Search

Objective Early specialty palliative care is underused for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies. We sought to understand how gynecologic oncologists9 views influence outpatient specialty palliative care referral to help inform strategies for improvement. Methods/Materials We conducted a qualitative interview study at 6 National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers with well-established outpatient palliative care services. Between September 2015 and March 2016, 34 gynecologic oncologists participated in semistructured telephone interviews focused on attitudes, experiences, and preferences related to outpatient specialty palliative care. A multidisciplinary team analyzed transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop a coding framework. Through an iterative, analytic process, codes were classified, grouped, and refined into themes. Results Mean (SD) participant age was 47 (10) years. Mean (SD) interview length was 25 (7) minutes. Three main themes emerged regarding how gynecologic oncologists view outpatient specialty palliative care: (1) long-term relationships with patients is a unique and defining aspect of gynecologic oncology that influences referral, (2) gynecologic oncologists value palliative care clinicians9 communication skills and third-party perspective to increase prognostic awareness and help negotiate differences between patient preferences and physician recommendation, and (3) gynecologic oncologists prefer specialty palliative care services embedded within gynecologic oncology clinics. Conclusions Gynecologic oncologists value longitudinal relationships with patients and use specialty palliative care to negotiate conflict surrounding prognostic awareness or the treatment plan. Embedding specialty palliative care within gynecologic oncology clinics may promote communication between clinicians and facilitate gynecologic oncologist involvement throughout the illness course.

PurposePatients with hematologic malignancies are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. Reasons for this difference are poorly understood.MethodsThis was a multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic and solid tumor oncologists using surveys assessing referral practices and in-depth semistructured interviews exploring views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We analyzed qualitative interview data using constant comparative methods to explore reasons for observed differences.ResultsAmong 66 interviewees, 23 oncologists cared exclusively for patients with hematologic malignancies; 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven (30%) of 23 hematologic oncologists reported never referring to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred. In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex patient cases. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophic concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and preference for controlling even palliative aspects of patient care.ConclusionMost hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for comanaging patients with complex cases. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic malignancy specialists.

Surrogates of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) want honest prognostic information, but they also want to hear good news. There has been little examination of how surrogates navigate these dual needs or how clinicians should respond.The aim of this study was explore how surrogates in the ICU experience and cope with prognostic information and describe their recommendations for clinicians.We conducted a qualitative interview study with 30 surrogates facing life-sustaining treatment decisions in five ICUs in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates in the ICU focused on general experiences, emotional needs, informational needs, and recommendations for clinicians. We inductively analyzed transcripts for key themes using constant comparative methods.Surrogates experience a tension between wanting to know what to expect and needing to remain hopeful. This tension underlies their experience receiving prognostic information and may lead to behaviors that allow continued hope in the face of bad news, including: 1) focusing on small details rather than the big picture, 2) relying on gut instincts or personal beliefs about the patient, 3) seeking more positive prognostic information from other sources, and, for a minority, 4) avoiding or disbelieving prognostic information. Surrogates emphasize the importance of frequent communication and call on physicians to gently help them prepare for the worst and hope for the best.Surrogates in the ICU experience conflicting emotional and informational needs. They describe behaviors that give the appearance of avoiding bad news while simultaneously asking physicians to help them cope with prognostic information.

Pain specialists often advocate discontinuing use of the term "narcotic," with the negative connotations it bears for many patients, in favor of the term "opioid." To contribute empirical data to this argument, we elicited and compared patient understandings of the terms "narcotic" and "opioid."Brief, anonymous surveys were administered to 100 outpatients. Respondents were asked to describe what a narcotic/opioid is, give example(s), explain why someone would take a narcotic/opioid and describe long term consequences of use.Of the 100 outpatients, 86% responded "don't know" to all four opioid questions. Only 12% did not know what a narcotic was (p001). While 50% of patients related "narcotics" to pain management, more than a third cited addiction or abuse. Of the 100 outpatients, 78% feared an adverse outcome from long-term narcotic use, with 66% of those answers citing "addiction."Most patients were unfamiliar with the term opioid, while a substantial percentage identified a narcotic as an illegal drug and most reported adverse consequences as the outcome of long term use. Our findings, while preliminary, suggest that "opioid" is a more unfamiliar term, but raise questions about whether simply using different terminology would affect patient fears about this class of medications.