| Literature DB >> 32690071 |
Jelle L P van Gurp1,2, Anne Ebenau3, Simone van der Burg4, Jeroen Hasselaar1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In ageing Western societies, many older persons live with and die from cancer. Despite that present-day healthcare aims to be patient-centered, scientific literature has little knowledge to offer about how cancer and its treatment impact older persons' various outlooks on life and underlying life values. Therefore, the aims of this paper are to: 1) describe outlooks on life and life values of older people (≥ 70) living with incurable cancer; 2) elicit how healthcare professionals react and respond to these.Entities:
Keywords: Advanced cancer; Life values; Older persons; Palliative care; Patient outlooks on life; Patient perspective
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32690071 PMCID: PMC7372747 DOI: 10.1186/s12904-020-00618-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Palliat Care ISSN: 1472-684X Impact factor: 3.234
Patient participants’ characteristics
| Participant number | Age (range, from - till) | Gender | Diagnosis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 85–90 | M | Gastric intestinal cancer |
| 2. | 75–80 | F | Endometrial cancer |
| 3. | 70–75 | M | Pancreas carcinoma |
| 4. | 80–85 | F | Breast cancer |
| 5. | 75–80 | M | Prostate carcinoma |
| 6. | 80–85 | M | Gastric intestinal cancer |
| 7. | 80–85 | M | Lung cancer |
| 8. | 80–85 | M | Multiple myeloma |
| 9. | 70–75 | M | Carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater |
| 10. | 90–95 | F | Breast cancer |
| 11. | 80–85 | M | Renal cell carcinoma |
| 12. | 70–75 | M | Prostate carcinoma |
Patient participants’ interview quotes
| Being free of pain or pain being livable (autonomy) | ||
| Having energy; maintaining mobility; preserving control over bodily functions (autonomy, dignity) | ||
| Preserving mental and cognitive capacities (autonomy) | ||
| Proportionality; balance between treatment and quality of life (beneficence and non-maleficence) | ||
| Becoming attentive to small things in life (being present, being attentive and connected with the small things) | ||
| Preserving an open future; combining hope with realism | ||
| To partake in “normal life” as long as possible (continuity) | ||
| Preserving a positive outlook on life (positivity) | ||
| Surrender to the disease as part of the acceptation process (acceptation) | ||
| A good death is a death after a long and rich life | ||
| To finish your thoughts brings peace (closure, peace of mind) | ||
| Receiving love from one’s fellow human beings: family, friends, religious communities (charity, support) | ||
| Preserving the capacity to be open to your social environment (being connected with others) | ||
| To have discussions about the meaning of life (meaningfulness) | ||
| Maintaining independence | ||
| Not to become a burden to others | ||
| Sharing ideas/objects of value with others/ still contributing to society | ||
| Peace of having arranged all matters important, e.g., finances | ||
| Continue to support a vulnerable partner (responsibility) | ||
| Being acknowledged as a person; the empathic professional (humanity) | ||
| Continuity in care and support | ||
| Being provided with honest information (honesty) | ||
| Maintaining autonomy and dignity, controlling your own life | ||
| Being at home; carrying a personal history; preserving authenticity | ||
HCPs’ reflections on main theme 1: Handling incurable cancer
| Subtheme | Clinical practice |
|---|---|
| The HCPs participating in the group interviews recognized the desire of older patients to continue normal life as long as possible. To respect this desire or “protect” patients, HCPs could propose not to continue with chemotherapy. In such cases, “supportive care” aiming at symptom control could be explained and presented as being the best option. Whether patients accept this focus on supportive care, largely depends on how they think curative treatment is going to contribute to better quality of life now and in the future. The material of the group interviews, furthermore, showed that HCPs attach great importance to older patients’ social systems, with special attention to the relationships between parents and children. These long-standing relationships usually influence the balancing act between “normal life” and treatment through implicit and explicit expectations that shape care-giving and care asking. For example, HCPs experienced that they were often awarded the power of decision-making by their older patients so that they could protect them from their more cure-oriented children. | |
| According to HCPs, patients usually hope for action by HCPs. The latter thus have a responsibility to explore a patient’s hope. Another goal for HCPs, as they stated, is to keep the hopes of patients realistic, incorporating information, scenarios, and “the insecurity of not knowing exactly” into their conversations with patients. Realism entails understanding that the body is quickly deteriorating while the mind can still be sharp. If this is the case, HCPs stated that palliative care should be presented as the appropriate action. This might, at first sight, diverge with patients focusing on life extension primarily. | |
| HCPs discussed that cancer might be experienced by patients as an abstract, unobservable phenomenon that requires optimal medical imaging combined with HCPs’ advanced communicative skills to be at all understandable. HCPs feel they have a responsibility in this matter, in line with the preferences of their patients. |
HCPs’ reflections on the main theme 2: Being supported by others
| Subtheme | Clinical practice |
|---|---|
| HCPs recognized patients’ reluctance to burden their proxies. Some HCPs stated to try to discover what patients mean by burdening; did proxies indeed state not to be willing to be burdened or is this a patient’s pre-assumption? | |
| Some HCPs experienced that patients indeed reflected upon their lives, however, only if patients were still “clear-headed”. Other HCPs stated chaplains, mostly, were involved in such existential issues. In this light, the importance of multidimensional care was expressed. Furthermore, in the group interviews, HCPs considered the fact that older persons increasingly have to care for one another is one of the important issues for future healthcare and that by this, patients’ own coping processes could be neglected. This was confirmed in some patient interviews. Instead of immediately trying to solve this and arrange things, professionals also do well by getting to know the patient together with his/her social system, the responsibilities patients bear for partners and/or family and potential fears over losing control over their situation. Creating room and some peace of mind could lead to patients acknowledging their personal dying process. HCPs also mentioned the involvement of a case manager specialized in dementia. Such a professional has a role in anticipating on future scenarios and in unburdening the older person. Nowadays, HCPs stated, recognizing the patient’s needs, often, comes too late. | |
| HCPs acknowledged that an explorative dialogue with (older) patients is essential to learn about their concerns. However, they experience some barriers in talking to older patients: in general, they consider older people less assertive, more modest and more willing to hand over responsibility to HCPs. HCPs stated that shared decision-making “is not for everyone”. In such cases, HCPs try to trust their own gut feeling about what is good for the patient. An additional issue is patients’ lack of time for reflection due to the usually quick succession of news, scans, and treatments. Furthermore, HCPs agreed with patients’ desire to have a central and available HCP instead of changing HCPs. Continuity could stimulate a trusting relationship between patient and HCP. |
HCPs’ reflections on main theme 3: Making end-of-life choices
| Subtheme | Clinical practice |
|---|---|
| HCPs mentioned that patients’ request on acceleration and alleviation of death was a consequence of patients’ fears of “the big unknown”. However, they experienced that older patients’ ideas about the end-of-life are usually more veiled as the patient interviews also suggested, or too simplistic; for example, patients talk about “being put to sleep.” With respect to euthanasia requests, HCPs notice a lack of knowledge about its proper realization. HCPs noted that a shared exploration of a patient’s fears, previous experiences with cancer, motives, expectations of the disease trajectory and social situation, and potential scenarios, including special forms of treatment, such as palliative sedation, should at least precede its actualization. Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions ideally are slow decision-processes in which proxies and healthcare professionals have an opportunity to accompany the patient and prepare for it themselves. Proactively providing clear information about future scenarios, alternatives and end-of-life requests is important in such a process. HCPs, though, stated advance care planning is not a common practice yet. | |
| To provide the best patient-centered care, some HCPs believe that a diverse but select group of HCPs should be involved in care. Also, the informational “gap” between the hospital and general practitioner (GP) should be decreased. Sometimes a GP is not informed about a patient situation and neither in touch with a patient as this latter is still in hospital treatment. However, according to HCPs, patients tend to ask questions to their caregivers related to his/her specialism, e.g. asking an oncologist for cure. A GP, however, could have a “coaching” and preparatory role in making decisions related to, e.g. a home-situation and dying at home, and thus, should be involved in care. |