Search

Background: There is growing evidence that conversations between healthcare professionals and patients with serious illness can improve the quality of end-of-life cancer care. Yet, there is lack of insight into how different healthcare professions collaborate to deliver serious illness communication, as well as patients' and caregivers' perceptions of this collaboration between the nurse and physician. This study explores the interdisciplinary collaboration between nurses and physicians in serious illness conversations with patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma and their caregivers. Methods: Eleven dyadic interviews were conducted with 22 patients and caregivers, and two focus group interviews involving four nurses and the other with four physicians. Data analysis and reporting were conducted using reflexive thematic analysis within phenomenological epistemology. Results: The interdisciplinary collaboration was characterized by three main themes: (1) Importance of relationships, (2) Complementary perspectives, and (3) The common goal. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of interdisciplinarity in serious illness conversations as it enhances the use of existential and descriptive language when addressing medical, holistic, and existential issues. The use of broader language also reflects that interdisciplinary interaction strengthens the expertise of each professional involved in patient care. Through interdisciplinary collaboration, the preferences, hopes, and values of the patient and caregiver can be integrated into the treatment plan, which is key in providing the delivery of optimal care. To promote cohesive and coordinated collaboration, organizational changes are recommended such as supporting continuity in patient–healthcare professional relationships, providing interdisciplinary training, and allocating time for pre-conversation preparation and post-conversation debriefing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Uncertainty has been associated with distress and poorer quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Prior studies have focused on prognostic uncertainty; little is known about other types of uncertainty that patients and family members experience when discussing goals of care. Understanding the types of uncertainty expressed and differences between Black and White patients can inform the development of uncertainty management interventions. Methods: This study sought to characterize the types of uncertainty expressed by Black and White patients and family members within the context of information needs during inpatient goals-of-care discussions. We performed a secondary analysis of transcripts from 62 recorded goals-of-care discussions that occurred between 2012 and 2014 at an urban, academic medical center in the United States. We applied an adapted taxonomy of uncertainty to data coded as describing information needs and used an inductive qualitative analysis method to analyze the discussions. We report the types of uncertainty expressed in these discussions. Results: Fifty discussions included patient or family expressions of information needs. Of these, 40 discussions (n=16 Black and n=24 White) included statements of uncertainty. Black and White patients and families most frequently expressed uncertainty related to processes and structures of care (system-centered uncertainty) and to treatment (scientific uncertainty). Statements of prognostic uncertainty focused on quantitative information among Whites and on qualitative information and expectations for the future among Blacks. Conclusions: Black and White patients and families frequently expressed system-centered uncertainty, suggesting this may be an important target for intervention. Addressing other sources of uncertainty, such as prognostic uncertainty, may need more tailored approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In this study, we aimed to develop and validate an instrument that could be used by patients with cancer to evaluate their quality of palliative care. Methods: Development of the questionnaire followed the four-phase process: item generation and reduction, construction, pilot testing, and field testing. Based on the literature, we constructed a list of items for the quality of palliative care from 104 quality care issues divided into 14 subscales. We constructed scales of 43 items that only the cancer patients were asked to answer. Using relevance and feasibility criteria and pilot testing, we developed a 44-item questionnaire. To assess the sensitivity and validity of the questionnaire, we recruited 220 patients over 18 years of age from three Korean hospitals. Results: Factor analysis of the data and fit statistics process resulted in the 4-factor, 32-item Quality Care Questionnaire-Palliative Care (QCQ-PC), which covers appropriate communication with health care professionals (ten items), discussing value of life and goals of care (nine items), support and counseling for needs of holistic care (seven items), and accessibility and sustainability of care (six items). All subscales and total scores showed a high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha range, 0.89 to 0.97). Multi-trait scaling analysis showed good convergent (0.568–0.995) and discriminant (0.472–0.869) validity. The correlation between the total and subscale scores of QCQ-PC and those of EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, MQOL, SAT-SF, and DCS was obtained. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the QCQ-PC can be adopted to assess the quality of care in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]