BACKGROUND: Current models of end-of-life care (EOLC) have been largely developed for cancer and may not meet the needs of heart failure patients. AIM: To review the literature concerning conversations about EOLC between patients with heart failure and healthcare professionals, with respect to the prevalence of conversations; patients' and practitioners' preferences for their timing and content; and the facilitators and blockers to conversations. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. METHOD: Searches of Medline, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from January 1987 to April 2010 were conducted, with citation and journal hand searches. Studies of adult patients with heart failure and/or their health professionals concerning discussions of EOLC were included: discussion and opinion pieces were excluded. Extracted data were analysed using NVivo, with a narrative synthesis of emergent themes. RESULTS: Conversations focus largely on disease management; EOLC is rarely discussed. Some patients would welcome such conversations, but many do not realise the seriousness of their condition or do not wish to discuss end-of-life issues. Clinicians are unsure how to discuss the uncertain prognosis and risk of sudden death; fearing causing premature alarm and destroying hope, they wait for cues from patients before raising EOLC issues. Consequently, the conversations rarely take place. CONCLUSION: Prognostic uncertainty and high risk of sudden death lead to EOLC conversations being commonly avoided. The implications for policy and practice are discussed: such conversations can be supportive if expressed as 'hoping for the best but preparing for the worst'.
BACKGROUND: Current models of end-of-life care (EOLC) have been largely developed for cancer and may not meet the needs of heart failurepatients. AIM: To review the literature concerning conversations about EOLC between patients with heart failure and healthcare professionals, with respect to the prevalence of conversations; patients' and practitioners' preferences for their timing and content; and the facilitators and blockers to conversations. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. METHOD: Searches of Medline, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from January 1987 to April 2010 were conducted, with citation and journal hand searches. Studies of adult patients with heart failure and/or their health professionals concerning discussions of EOLC were included: discussion and opinion pieces were excluded. Extracted data were analysed using NVivo, with a narrative synthesis of emergent themes. RESULTS: Conversations focus largely on disease management; EOLC is rarely discussed. Some patients would welcome such conversations, but many do not realise the seriousness of their condition or do not wish to discuss end-of-life issues. Clinicians are unsure how to discuss the uncertain prognosis and risk of sudden death; fearing causing premature alarm and destroying hope, they wait for cues from patients before raising EOLC issues. Consequently, the conversations rarely take place. CONCLUSION: Prognostic uncertainty and high risk of sudden death lead to EOLC conversations being commonly avoided. The implications for policy and practice are discussed: such conversations can be supportive if expressed as 'hoping for the best but preparing for the worst'.
Authors: Karen Hancock; Josephine M Clayton; Sharon M Parker; Sharon Walder; Phyllis N Butow; Sue Carrick; David Currow; Davina Ghersi; Paul Glare; Rebecca Hagerty; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Karen Hancock; Josephine M Clayton; Sharon M Parker; Sharon Wal der; Phyllis N Butow; Sue Carrick; David Currow; Davina Ghersi; Paul Glare; Rebecca Hagerty; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Nathan E Goldstein; Davendra Mehta; Ezra Teitelbaum; Elizabeth H Bradley; R Sean Morrison Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Bahman Sadeghi; Anne M Walling; Patrick S Romano; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Michael K Ong Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Maisha T Robinson; Barbara G Vickrey; Robert G Holloway; Kelly Chong; Linda S Williams; Robert H Brook; Mei Leng; Punam Parikh; David S Zingmond Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Shannon M Dunlay; Keith M Swetz; Margaret M Redfield; Paul S Mueller; Véronique L Roger Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-05-13