Dataset Information

Mind your words: Oncologists' communication that potentially harms patients with advanced cancer: A survey on patient perspectives.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many complaints in medicine and in advanced illnesses are about communication. Little is known about which specific communications harm. This study explored the perspectives of patients with advanced cancer about potentially harmful communication behaviors by oncologists and helpful alternatives.

Methods

An online survey design was used that was based on literature scoping and patient/clinician/researcher input. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 74) reflected on the potential harmfulness of 19 communication situations. They were asked whether they perceived the situation as one in which communication could be harmful (yes/no). If they answered "yes," they were asked whether they perceived the examples as harmful (yes/no) or helpful (yes/no) and to provide open comments. Results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively (content analysis).

Results

Communication regarding information provision, prognosis discussion, decision-making, and empathy could be unnecessarily potentially harmful, and this occurred in various ways, such as making vague promises instead of concrete ones (92%), being too directive in decision-making (qualitative), and not listening to the patient (88%). Not all patients considered other situations potentially harmful (eg, introducing the option of refraining from anticancer therapy [49%] and giving too much [prognostic] information [60%]). Exploring each individual patients' needs/preferences seemed to be a precondition for helpful communication.

Conclusions

This article provides patient perspectives on oncologists' unnecessarily potentially harmful communication behaviors and offers practical tools to improve communication in advanced cancer care. Both preventable pitfalls and delicate challenges requiring an individualized approach, where exploration might help, are described. Although providing difficult and unwelcome news is a core task for clinicians, this study might help them to do so while preventing potentially unnecessary harm.

SUBMITTER: Westendorp J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9298810 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposePerspectives of radiation oncologists on oligometastatic disease was investigated using multi-layered survey.Materials and methodsOnline survey on the oligometastatic disease was distributed to the board-certified regular members of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. The questionnaire consisted of four domains: five questions on demographics; five on the definition of oligometastatic disease; four on the role of local therapy; and three on the oligometastatic disease classification, respectively.ResultsA total of 135 radiation oncologists participated in the survey. The median length of practice after board certification was 22.5 years (range, 1 to 44 years), and the vast majority (94.1%) answered affirmatively to the clinical experience in oligometastatic disease management. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents considered the number of involved organs as an independent factor in defining oligometastasis. Most frequently perceived upper limit on the numerical definition of oligometastasis was 5 (64.2%), followed by 3 (26.0%), respectively. Peritoneal and brain metastasis were nominated as the sites to be excluded from oligometastastic disease by 56.3% and 12.6% of the participants, respectively. Vast majority (82.1%) agreed on the role of local treatment in the management of oligometastatic disease. Majority (72%) of the participants acknowledged the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) classification of oligometastatic disease, however, only 43.3% answered that they applied this classification in their clinical practice. Underlying reasons against the clinical use were 'too complicated' (66.0%), followed by 'insufficient supporting evidence' (30.0%), respectively.ConclusionWhile most radiation oncologists supported the role of local therapy in oligometastatic disease, there were several inconsistencies in defining and categorizing oligometastatic disease. Continued education and training on oligometastatic disease would be also required to build consensus among participating caregivers.

Project description:IntroductionCommunication is an essential aspect of care for patients with progressive serious illnesses. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a new, integrated communication support program for oncologists, patients with rapidly progressing advanced cancer and their caregivers.Methods and analysisThe proposed integrated communication support programme is in the randomised control trial stage. It comprises a cluster of oncologists from comprehensive cancer centre hospitals in a metropolitan area in Japan. A total of 20 oncologists, 200 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and the patients' caregivers are enrolled in this study as of the writing of this protocol report. Oncologists are randomly assigned to the intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). Patients and caregivers are allocated to the same group as their oncologists. The IG oncologists receive a 2.5-hour individual communication skills training, and patients and caregivers receive a half-hour coaching intervention to facilitate prioritising and discussing questions and concerns; the CG participants do not receive any training. Follow-up data will be collected quarterly for 6 months for a year and then annually for up to 3 years. The primary endpoint is the intergroup difference between before-intervention and after-intervention patient-centred communication behaviours during oncology visits.Ethics and disseminationThis study is conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines for clinical studies published by Japan's Ministry of Education, Cultural, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the ethical principles established for research on humans stipulated in the Declaration of Helsinki and further amendments thereto. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of National Cancer Center, Japan on 4 July 2018 (ID: 2017-474).Trial statusThis study is currently enrolling participants. Enrolment period ends 31 July 2020; estimated follow-up date is 31 March 2023.Trial registration numberUMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000033612); pre-results.

Project description:Shared care models in the field of cancer aim to improve care coordination, role clarification and patient satisfaction. Cross-sectoral communication is pivotal. Involvement of patients may add to intended mechanisms.A randomised controlled trial 'The Partnership Study' tested the effect of bringing together patient, general practitioner (GP) and oncologist for a consultation conducted by video.PurposeAs part of the process evaluation, this study aimed to explore experiences, attitudes and perspectives of the oncological department on sharing patient consultations with GPs using video.MethodsFour semistructured interviews with five oncologists and four nurse specialists were conducted in February 2020. We focused on the informants' experiences and reflections on the potential of future implementation of the concept 'inviting the GP for a shared consultation by video'. The analyses were based on an inductive, open-minded, hermeneutic phenomenological approach.ResultsA total of six overall themes were identified: structuring consultation and communication, perceptions of GP involvement in cancer care, stressors, making a difference, alternative ways of cross-sector communication and needs for redesigning the model. The concept made sense and was deemed useful, but solving the many technical and organisational problems is pivotal. Case-specific tasks and relational issues were targeted by pragmatically rethinking protocol expectations and the usual way of communication and structuring patient encounters. Case selection was discussed as one way of maturing the concept.ConclusionThis Danish study adds new insight into understanding different aspects of the process, causal mechanisms as well as the potential of future implementation of video-based tripartite encounters. Beyond solving the technical problems, case selection and organisational issues are important. Acknowledging the disruption of the usual workflow, the introduction of new phases of the usual encounter and the variety of patient-GP relationships to be embraced may help to better understand and comply with barriers and facilitators of communication and sharing.Trial registration numberNCT02716168.

Project description:ObjectiveNational Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with ovarian cancer receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist. However, 15%-30% of patients with ovarian cancer do not receive surgical care from this specialist. The reasons for this remain unknown. We aim at assessing the barriers and attitudes perceived by patients with ovarian cancer who did not receive their primary surgery from a gynecologic oncologist and by diagnosing providers in an exploratory qualitative study.Materials and methodsPatients and providers were sampled through the Iowa Cancer Registry. Participants were interviewed by telephone about barriers that patients face receiving surgical care from a specialist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was completed by two team members.FindingsProviders (n = 10, 13% participation rate) identified many system-level barriers, including poor provider-to-provider communication, long time-to-surgery wait times, and a limited number of gynecologic oncologists working in their referral range. Patients (n = 16, 38% participation rate) denied system-level barriers; however, no patients reported receiving a referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This, in and of itself, constitutes a system-level barrier. Providers identified many barriers that their patients face, whereas patients failed to identify these barriers and denied facing them. Patients described the shock that they experienced after diagnosis and its limitations on their decision-making process. Both providers and patients agreed that the providers were influential in determining care decisions.DiscussionThere is a divergence in the perceptions of barriers to care between providers and patients. Open discussions are needed about options and clinical guidelines for surgical ovarian cancer care. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate mechanisms to improve provider-to-patient discussions about surgical recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experiences.ObjectiveTo explore patients' perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes.DesignQualitative study.ParticipantsPatients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions.ApproachFrom 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers.Key resultsParticipants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3-36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes.ConclusionsFrom patients' perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients' perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients' experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.