Dataset Information

Addressing spirituality within the care of patients at the end of life: perspectives of patients with advanced cancer, oncologists, and oncology nurses.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Attention to patients' religious and spiritual needs is included in national guidelines for quality end-of-life care, but little data exist to guide spiritual care.

Patients and methods

The Religion and Spirituality in Cancer Care Study is a multi-institution, quantitative-qualitative study of 75 patients with advanced cancer and 339 cancer physicians and nurses. Patients underwent semistructured interviews, and care providers completed a Web-based survey exploring their perspectives on the routine provision of spiritual care by physicians and nurses. Theme extraction was performed following triangulated procedures of interdisciplinary analysis. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models assessed relationships between participants' characteristics and attitudes toward spiritual care.

Results

The majority of patients (77.9%), physicians (71.6%), and nurses (85.1%) believed that routine spiritual care would have a positive impact on patients. Only 25% of patients had previously received spiritual care. Among patients, prior spiritual care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 14.65; 95% CI, 1.51 to 142.23), increasing education (AOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.49), and religious coping (AOR, 4.79; 95% CI, 1.40 to 16.42) were associated with favorable perceptions of spiritual care. Physicians held more negative perceptions of spiritual care than patients (P < .001) and nurses (P = .008). Qualitative analysis identified benefits of spiritual care, including supporting patients' emotional well-being and strengthening patient-provider relationships. Objections to spiritual care frequently related to professional role conflicts. Participants described ideal spiritual care to be individualized, voluntary, inclusive of chaplains/clergy, and based on assessing and supporting patient spirituality.

Conclusion

Most patients with advanced cancer, oncologists, and oncology nurses value spiritual care. Themes described provide an empirical basis for engaging spiritual issues within clinical care.

SUBMITTER: Phelps AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4827261 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite an increase in emphasis on psychosocial care in cancer nursing, time constraints and nurses' lack of knowledge in skilled communication continue to be challenges. AIMS:To examine how cancer care nurses view their communication with patients and how they deal with the psychosocial needs of patients in busy wards. DESIGN:A qualitative interview study. METHODS:Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with eleven hospital-based cancer nurses in Hong Kong from July 2, 2017 to January 2, 2018. RESULTS:A qualitative thematic analysis of the data identified three themes: 1. Intentional and unintentional psychosocial care that is secondary in focus; 2. Managing an emotionally challenged environment; 3. Mentoring and learning. CONCLUSION:Oncology settings are time-constrained, emotionally charged environments for nurses, and providing psychosocial care for patients is a secondary concern. While proactive strategies can be used to avert patient complaints, being open and attending to the individual needs of patients is equally important to avoid blocking in nurse-patient communication. Despite emotional entanglement and tensions, the positive follow-up strategies used by nurses to manage the patients' emotions and provide psychosocial care reflect good practices. Leadership and support are needed to deal with the nurses' perception that their communication training has been ineffective and their ability to manage strong emotions deficient. Communication skills, honed by making continuous opportunities to communicate available, as well as an understanding of emotional labour, need to be integrated with mindfulness in the nurses' care of themselves and their patients. Notwithstanding the importance of experience in oncology care for junior nurses, it is necessary for both junior and senior nurses to learn about and reflect upon the different forms of emotional labour if value-based care is to be provided. In addition, it is essential for junior nurses to receive continuous coaching and mentoring, and to engage in reflective learning from each clinical encounter with oncology patients.

Project description:BackgroundMany complaints in medicine and in advanced illnesses are about communication. Little is known about which specific communications harm. This study explored the perspectives of patients with advanced cancer about potentially harmful communication behaviors by oncologists and helpful alternatives.MethodsAn online survey design was used that was based on literature scoping and patient/clinician/researcher input. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 74) reflected on the potential harmfulness of 19 communication situations. They were asked whether they perceived the situation as one in which communication could be harmful (yes/no). If they answered "yes," they were asked whether they perceived the examples as harmful (yes/no) or helpful (yes/no) and to provide open comments. Results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively (content analysis).ResultsCommunication regarding information provision, prognosis discussion, decision-making, and empathy could be unnecessarily potentially harmful, and this occurred in various ways, such as making vague promises instead of concrete ones (92%), being too directive in decision-making (qualitative), and not listening to the patient (88%). Not all patients considered other situations potentially harmful (eg, introducing the option of refraining from anticancer therapy [49%] and giving too much [prognostic] information [60%]). Exploring each individual patients' needs/preferences seemed to be a precondition for helpful communication.ConclusionsThis article provides patient perspectives on oncologists' unnecessarily potentially harmful communication behaviors and offers practical tools to improve communication in advanced cancer care. Both preventable pitfalls and delicate challenges requiring an individualized approach, where exploration might help, are described. Although providing difficult and unwelcome news is a core task for clinicians, this study might help them to do so while preventing potentially unnecessary harm.

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists' opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist's report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication.MethodsA 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation.ResultsA total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1-3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists' service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists' service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist.ConclusionStructured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.

Project description:Realistic illness understanding is essential to an advanced cancer patient's ability to make informed medical decisions at the end of life. This study sought to determine whether advanced cancer patients better understood the late stage of their cancer if an oncologist, compared to other members of the care team, was present to discuss their scan results. Data were derived from a multi-institutional, longitudinal cohort study of patients recruited between 2010 and 2015. Patients (n = 209) with late-stage cancers (metastatic cancers that progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen) were interviewed before and after clinic visits in which scan results were discussed. Patients reported pre- and postvisit if their cancer was at a late stage. Postvisit, patients reported if they discussed scan results with an oncologist or another oncology provider (i.e., oncology fellow, oncology resident, nurse practitioner, nurse, physician's assistant, or other). Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if the presence of an oncologist during scan results discussions differentially predicted the patients' likelihood of postvisit late-stage illness understanding (LSIU). Propensity weighting was used to correct for sociodemographic imbalances between groups, and previsit LSIU and the presence of multiple providers were controlled for in the logistic regression analyses. After propensity-weighted adjustment and controlling for previsit LSIU and the presence of multiple providers, patients were 2.6 times more likely (AOR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.2, 6.0; P = 0.021) to report that their disease was late stage if an oncologist was present for the scan results discussion compared to if an oncologist was absent. The presence of an oncologist during scan results discussions was associated with a higher likelihood of patients acknowledging being in a late stage of their disease. These results suggest that oncologist involvement in scan results discussions is associated with advanced cancer patients having better prognostic understanding.

Project description:IntroductionIn cancer care, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions are made frequently; i.e., decisions not to start the heart in the event of a cardiac arrest. A DNR decision can be a complex process involving nurses and physicians with a wide variety of experiences and perspectives. Previous studies have shown different perceptions of the DNR decision process among nurses and physicians, e.g. concerning patient involvement and information. DNR decisions have also been reported to be unclear and documentation inconsistent.ObjectiveThe aim was to investigate how important and how likely to happen nurses and physicians considered various aspects of the DNR decision process, regarding participation, information and documentation, as well as which attributes they found most important in relation to DNR decisions.MethodsA descriptive correlational study using a web survey was conducted, including 132 nurses and 84 physicians working in hematology and oncology.ResultsAlmost half of the respondents reported it not likely that the patient would be involved in the decision on DNR, and 21% found it unimportant to inform patients of the DNR decision. Further, 57% reported that providing information to the patient was important, but only 21% stated that this was likely to happen. There were differences between nurses and physicians, especially regarding participation by and information to patients and relatives. The attributes deemed most important for both nurses and physicians pertained more to medical viewpoints than to ethical values, but a difference was found, as nurses chose patient autonomy as the most important value, while physicians rated non-maleficence as the most important value in relation to DNR decisions.ConclusionNurses and physicians need to be able to talk openly about their different perspectives on DNR decisions, so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the decisions, especially in cases where they disagree. They should also be aware that what they think is important is not always likely to happen. The organization needs to support such discussions through providing an environment that allows ethical discussions on regular basis. Patients and relatives will also benefit from receiving the same information from all caregivers.

Project description:BackgroundEnsuring older patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists have similar beliefs about curability is important. We investigated discordance in beliefs about curability in patient-oncologist and caregiver-oncologist dyads.Materials and methodsWe used baseline data from a cluster randomized trial assessing whether geriatric assessment improves communication and quality of life in older patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients were aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer from community oncology practices. Patients, caregivers, and oncologists were asked: "What do you believe are the chances the cancer will go away and never come back with treatment?" Options were 100%, >50%, 50/50, <50%, and 0% (5-point scale). Discordance in beliefs about curability was defined as any difference in scale scores (≥3 points were severe). We used multivariate logistic regressions to describe correlates of discordance.ResultsDiscordance was present in 60% (15% severe) of the 336 patient-oncologist dyads and 52% (16% severe) of the 245 caregiver-oncologist dyads. Discordance was less common in patient-oncologist dyads when oncologists practiced longer (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.97) and more common in non-Hispanic white patients (AOR 5.77, CI 1.90-17.50) and when patients had lung (AOR 1.95, CI 1.29-2.94) or gastrointestinal (AOR 1.55, CI 1.09-2.21) compared with breast cancer. Severe discordance was more common when patients were non-Hispanic white, had lower income, and had impaired social support. Caregiver-oncologist discordance was more common when caregivers were non-Hispanic white (AOR 3.32, CI 1.01-10.94) and reported lower physical health (AOR 0.88, CI 0.78-1.00). Severe discordance was more common when caregivers had lower income and lower anxiety level.ConclusionDiscordance in beliefs about curability is common, occasionally severe, and correlated with patient, caregiver, and oncologist characteristics.Implications for practiceEnsuring older patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have similar beliefs about curability as the oncologist is important. This study investigated discordance in beliefs about curability in patient-oncologist (PO) and caregiver-oncologist (CO) dyads. It found that discordance was present in 60% (15% severe) of PO dyads and 52% (16% severe) of CO dyads, raising serious questions about the process by which patients consent to treatment. This study supports the need for interventions targeted at the oncologist, patient, caregiver, and societal levels to improve the delivery of prognostic information and patients'/caregivers' understanding and acceptance of prognosis.