Dataset Information

Palliative Care Training and Decision-Making for Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Surgeons and Medical Physicians.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Surgical decision-making in patients with advanced cancer requires careful thought and deliberation to balance the high risks with the potential palliative benefits. We sought to compare surgical decision-making and palliative care training among surgeons and medical physicians who commonly treat advanced cancer patients. We hypothesized that surgeons will report less palliative care training compared with medical physicians, and deficits in palliative care training will be associated with more aggressive treatment recommendations in clinical scenarios of advanced cancer patients with symptomatic surgical conditions. STUDY DESIGN:Practicing surgeons, medical oncologists, intensivists, and palliative care physicians from a large urban city and its surrounding areas were surveyed with a 32-item questionnaire consisting of a survey addressing palliative care training and 4 clinical vignettes depicting patients with advanced cancer and symptomatic surgical conditions. RESULTS:Of the 299 physicians surveyed, 102 responded (response rate 34.1%). Surgeons reported fewer hours of palliative care training during residency, fellowship, and continuing medical education combined (median 10, IQR 2-15) compared with medical oncologists (median 30, IQR 20-80) and medical intensivists (median 50 IQR 30-100), P < .05. Additionally, 20% of surgeons reported no history of any palliative care training. Analysis of physician recommendations for treatment of the 4 clinical vignettes showed minimal consensus regardless of physician specialty. Absence of palliative care training was associated with recommending major operative intervention more frequently compared with physicians with ?40 hours of palliative care training (0.7 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 0.8, P =.01). CONCLUSION:Substantial deficiencies in palliative care training persist among surgeons and are associated with more aggressive recommendations for treatment for the selected scenarios presented in patients with advanced cancer. These findings highlight the need for greater efforts systemwide in palliative care education among surgeons, including incorporation of a structured palliative care training curriculum in graduate and continuing surgical education.

SUBMITTER: Bateni SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6204113 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Palliative Care Training and Decision-Making for Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Surgeons and Medical Physicians.

Bateni Sarah B SB Canter Robert J RJ Meyers Frederick J FJ Galante Joseph M JM Bold Richard J RJ

Surgery 20180427

<h4>Background</h4>Surgical decision-making in patients with advanced cancer requires careful thought and deliberation to balance the high risks with the potential palliative benefits. We sought to compare surgical decision-making and palliative care training among surgeons and medical physicians who commonly treat advanced cancer patients. We hypothesized that surgeons will report less palliative care training compared with medical physicians, and deficits in palliative care training will be as ...[more]

PMID: 29709369

Similar Datasets

Project description:Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice.To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year.Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization.Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs).We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions.Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare.Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.

Project description:BackgroundSince 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training.MethodsSurvey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012.: Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions.ResultsOf 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers' practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients.ConclusionsPublic reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.

Project description:ContextThe function of medical school entities that determine student advancement or dismissal has gone largely unexplored. The decision making of 'academic progress' or student promotions committees is examined using a theoretical framework contrasting ethics of justice and care, with roots in the moral development work of theorists Kohlberg and Gilligan.ObjectivesTo ascertain promotions committee members' conceptualisation of the role of their committee, ethical orientations used in member decision making, and student characteristics most influential in that decision making.MethodsAn electronic survey was distributed to voting members of promotions committees at 143 accredited allopathic medical schools in the USA. Descriptive statistics were calculated and data were analysed by gender, role, institution type and class size.ResultsRespondents included 241 voting members of promotions committees at 55 medical schools. Respondents endorsed various promotions committee roles, including acting in the best interest of learners' future patients and graduating highly qualified learners. Implementing policy was assigned lower importance. The overall pattern of responses did not indicate a predominant orientation toward an ethic of justice or care. Respondents indicated that committees have discretion to take individual student characteristics into consideration during deliberations, and that they do so in practice. Among the student characteristics with the greatest influence on decision making, professionalism and academic performance were paramount. Eighty-five per cent of participants indicated that they received no training.ConclusionsPromotions committee members do not regard orientations of justice and care as being mutually exclusive and endorse an array of statements regarding the committee's purpose that may conflict with one another. The considerable variance in the influence of student characteristics and the general absence of committee member training indicate a need for clear delineation of the medical profession's priorities in terms of justice and care, and of the specific student characteristics that should factor into deliberations.

Dataset Information

Palliative Care Training and Decision-Making for Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Surgeons and Medical Physicians.

Publications

Palliative Care Training and Decision-Making for Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Surgeons and Medical Physicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets