Marta Shaw1, Shelley Raffin Bouchal2, Lauren Hutchison2, Reanne Booker2, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc2, Deborah White2, Andrew Grant2, Jessica Simon2. 1. Cumming School of Medicine (Shaw, Grant), University of Calgary; Community Health Sciences (Holroyd-Leduc, Simon), University of Calgary; Faculty of Nursing (Raffin Bouchal, Hutchison, Booker, White), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. marta.shaw@ucalgary.ca. 2. Cumming School of Medicine (Shaw, Grant), University of Calgary; Community Health Sciences (Holroyd-Leduc, Simon), University of Calgary; Faculty of Nursing (Raffin Bouchal, Hutchison, Booker, White), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is a process through which people share their values, goals and preferences regarding future medical treatments with the purpose of aligning care received with patient wishes. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives from patients and clinicians in 4 clinical settings to understand how context influences interpretation and application of advance care planning processes. METHODS: This study used a qualitative interpretive descriptive design. Patient and clinician participants were recruited across 4 clinical outpatient settings (cancer, heart failure, renal failure and supportive living) in Calgary and Edmonton. Data were collected between 2014 and 2015 by means of recorded one-on-one semistructured interviews. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis in 2016-2017. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients and 34 clinicians participated in interviews. Themes common to all 4 contexts were lack of shared understanding between patients and clinicians, and a lack of consistent clinical process related to advance care planning. Advance care planning understanding and process varied substantially between contexts. This variation seemed to be driven by differences in perceptions around disease burden and the nature of the physician-patient relationship. INTERPRETATION: Provision of a system-wide policy and procedural framework alone was not found to be sufficient to form a standardized approach to advance care planning, as considerable variability existed in advance care planning process between and within clinical settings. Quality-improvement methods that consider local processes, gaps and barriers can help in developing a consistent, comprehensive process. Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is a process through which people share their values, goals and preferences regarding future medical treatments with the purpose of aligning care received with patient wishes. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives from patients and clinicians in 4 clinical settings to understand how context influences interpretation and application of advance care planning processes. METHODS: This study used a qualitative interpretive descriptive design. Patient and clinician participants were recruited across 4 clinical outpatient settings (cancer, heart failure, renal failure and supportive living) in Calgary and Edmonton. Data were collected between 2014 and 2015 by means of recorded one-on-one semistructured interviews. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis in 2016-2017. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients and 34 clinicians participated in interviews. Themes common to all 4 contexts were lack of shared understanding between patients and clinicians, and a lack of consistent clinical process related to advance care planning. Advance care planning understanding and process varied substantially between contexts. This variation seemed to be driven by differences in perceptions around disease burden and the nature of the physician-patient relationship. INTERPRETATION: Provision of a system-wide policy and procedural framework alone was not found to be sufficient to form a standardized approach to advance care planning, as considerable variability existed in advance care planning process between and within clinical settings. Quality-improvement methods that consider local processes, gaps and barriers can help in developing a consistent, comprehensive process. Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: Rebecca L Sudore; Hillary D Lum; John J You; Laura C Hanson; Diane E Meier; Steven Z Pantilat; Daniel D Matlock; Judith A C Rietjens; Ida J Korfage; Christine S Ritchie; Jean S Kutner; Joan M Teno; Judy Thomas; Ryan D McMahan; Daren K Heyland Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Daren K Heyland; Rebecca Heyland; Peter Dodek; John J You; Tasnim Sinuff; Tim Hiebert; Xuran Jiang; Andrew G Day Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Daren K Heyland; Doris Barwich; Deb Pichora; Peter Dodek; Francois Lamontagne; John J You; Carolyn Tayler; Pat Porterfield; Tasnim Sinuff; Jessica Simon Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Andrew Lagrotteria; Marilyn Swinton; Jessica Simon; Seema King; Gwenn Boryski; Irene Wai Yan Ma; Fiona Dunne; Japteg Singh; Rachelle E Bernacki; John J You Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02