Dataset Information

Perspectives on Oncology-Specific Language During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the US health care system, causing an influx of patients who require resources. Many oncologists are having challenging conversations with their patients about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting cancer care and may desire evidence-based communication guidance.

Objectives

To identify the clinical scenarios that pose communication challenges, understand patient reactions to these scenarios, and develop a communication guide with sample responses.

Design, setting, and participants

This qualitative study that was conducted at a single Midwestern academic medical center invited physicians to respond to a brief semistructured interview by email or telephone and then disseminated an anonymous online survey among patients with cancer. Oncology-specific, COVID-19-related clinical scenarios were identified by the physicians, and potential reactions to these scenarios were gleaned from the patient responses to the survey. Health communication experts were invited to participate in the iterative development of a communication guide, comprising 3 essential communication principles and strategies and informed by insights from physicians and patients. This study was conducted from March 25, 2020, to April 2, 2020.

Interventions

Expert review, interviews, and surveys assessing challenging situations specific to cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Main outcomes and measures

Oncology-specific, COVID-19-related clinical scenarios from physician interviews; responses to each scenario from patient surveys; and applicable communication principles from health communication expert literature review.

Results

Of the 8 physicians who participated in interviews, 4 were men (50%) and 4 were women (50%). These physicians represented the following disciplines: internal medicine (n = 1), hematology/oncology (n = 2), radiation oncology (n = 3), and surgical oncology (n = 2). Their disease site specialization included cancers of the breast, head and neck, melanoma, and gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. A total of 48 patients with cancer completed the online survey; no demographic information was collected from the patients. The physicians identified 8 oncology-specific, COVID-19-related scenarios in which communication might be challenging: (1) worse outcomes from COVID-19, (2) delay in cancer screening, (3) delay in diagnostic workup, (4) delay in initiation of treatment, (5) offer of nonstandard treatment, (6) treatment breaks, (7) delay in follow-up imaging or care, and (8) inability to be admitted into the hospital for management. Potential patient reactions to each of these scenarios were compiled from survey responses. For most scenarios, patient reactions involved anger, fear, and anxiety (eg, "I'm scared"; "This isn't fair. I am upset."). These emotional patient responses informed the selection of the 3 general communication principles, which suggested language and strategies that physicians can use to respond to patients.

Conclusions and relevance

In this qualitative study, physicians and patients identified communication needs used by health communication experts to inform the development of a practical, evidence-based communication guide for oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Gharzai LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7411932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The current ongoing pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has globally affected 213 countries and territories with more than 2.5 million confirmed cases and thousands of casualties. The unpredictable and uncertain COVID-19 outbreak has the potential of adversely affecting the psychological health on individual and community level. Currently all efforts are focused on the understanding of epidemiology, clinical features, mode of transmission, counteract the spread of the virus, and challenges of global health, while crucially significant mental health has been overlooked in this endeavor. METHOD:This review is to evaluate past outbreaks to understand the extent of adverse effects on psychological health, psychological crisis intervention, and mental health management plans. Published previous and current articles on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Elsevier about psychological impact of infectious diseases outbreaks and COVID-19 has been considered and reviewed. COMMENTS:COVID-19 is leading to intense psychosocial issues and comprising mental health marking a secondary health concern all around the world. Globally implementing preventive and controlling measures, and cultivating coping and resilience are challenging factors; modified lifestyle (lockdown curfew, self-isolation, social distancing and quarantine); conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation about the origin, scale, signs, symptoms, transmission, prevention and treatment; global socioeconomic crisis; travel restrictions; workplace hazard control; postponement and cancellation of religious, sports, cultural and entertainment events; panic buying and hoarding; incidents of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, stigma, psychological pressure of productivity, marginalization and violence; overwhelmed medical centers and health organizations, and general impact on education, politics, socioeconomic, culture, environment and climate - are some of the risk factors to aggravate further problems.

Project description:Controversy exists whether the cause of death due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is directly related to the infection or to underlying conditions. The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection with the cause of death in hospitalized patients.DesignRetrospective observational study; deidentified discharge summaries of deceased patients were reviewed by two intensivists and classified as coronavirus disease 2019-related (caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) or coronavirus disease 2019-unrelated (not caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or indeterminate) deaths. For classification disagreement, a separate group of three intensivists reviewed the discharge summaries and arbitrated to determine the cause of death.SettingSingle-center study performed at the University of Texas Medical Branch.PatientsAll adult patients (> 18 yr) admitted from March 10, 2020, to October 22, 2020, with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test results who expired during their hospitalization were identified.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsPatient demographics, comorbidities, prescribed medications, and ventilatory support data were collected. Comparison between groups was performed using t test and chi-square test. During the study period, 1,052 patients were admitted within 14 days of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive test results, of whom 100 expired during the hospitalization. Deceased patients were predominantly male and older than 65 years. Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) was present in 41%, and common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), diabetes (30%), and heart failure (20%). Death was classified as directly caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in 85% and not caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in 5%. An indeterminate cause of death in 10% was due to insufficient information or an atypical presentation. The observed interrater agreement on the cause of death classification was 81%.ConclusionsIn this single-center study, the majority of deaths in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive hospitalized patients were related to a typical or atypical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 disease.

Project description:ObjectivesWhile most pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 cases are not life threatening, some children have severe disease requiring emergent resuscitative interventions. Resuscitation events present risks to healthcare provider safety and the potential for compromised patient care. Current resuscitation practices and policies for children with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 are unknown.DesignMulti-institutional survey regarding inpatient resuscitation practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.SettingInternet-based survey.SubjectsU.S. PICU representatives (one per institution) involved in resuscitation system planning and oversight.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 130 institutions surveyed, 78 (60%) responded. Forty-eight centers (62%) had admitted coronavirus disease 2019 patients; 26 (33%) reported code team activation for patients with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Sixty-seven respondents (86%) implemented changes to inpatient emergency response systems. The most common changes were as follows: limited number of personnel entering patient rooms (75; 96%), limited resident involvement (71; 91%), and new or refined team roles (74; 95%). New or adapted technology is being used for coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitations in 58 centers (74%). Most institutions (57; 73%) are using enhanced personal protective equipment for all coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitation events; 18 (23%) have personal protective equipment policies dependent on the performance of aerosol generating procedures. Due to coronavirus disease 2019, most respondents are intubating earlier during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%), utilizing video laryngoscopy (67; 86%), pausing chest compressions during laryngoscopy (56; 72%), and leaving patients connected to the ventilator during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%). Responses were varied regarding airway personnel, prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilation strategy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation without an airway in place, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Most institutions (46; 59%) do not have policies regarding limitations of resuscitation efforts in coronavirus disease 2019 patients.ConclusionsMost U.S. pediatric institutions rapidly adapted their resuscitation systems and practices in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Changes were commonly related to team members and roles, personal protective equipment, and airway and breathing management, reflecting attempts to balance quality resuscitation with healthcare provider safety.

Project description:Background/purposeWe aimed to describe the epidemiology of trauma activations and variations in injury patterns, injury severity, and hospital length-of-stay for injured children in Los Angeles (LA) County during the coronavirus-disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of children aged < 18-years evaluated in 15 trauma centers from 2019 to 2020 and entered in the LA County trauma registry. We defined 01/01/2019-03/18/2020 as pre-pandemic and 03/19/2020-12/31/2020 as the pandemic period. Our primary outcome was pediatric trauma activations. We analyzed demographic and clinical data, including types and severity of injuries sustained. We conducted unadjusted bivariate analyzes of injury patterns between periods. Segmented linear regression models were used to test rates (per 100,000 LA County children) of trauma activations pre-pandemic versus the pandemic period.ResultsWe studied 4399 children with trauma activations, 2695 of which occurred pre-pandemic and 1701 in the pandemic period. Motor vehicle collisions, gunshot wounds, and burns increased during the pandemic (all p-values< 0.05), while sports injuries decreased (p < 0.001). Median injury severity scores (p = 0.323) and Glasgow Coma Scales (p = 0.558) did not differ between periods, however mortality (p = 0.023) increased during the pandemic. Segmented linear regression estimates demonstrated that rates of trauma activations pre-pandemic were similar to the pandemic period (p = 0.384).ConclusionPediatric trauma activations in LA County did not significantly differ during the COVID-19 pandemic, but types and severity of injuries varied between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. With lockdown restrictions being lifted and novel SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating, our investigation describes this recent epidemiologic phenomenon to aid future preparation for healthcare systems.Level of evidenceLevel III TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe psychological, social, and economic stress in people's lives. It is not known whether the stress of the pandemic is associated with an increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy.ObjectiveTo determine the incidence and outcomes of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study at cardiac catheterization laboratories with primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability at 2 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic health system in Northeast Ohio examined the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy (also known as Takotsubo syndrome) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome who underwent coronary arteriography. Patients presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were compared with 4 control groups of patients with acute coronary syndrome presenting prior to the pandemic across 4 distinct timelines: March to April 2018, January to February 2019, March to April 2019, and January to February 2020. Data were analyzed in May 2020.ExposuresPatients were divided into 5 groups based on the date of their clinical presentation in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of stress cardiomyopathy.ResultsAmong 1914 patient presenting with acute coronary syndrome, 1656 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [59-74]; 1094 [66.1%] men) presented during the pre-COVID-19 period (390 patients in March-April 2018, 309 patients in January-February 2019, 679 patients in March-April 2019, and 278 patients in January-February 2020), and 258 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [57-75]; 175 [67.8%] men) presented during the COVID-19 pandemic period (ie, March-April 2020). There was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 period, with a total of 20 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion, 7.8%), compared with prepandemic timelines, which ranged from 5 to 12 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion range, 1.5%-1.8%). The rate ratio comparing the COVID-19 pandemic period to the combined prepandemic period was 4.58 (95% CI, 4.11-5.11; P < .001). All patients during the COVID-19 pandemic had negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test results for COVID-19. Patients with stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic had a longer median (interquartile range) hospital length of stay compared with those hospitalized in the prepandemic period (COVID-19 period: 8 [6-9] days; March-April 2018: 4 [3-4] days; January-February 2019: 5 [3-6] days; March-April 2019: 4 [4-8] days; January-February: 5 [4-5] days; P = .006). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 period and the overall pre-COVID-19 period in mortality (1 patient [5.0%] vs 1 patient [3.6%], respectively; P = .81) or 30-day rehospitalization (4 patients [22.2%] vs 6 patients [21.4%], respectively; P = .90).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that there was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with prepandemic periods.