Dataset Information

'It was like taking an inner bath': A qualitative evaluation of a collaborative advance care planning-approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Impaired readiness may hinder purposeful advance care planning in cancer patients. To reduce barriers to participation in end-of-life decision-making, a collaborative intervention was developed combining a psycho-oncological approach of dignity-based and cognitive-behavioural interventions, followed by a standardised advance care planning-process.

Aim

To evaluate the novel collaborative advance care planning-approach by synthetising cancer patient and carer perspectives on communicational and relational effects.

Design

As a sub-project of a mixed-methods evaluation study, we conducted an inductive content analysis of qualitative interviews with advanced cancer patients and caregivers to deeply explore the focused impact of a collaborative advance care planning-approach on communication and relationship dynamics.

Setting/participants

Twelve patients with advanced cancer and 13 carers who participated in a collaborative advance care planning-intervention.

Results

The collaborative advance care planning-approach was consistently evaluated positively by participants. Transcriptions of the semi-structured interviews were coded, analysed and merged under three main themes concerning communicational and relationship dynamics: action readiness, content readiness and impact on future communication and relationship.

Conclusions

The novel intervention served to foster individual readiness - including action and content readiness - for advance care planning-discussions by addressing highly individualised barriers to participation, as well as specific end-of-life issues. In addition, societal readiness could be promoted. Although the brief psycho-oncological intervention could not fully meet the needs of all participants, it can be used to develop individual psychotherapeutic strategies to improve different facets of readiness. The collaborative advance care planning-approach might require more time and human resources, but could pioneer successful advance care planning.

SUBMITTER: Pedrosa Carrasco AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8637376 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Caregivers are decision stakeholders; yet, few interventions have been developed to help patients and caregivers collaborate on advance care planning (ACP). Objective: To evaluate a theory-based ACP pilot intervention, Deciding Together, to improve decisional quality, readiness, collaboration, and concordance in ACP decisions for older adult home health (HH) patients and caregivers. Design: A one-group, pre- and posttest study using matched questionnaires was conducted. The intervention consisted of a clinical vignette, theoretically guided conversation prompts, and a shared decision-making activity. Setting/Subjects:N = 36 participants (n = 18 HH patients; n = 18 family and nonfamily caregivers) were purposively recruited from a HH agency to participate in the intervention at patients' homes. Measurements: Demographic and baseline measures were collected for relationship quality, health status, and previous ACP engagement. Outcome measures included perceptions of collaboration, readiness for ACP, concordance in life-sustaining treatment preferences (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, antibiotics, artificial nutrition and hydration, and mechanical ventilation), and decisional conflict. Descriptive statistics, Cohen's κ coefficients, paired t tests, McNemar's tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (and effect size estimates, r = z/√N) were calculated using R-3.5.1 (p < 0.05). Single value imputation was used for missing values. Results: While no significant differences were found for perceptions of collaboration, and readiness for ACP, patients (r = 0.38, p = 0.02) and caregivers (r = 0.38, p = 0.02) had reduced decisional conflict at posttest. Patients' and caregivers' agreement increased by 27.7% for an item assessing patients' preference for artificial nutrition and hydration (p = 0.03). Conclusions: This study suggests that collaborative ACP decision making may improve decisional conflict for older adult HH patients and their caregivers.

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:ObjectivesInitiation of advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care (PC) assessments in general practice is key to quality end-of-life care. The Advance Project promotes a team-based approach to initiating ACP and PC needs assessment in general practices through training, resources and practical support for implementation from local primary health networks (PHNs). This paper aims to understand: (1) general practice participants' experiences of undertaking Advance Project training and implementing the Advance Project resources in their practices; (2) barriers and facilitators to implementation of Advance Project resources; and (3) PHN staff experiences of supporting general practices through training and practical support for implementation of the Advance Project resources.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.SettingTwenty-one general practices and four PHNs from three Australian states were recruited between June 2019 and May 2020.ParticipantsGeneral practitioners (GPs), general practice nurses, practice managers (PMs) and PHN staff.Results45 participants comprising 13 GPs, 13 general practice nurses, 9 PMs, 3 allied health staff and 7 PHN staff were interviewed. The general practice participants generally agreed that the Advance Project training/resources led to changes in their own behaviour and increased their awareness of the importance of ACP/PC discussion with their patients. Participants reported the following benefits for patients: increased awareness of ACP; engagement with families/carers and peace of mind. Key facilitators for successful implementation were a team-based approach, the role of the PHN, the role of practice champions, training facilitators' ability to influence peers and facilitate change, and mentoring support. Barriers to implementation included issues related to workplace culture, cost, time/workload, patients and health system.ConclusionFindings suggest that the Advance Project approach facilitated successful implementation of ACP and PC needs assessment into usual care in general practices that encouraged teamwork among GPs and general practice nurses. The ability of the practice to make the best use of practical support and guidance available to them through their local PHN both before and during implementation was a key factor in integration of Advance Project resources into routine practice.

Project description:IntroductionPatients 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.ObjectiveThis study aims to clarify the ACP support needs among critical perioperative patients.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionPatients 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.