Dataset Information

Breaking silence: a survey of barriers to goals of care discussions from the perspective of oncology practitioners.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Cancer is the leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet healthcare practitioners infrequently discuss goals of care (GoC) with hospitalized cancer patients. We sought to identify barriers to GoC discussions from the perspectives of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and oncology nurses. METHODS:This was a single center survey of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and inpatient oncology nurses. Barriers to GoC discussions were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale (1?=?extremely unimportant; 7?=?extremely important). RESULTS:Between July 2013 and May 2014, of 185 eligible oncology clinicians, 30 staff oncologists, 10 oncology residents, and 28 oncology nurses returned surveys (response rate of 37%). The most important barriers to GoC discussions were patient and family factors. They included family members' difficulty accepting poor prognoses (mean score 5.9, 95% CI [5.7, 6.2]), lack of family agreement in the goals of care (mean score 5.8, 95% CI [5.5, 6.1]), difficulty understanding the limitations of life-sustaining treatments (mean score 5.8, 95% CI [5.6, 6.1]), lack of patients' capacity to make goals of care decisions (mean score 5.7, 95% CI [5.5, 6.0]), and language barriers (mean score 5.7, 95% CI [5.4, 5.9]). Participants viewed system factors and healthcare provider factors as less important barriers. CONCLUSIONS:Oncology practitioners perceive patient and family factors as the most limiting barriers to GoC discussions. Our findings underscore the need for oncology clinicians to be equipped with strong communication skills to help patients and families navigate GoC discussions.

SUBMITTER: Piggott KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6368724 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Breaking silence: a survey of barriers to goals of care discussions from the perspective of oncology practitioners.

Piggott Katrina Lynn KL Patel Ameen A Wong Arthur A Martin Leslie L Patel Alexandra A Patel Matthew M Liu Yudong Y Dhesy-Thind Sukhbinder S You John J JJ

BMC cancer 20190208 1

<h4>Background</h4>Cancer is the leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet healthcare practitioners infrequently discuss goals of care (GoC) with hospitalized cancer patients. We sought to identify barriers to GoC discussions from the perspectives of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and oncology nurses.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a single center survey of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and inpatient oncology nurses. Barriers to GoC discussions were assessed on a 7-point L ...[more]

PMID: 30736754

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAllied health care professionals can contribute meaningfully to goals-of-care discussions with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families. We sought to explore the perspective of hospital-based allied health care professionals on their role in goals-of-care discussions and to identify barriers to their participation.MethodsWe surveyed allied health care professionals (social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, registered dietitians, speech-language pathologists and pharmacists) on internal medicine, hematology-oncology, medical oncology and radiation oncology wards at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, from April 2013 to May 2014. We modified a validated questionnaire originally designed to assess barriers to discussing goals of care from the perspective of nurses, residents and staff physicians on hospital medical wards. Respondents rated the questionnaire items on a 7-point Likert scale.ResultsOf the 47 allied health care professionals invited, 32 (68%) participated: 9 physiotherapists, 7 social workers, 6 occupational therapists, 4 registered dietitians, 3 pharmacists and 2 speech-language pathologists; in 1 case, the profession was unknown. The greatest perceived barriers to engaging in goals-of-care discussions were lack of patient decision-making capacity (mean rating 5.9 [standard error (SE) 0.3]), lack of awareness of patients' previous discussions with other team members (mean rating 5.7 [SE 0.3]) and family members' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis (mean rating 5.6 [SE 0.2]). Although the respondents felt it was most acceptable for staff physicians, residents and advanced practice nurses to exchange information and reach a final decision during goals-of-care discussions, they felt it was acceptable for a broader range of allied health care professionals to initiate discussions (mean rating 4.7-5.8) and to act as decision coaches (clarifying values, weighing options) with patients and families (mean rating 5.3-6.1).InterpretationAllied health care professionals are willing to initiate goals-of-care discussions and to act as a decision coach with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families. By improving interprofessional collaboration, we can engage the entire health care team in this process.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop recommendations regarding opportunities and barriers for nature-based care in oncology contexts using a structured knowledge generation process involving relevant healthcare and design experts.DesignFour-round modified electronic Delphi study. Oncology patients' nature-based recommendations, uncovered in preceding qualitative investigation, were included in the first round for the expert participants' consideration. Key items (opportunities and barriers) were developed using data aggregation and synthesis, followed by item prioritisation and 10-point Likert scale ranking (1=not important, 10=very important). Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess items of highest importance representing expert recommendations.ContextOnline Delphi process constituting an electronic international survey.ParticipantsA purposive sample of 200 potential panellists (recruitment target n=40) comprising healthcare practitioners, managers, designers, architects and researchers were invited to participate; experts were identified via research networks, snowballing and systematic literature review.Results38 experts across seven countries (Australia, USA, UK, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark and Sweden) returned questionnaire 1, which determined consent and acceptance for participation. Initial response rate was 19%, and subsequent response rates were 84%, 82% and 84% for rounds 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The Delphi panel developed recommendations consisting of 10 opportunities and 10 barriers. The following opportunities were rated to be of highest importance: window views from clinical areas onto nature; outdoor settings, gardens and courtyards with easy and effortless access; and nature-based physical exercise adapted to patient requirements. Highest-rated barriers for nature-based oncology care included lack of knowledge and awareness about benefits of nature engagement and inaccessibility, not considering access requirements for the very sick and frail.ConclusionsExperts suggested and agreed on a set of recommendations, which represent critical considerations for the safe adoption of nature-based oncology opportunities. These findings fill a gap in understanding about helpful nature-based oncology care and may translate into oncology design and innovation.

Project description:BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveElicitation and documentation of patient preferences is at the core of shared decision making and is particularly important among patients with high anticipated mortality. The extent to which older patients with incident kidney failure undertake such discussions with their providers is unknown and its characterization was the focus of this study.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Setting & participantsA random sample of veterans 67 years and older with incident kidney failure receiving care from the US Veterans Health Administration between 2005 and 2010.ExposuresDemographic and facility characteristics, as well as predicted 6-month mortality risk after dialysis initiation and documentation of resuscitation preferences.OutcomesDocumented discussions of dialysis treatment and supportive care.Analytical approachWe reviewed medical records over the 2 years before incident kidney failure and up to 1 year afterward to ascertain the frequency and timing of documented discussions about dialysis treatment, supportive care, and resuscitation. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with these documented discussions.ResultsThe cohort of 821 veterans had a mean age of 80.9±7.2 years, and 37.2% had a predicted 6-month mortality risk>20% with dialysis. Documented discussions addressing dialysis treatment and resuscitation were present in 55.6% and 77.1% of patients, respectively. Those addressing supportive care were present in 32.4%. The frequency of documentation varied by mortality risk and whether the patient ultimately started dialysis. In adjusted analyses, the frequency and pattern of documentation were more strongly associated with geographic location and receipt of outpatient nephrology care than with patient demographic or clinical characteristics.LimitationsDocumentation may not fully reflect the quality and content of discussions, and generalizability to nonveteran patients is limited.ConclusionsAmong older veterans with incident kidney failure, discussions of dialysis treatment are decoupled from other aspects of advance care planning and are suboptimally documented, even among patients at high risk for mortality.

Dataset Information

Breaking silence: a survey of barriers to goals of care discussions from the perspective of oncology practitioners.

Publications

Breaking silence: a survey of barriers to goals of care discussions from the perspective of oncology practitioners.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets