BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative endorses in their core measures that providers should discuss the goals of care (GOC) at the time of chemotherapy consent. GOC refers to chemotherapy treatment intent: cure versus noncure. In this study, the authors sought to determine whether attributes of patients and initial patient-physician encounters were associated with patients' understanding of their GOC. METHODS: In total, the authors surveyed 125 consecutive, newly diagnosed patients who were receiving chemotherapy for solid malignancies at a single academic cancer center and performed a medical record review for additional data. Patient understanding of their oncologist's GOC and oncologist's reported GOC were compared. The primary outcome was concordance of patient-physician dyads regarding the GOC (cure vs noncure). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five of 137 of eligible patients (91%) completed the survey. Only 95 of 125 patient-physician pairs (75%) patient-physician pairs were concordant regarding the GOC. In a multivariable logistic regression, both older patients (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.57) and non-native English speakers had an almost 80% lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.93) of GOC concordance compared with younger patients and native English speakers. Patients who received printed chemotherapy information during the patient-physician consent process had almost 3 times greater odds (odds ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-6.68) of GOC concordance with their physician compared with those who did not receive materials. CONCLUSIONS: Patient misunderstanding of GOC was substantial, with 25% of cancer patients misunderstanding the goal of their chemotherapy treatment. Key predictors of GOC misunderstanding included factors that potentially were amenable to interventions at the time of chemotherapy consent.
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative endorses in their core measures that providers should discuss the goals of care (GOC) at the time of chemotherapy consent. GOC refers to chemotherapy treatment intent: cure versus noncure. In this study, the authors sought to determine whether attributes of patients and initial patient-physician encounters were associated with patients' understanding of their GOC. METHODS: In total, the authors surveyed 125 consecutive, newly diagnosed patients who were receiving chemotherapy for solid malignancies at a single academic cancer center and performed a medical record review for additional data. Patient understanding of their oncologist's GOC and oncologist's reported GOC were compared. The primary outcome was concordance of patient-physician dyads regarding the GOC (cure vs noncure). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five of 137 of eligible patients (91%) completed the survey. Only 95 of 125 patient-physician pairs (75%) patient-physician pairs were concordant regarding the GOC. In a multivariable logistic regression, both older patients (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.57) and non-native English speakers had an almost 80% lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.93) of GOC concordance compared with younger patients and native English speakers. Patients who received printed chemotherapy information during the patient-physician consent process had almost 3 times greater odds (odds ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-6.68) of GOC concordance with their physician compared with those who did not receive materials. CONCLUSIONS:Patient misunderstanding of GOC was substantial, with 25% of cancerpatients misunderstanding the goal of their chemotherapy treatment. Key predictors of GOC misunderstanding included factors that potentially were amenable to interventions at the time of chemotherapy consent.
Authors: Baohui Zhang; Alexi A Wright; Haiden A Huskamp; Matthew E Nilsson; Matthew L Maciejewski; Craig C Earle; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-03-09
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Joanne Wolfe; E Francis Cook; Holcombe E Grier; Paul D Cleary; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Jessica McCannon; Joseph A Greer; Vicki A Jackson; Patricia Ostler; William F Pirl; Thomas J Lynch; J Andrew Billings Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Varun Monga; Seth M Maliske; Hassan Kaleem; Sarah L Mott; Gideon K D Zamba; Mohammed Milhem Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Elizabeth B Lamont; Richard L Schilsky; Yulei He; Hyman Muss; Harvey Jay Cohen; Arti Hurria; Ashley Meilleur; Hedy L Kindler; Alan Venook; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Harvey Niell; Richard M Goldberg; Steven Joffe Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Login S George; Holly G Prigerson; Andrew S Epstein; Kristy L Richards; Megan J Shen; Heather M Derry; Valerie F Reyna; Manish A Shah; Paul K Maciejewski Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Huiwen Xu; Anthony Back; Paul R Duberstein; Supriya Gupta Mohile; Ronald Epstein; Colin McHugh; Heidi D Klepin; Gregory Abel; Stephanie J Lee; Areej El-Jawahri; Thomas W LeBlanc Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Natalie C Ernecoff; Kathryn L Wessell; Feng-Chang Lin; Matthew I Milowsky; Frances A Collichio; William A Wood; Donald L Rosenstein Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.612