Dataset Information

Advance Care Planning for Intensive Care Patients During the Perioperative Period: A Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) may transition into an end-of-life phase during treatment. Advance care planning (ACP) for this population has not been studied comprehensively, and support for its implementation is insufficient.

Objective

This study aims to clarify the ACP support needs among critical perioperative patients.

Methods

In this qualitative descriptive study, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients previously admitted to the ICU. The survey was conducted from September to November 2019. Participants comprised 13 individuals, who were admitted to the ICU for a period of 3 months to 2 years after surgery.

Results

The average age of the participants was 63.8 years. The average mechanical ventilation duration following surgery was 24.5 h. The interviews focused on the ACP needs from the preoperative period to discharge. About 90% of the patients thought about the possibility of death before surgery and considered giving advance orders (e.g., "I don't want life-sustaining treatment"). The participants discussed inheritance, work-related matters, and household issues with their families but rarely spoke about treatment and care. Although they examined the content of the advance directives, the medical staff was not informed about them. Patients revealed that they wanted to understand the distinction between life-prolonging and life-saving treatments and discuss it with the medical staff, apart from being educated on ACP. Many patients previously admitted to the ICU are unclear about the difference between life-prolonging and life-saving treatments; this is also true for medical staff.

Conclusion

Patients who had been admitted to the ICU after high-risk surgery thought they needed help with ACP before surgery. Therefore, patients have the right to know about treatment risks; however, medical staff believes that this is difficult to communicate. Thus, medical staff should consider ways to communicate clearly with patients, including discussing the risks associated with surgery.

SUBMITTER: Yamamoto K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8495525 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesMore than 90,000 patients with ESRD die annually in the United States, yet advance care planning (ACP) is underutilized. Understanding patients' and families' diverse needs can strengthen systematic efforts to improve ACP.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsIn-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients and family/friends from dialysis units at two study sites. Applying grounded theory, interviews were audiotaped, professionally transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized into major themes and subthemes.ResultsThirteen patients and nine family/friends participated in interviews. The mean patient age was 63 years (SD 14) and five patients were women. Participants identified as black (n=1), Hispanic (n=4), Native American (n=4), Pacific Islander (n=1), white (n=11), and mixed (n=1). Three major themes with associated subthemes were identified. The first theme, "Prior experiences with ACP," revealed that these discussions rarely occur, yet most patients desire them. A potential role for the primary care physician was broached. The second theme, "Factors that may affect perspectives on ACP," included a desire for more of a connection with the nephrologist, positive and negative experiences with the dialysis team, disenfranchisement, life experiences, personality traits, patient-family/friend relationships, and power differentials. The third theme, "Recommendations for discussing ACP," included thoughts on who should lead discussions, where and when discussions should take place, what should be discussed and how.ConclusionsMany participants desired better communication with their nephrologist and/or their dialysis team. A number expressed feelings of disenfranchisement that could negatively impact ACP discussions through diminished trust. Life experiences, personality traits, and relationships with family and friends may affect patient perspectives regarding ACP. This study's findings may inform clinical practice and will be useful in designing prospective intervention studies to improve patient and family experiences at the end of life.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals' willingness to engage in advance care planning is influenced by factors such as culture and religious beliefs. While most studies on advance care planning in Asia have been performed in high-income countries, Indonesia is a lower-middle-income country, with a majority of strongly collectivist and religiously devout inhabitants. We studied the perspectives of Indonesian patients with cancer and family caregivers regarding advance care planning by first exploring their experiences with medical information-disclosure, decision-making, and advance care planning and how these experiences influence their perspectives on advance care planning.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews among 16 patients with cancer and 15 family caregivers in a national cancer center in Jakarta and a tertiary academic general hospital in Yogyakarta. We performed an inductive thematic analysis using open, axial, and selective coding. The rigor of the study was enhanced by reflective journaling, dual coding, and investigator triangulation.ResultsTwenty-six of 31 participants were younger than 60 years old, 20 were Muslim and Javanese, and 17 were college or university graduates. Four major themes emerged as important in advance care planning: (1) participants' perceptions on the importance or harmfulness of cancer-related information, (2) the importance of communicating bad news sensitively (through empathetic, implicit, and mediated communication), (3) participants' motives for participating in medical decision-making (decision-making seen as patients' right or responsibility, or patients' state of dependency on others), and (4) the complexities of future planning (e.g., due to its irrelevance to participants' religious beliefs and/or their difficulties in seeing the relevance of future planning).ConclusionsCulturally sensitive approaches to advance care planning in Indonesia should address the importance of facilitating open communication between patients and their families, and the various perspectives on information provision, bad news communication, and decision-making. Advance care planning should focus on the exploration of patients' values, rather than drafting treatment plans in advance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on hemodialysis have limited life expectancy, yet their palliative care needs often go unmet. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for implementation of "Shared Decision Making and Renal Supportive Care" (SDM-RSC), an intervention to improve advance care planning (ACP) for patients with ESKD on hemodialysis. METHODS:The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was the organizing framework for this study. CFIR is a theory-based implementation framework consisting of five domains (Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process), each of which has associated constructs. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the SDM-RSC intervention were identified through observation of study procedures, surveys of social workers nephrologists, study participants, and family members, and assessment of intervention fidelity. RESULTS:Twenty-nine nephrologists and 24 social workers, representing 18 outpatient dialysis units in Massachusetts (n?=?10) and New Mexico (n?=?8), were trained to conduct SDM-RSC intervention sessions. A total of 102 of 125 patient enrolled in the study received the intervention; 40 had family members present. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the SDM-RSC intervention were identified in each of the five CFIR domains. Barriers included complexity of the intervention; challenges to meeting with patients on non-dialysis days; difficulties scheduling intervention sessions due to nephrologists' and social workers' caseloads; perceived need for local policy change regarding ACP; perceived need for additional ACP training for social workers and nephrologists; and lack of endorsement of the intervention by some staff members. Facilitators included: training for social workers, national dialysis chain leadership engagement and the institution of social worker/nephrologist clinic champions. CONCLUSIONS:ACP for patients on hemodialysis can have a positive impact on end-of-life outcomes for patients and their families but does not take place routinely. The barriers to effective implementation of interventions to improve ACP identified in this study might be addressed by: adapting the intervention for local contexts with input from clinicians, dialysis staff, patients and families; providing nephrologists and social workers additional training prior to delivering the intervention; and developing policy that routinizes ACP for hemodialysis patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02405312. Registered 04/01/2015.

Project description:IntroductionDespite positive health outcomes associated with advance care planning (ACP), little research has investigated the impact of ACP in surgical populations. Our goal is to evaluate how an ACP intervention video impacts the patient centredness and ACP of the patient-surgeon conversation during the presurgical consent visit. We hypothesise that patients who view the intervention will engage in a more patient-centred communication with their surgeons compared with patients who view a control video.Methods and analysisRandomised controlled superiority trial of an ACP video with two study arms (intervention ACP video and control video) and four visits (baseline, presurgical consent, postoperative 1 week and postoperative 1 month). Surgeons, patients, principal investigator and analysts are blinded to the randomisation assignment.SettingSingle, academic, inner city and tertiary care hospital. Data collection began July 16, 2015 and continues to March 2017.ParticipantsPatients recruited from nine surgical oncology clinics who are undergoing major cancer surgery.InterventionsIn the intervention arm, patients view a patient preparedness video developed through extensive engagement with patients, surgeons and other stakeholders. Patients randomised to the control arm viewed an informational video about the hospital surgical programme.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary Outcome: Patient centredness and ACP of patient-surgeon conversations during the presurgical consent visit as measured through the Roter Interaction Analysis System.Secondary outcomespatient Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score; patient goals of care; patient, companion and surgeon satisfaction; video helpfulness; medical decision maker designation; and the frequency patients watch the video. Intent-to-treat analysis will be used to assess the impact of video assignment on outcomes. Sensitivity analyses will assess whether there are differential effects contingent on patient or surgeon characteristics.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine institutional review board and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02489799, First received: July 1, 2015).Trial registration numberclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02489799.