PURPOSE: Existing recommendations for communicating with patients with metastatic cancer about redefining goals of care when anticancer treatment is unlikely to provide benefit are based on limited evidence. This study was designed to elicit patient and family views on commonly used communication practices. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 37 patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer and 20 bereaved family members who listened to audiorecordings of oncology fellows instructed to discuss a transition in goals of care with a standardized patient for whom evidence-based palliative chemotherapy was no longer effective. During semistructured qualitative interviews, participants commented on the audiorecordings to give feedback on what they liked or disliked about the oncologist's communication. These comments were transcribed and analyzed. RESULTS: Three preferred communication practices were identified from participants' comments. The first practice involves a necessary disruption of the patient's expectations about "trying another chemo" ("We're in a different place"). The second practice is offering actionable responses to the disruption ("Here's what we can do now"). The third practice is to find a new place that acknowledges death is closer yet still allows for "living forward" ("Use your inner wisdom"). CONCLUSION: This study of patient and family feedback indicates that patients and families perceive a conversation about goals of care to require disruption of an existing routine, followed by a process of searching and then reconfiguration, rather than a logical decision process. These findings suggest that assessing quality from patient perspectives must take into account a period of disruption and chaos.
PURPOSE: Existing recommendations for communicating with patients with metastatic cancer about redefining goals of care when anticancer treatment is unlikely to provide benefit are based on limited evidence. This study was designed to elicit patient and family views on commonly used communication practices. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 37 patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer and 20 bereaved family members who listened to audiorecordings of oncology fellows instructed to discuss a transition in goals of care with a standardized patient for whom evidence-based palliative chemotherapy was no longer effective. During semistructured qualitative interviews, participants commented on the audiorecordings to give feedback on what they liked or disliked about the oncologist's communication. These comments were transcribed and analyzed. RESULTS: Three preferred communication practices were identified from participants' comments. The first practice involves a necessary disruption of the patient's expectations about "trying another chemo" ("We're in a different place"). The second practice is offering actionable responses to the disruption ("Here's what we can do now"). The third practice is to find a new place that acknowledges death is closer yet still allows for "living forward" ("Use your inner wisdom"). CONCLUSION: This study of patient and family feedback indicates that patients and families perceive a conversation about goals of care to require disruption of an existing routine, followed by a process of searching and then reconfiguration, rather than a logical decision process. These findings suggest that assessing quality from patient perspectives must take into account a period of disruption and chaos.
Authors: Camilla Zimmermann; Nadia Swami; Monika Krzyzanowska; Breffni Hannon; Natasha Leighl; Amit Oza; Malcolm Moore; Anne Rydall; Gary Rodin; Ian Tannock; Allan Donner; Christopher Lo Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Karan R Chhabra; Kathryn I Pollak; Stephanie J Lee; Anthony L Back; Roberta E Goldman; James A Tulsky Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-09-04
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Anthony L Back; Dee W Ford; Lois Downey; Sarah E Shannon; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Erin K Kross; Lynn F Reinke; Laura C Feemster; Barbara Edlund; Richard W Arnold; Kim O'Connor; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Harvey M Chochinov; Susan E McClement; Thomas F Hack; Nancy A McKeen; Amanda M Rach; Pierre Gagnon; Shane Sinclair; Jill Taylor-Brown Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Randal K Wada; Lorrie Wong; Anke Flohr; David Kurahara; Robin Arndt; Melodee J Deutsch; Dana Ing; Karol Richardson; Alexander Munro; Lori Kaneshige; Mary Mullis; Mychal Hatae; Cheryl L Albright Journal: Hawaii J Med Public Health Date: 2019-06
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: Matthias Unseld; Gloria M Gager; Feroniki Adamidis; Anna Kitta; Sophie Roider-Schur; Herbert H Watzke; Eva Katharina Masel Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Eva K Masel; Anna Kitta; Patrick Huber; Tamara Rumpold; Matthias Unseld; Sophie Schur; Edit Porpaczy; Herbert H Watzke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.240