OBJECTIVE: First, to describe communication of home hospice nurse visits to cancer patient-caregiver dyads. Second, to assess change in communication related to domains of care over the course of visits. METHODS: Multi-site prospective observational longitudinal study of audio-recorded home hospice visits (N=537 visits; 101 patient-caregiver dyads; 58 nurses). Communication was coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System to describe content and process. Conversation representing three care domains (physical, psychosocial/daily life, and emotional) was calculated from RIAS categories across speakers and analyzed to assess change in communication over time. RESULTS: On average, nurses spoke 54% of total utterances, caregivers 29%, and patients 17%. For all participants, the predominant conversational focus was on physical care. Linear mixed effects models indicated that combined participant emotional talk showed a small systematic decrease over time; however, the results for all domains indicated variability unexplained by time or speaker effects. CONCLUSIONS: Home hospice conversations are predominantly focused on physical care. Systematic change in communication versus responsiveness to the dynamic effects of patient death and family response over time are discussed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communication strategies already in use by hospice nurses could be leveraged and expanded upon to better facilitate family competence and confidence.
OBJECTIVE: First, to describe communication of home hospice nurse visits to cancerpatient-caregiver dyads. Second, to assess change in communication related to domains of care over the course of visits. METHODS: Multi-site prospective observational longitudinal study of audio-recorded home hospice visits (N=537 visits; 101 patient-caregiver dyads; 58 nurses). Communication was coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System to describe content and process. Conversation representing three care domains (physical, psychosocial/daily life, and emotional) was calculated from RIAS categories across speakers and analyzed to assess change in communication over time. RESULTS: On average, nurses spoke 54% of total utterances, caregivers 29%, and patients 17%. For all participants, the predominant conversational focus was on physical care. Linear mixed effects models indicated that combined participant emotional talk showed a small systematic decrease over time; however, the results for all domains indicated variability unexplained by time or speaker effects. CONCLUSIONS: Home hospice conversations are predominantly focused on physical care. Systematic change in communication versus responsiveness to the dynamic effects of patientdeath and family response over time are discussed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communication strategies already in use by hospice nurses could be leveraged and expanded upon to better facilitate family competence and confidence.
Authors: James A Tulsky; Robert M Arnold; Stewart C Alexander; Maren K Olsen; Amy S Jeffreys; Keri L Rodriguez; Celette Sugg Skinner; David Farrell; Amy P Abernethy; Kathryn I Pollak Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer Tjia; Lee Ellington; Margaret F Clayton; Celeste Lemay; Maija Reblin Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Doran Bostwick; Steven Wolf; Greg Samsa; Janet Bull; Donald H Taylor; Kimberly S Johnson; Arif H Kamal Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Karla T Washington; Debra Parker Oliver; L Ashley Gage; David L Albright; George Demiris Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Diane E Meier; Anthony L Back; Amy Berman; Susan D Block; Janet M Corrigan; R Sean Morrison Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Lori L DuBenske; David H Gustafson; Kang Namkoong; Robert P Hawkins; Amy K Atwood; Roger L Brown; Ming-Yuan Chih; Fiona McTavish; Cindy L Carmack; Mary K Buss; Ramaswamy Govindan; James F Cleary Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Maija Reblin; Brian R W Baucom; Margaret F Clayton; Rebecca Utz; Michael Caserta; Dale Lund; Kathi Mooney; Lee Ellington Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jiayun Xu; Rumei Yang; Andrew Wilson; Maija Reblin; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Alexandra L Terrill; Lee Ellington; Kevin K John; Seth Latimer; Jiayun Xu; Maija Reblin; Margaret F Clayton Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-11-28
Authors: Daniel M Seible; Souma Kundu; Alexa Azuara; Daniel R Cherry; Steven Arias; Vinit V Nalawade; Jonathan Cruz; Rolando Arreola; Maria Elena Martinez; Jesse N Nodora; Douglas A Rahn; James D Murphy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Dana Ketcher; Casidee Thompson; Amy K Otto; Maija Reblin; Kristin G Cloyes; Margaret F Clayton; Brian R W Baucom; Lee Ellington Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 4.762