considerado fundamental na prestação de cuidados de excelência em fim de vida, permitindo que profissionais de saúde alinhem os cuidados prestados com o que é mais importante para o paciente. Apesar de seus benefícios, ainda é muito pouco realizado na prática clínica, especialmente no Brasil. Considerando a necessidade de guias práticos de planejamento antecipado de cuidados adaptados à realidade brasileira, pautados em estratégias de comunicação empática, este estudo é uma proposta de guia baseada em revisão integrativa da literatura (PubMed e SciELO), com recomendações de evidências atuais, incluindo instrumentos validados para o português (Brasil), para facilitar sua implementação na prática clínica.