Bryan A Sisk1, Jessica A Zavadil2, Lindsay J Blazin3, Justin N Baker3,4, Jennifer W Mack5,6, James M DuBois7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 2. Department of Pediatrics, St Louis Children's Hospital, St Louis, MO. 3. Department of Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN. 4. Division of Quality of Life and Palliative Care, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN. 5. Pediatric Oncology and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 6. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 7. Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Communication breakdowns in pediatric oncology can have negative consequences for patients and families. A detailed analysis of these negative encounters will support clinicians in anticipating and responding to communication breakdowns. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 80 parents of children with cancer across three academic medical centers during treatment, survivorship, or bereavement. We analyzed transcripts using semantic content analysis. RESULTS: Nearly all parents identified negative communication experiences (n = 76). We identified four categories of contributors to negative experiences: individual (n = 68), team (n = 26), organization (n = 46), and greater health care system (n = 8). These experiences involved a variety of health care professionals across multiple specialties. Parents reported 12 personal consequences of communication breakdowns: emotional distress (n = 65), insufficient understanding (n = 48), decreased trust or confidence (n = 37), inconvenience (n = 36), medical harm (n = 23), decreased self-confidence (n = 17), decreased emotional support (n = 13), decreased engagement (n = 9), false hope (n = 9), decreased hope (n = 7), financial insult (n = 7), and decreased access to resources (n = 3). We identified five categories of supportive responses from clinicians: exploring (n = 8), acknowledging (n = 17), informing (n = 27), adapting (n = 27), and advocating (n = 18). Parents often increased their own advocacy on behalf of their child (n = 47). Parents also identified the need for parental engagement in finding solutions (n = 12). Finally, one parent suggested that clinicians should assume that communication will fail and develop contingency plans in advance. CONCLUSION: Communication breakdowns in pediatric oncology negatively affect parents and children. Clinicians should plan for communication breakdowns and respond by exploring, acknowledging, informing, adapting, advocating, and engaging parents in finding solutions.
PURPOSE: Communication breakdowns in pediatric oncology can have negative consequences for patients and families. A detailed analysis of these negative encounters will support clinicians in anticipating and responding to communication breakdowns. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 80 parents of children with cancer across three academic medical centers during treatment, survivorship, or bereavement. We analyzed transcripts using semantic content analysis. RESULTS: Nearly all parents identified negative communication experiences (n = 76). We identified four categories of contributors to negative experiences: individual (n = 68), team (n = 26), organization (n = 46), and greater health care system (n = 8). These experiences involved a variety of health care professionals across multiple specialties. Parents reported 12 personal consequences of communication breakdowns: emotional distress (n = 65), insufficient understanding (n = 48), decreased trust or confidence (n = 37), inconvenience (n = 36), medical harm (n = 23), decreased self-confidence (n = 17), decreased emotional support (n = 13), decreased engagement (n = 9), false hope (n = 9), decreased hope (n = 7), financial insult (n = 7), and decreased access to resources (n = 3). We identified five categories of supportive responses from clinicians: exploring (n = 8), acknowledging (n = 17), informing (n = 27), adapting (n = 27), and advocating (n = 18). Parents often increased their own advocacy on behalf of their child (n = 47). Parents also identified the need for parental engagement in finding solutions (n = 12). Finally, one parent suggested that clinicians should assume that communication will fail and develop contingency plans in advance. CONCLUSION: Communication breakdowns in pediatric oncology negatively affect parents and children. Clinicians should plan for communication breakdowns and respond by exploring, acknowledging, informing, adapting, advocating, and engaging parents in finding solutions.
Authors: Douglas L Hill; Jennifer A Faerber; Yimei Li; Victoria A Miller; Karen W Carroll; Wynne Morrison; Pamela S Hinds; Chris Feudtner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Chris Feudtner; Jennifer K Walter; Jennifer A Faerber; Douglas L Hill; Karen W Carroll; Cynthia J Mollen; Victoria A Miller; Wynne E Morrison; David Munson; Tammy I Kang; Pamela S Hinds Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Laura Boland; Ian D Graham; France Légaré; Krystina Lewis; Janet Jull; Allyson Shephard; Margaret L Lawson; Alexandra Davis; Audrey Yameogo; Dawn Stacey Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Bryan A Sisk; Kieandra Harvey; Annie B Friedrich; Alison L Antes; Lauren H Yaeger; Jennifer W Mack; James M DuBois Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Bryan A Sisk; Megan Keenan; Melody S Goodman; Argentina E Servin; Lauren H Yaeger; Jennifer W Mack; James M DuBois Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-12-30