Search

Purpose: To describe the length of encounter during visits where goals-of-care (GoC) discussions were expected to take place., Methods: Oncologists from community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals were randomly assigned to receive a coaching model of communication skills to facilitate GoC discussions with patients with newly diagnosed advanced solid-tumor cancer with a prognosis of < 2 years. Patients were surveyed after the first restaging visit regarding the quality of the GoC discussion on a scale of 0-10 (0 = worst; 10 = best), with ≥ 8 indicating a high-quality GoC discussion. Visits were audiotaped, and total encounter time was measured., Results: The median face-to-face time oncologists spent during a GoC discussion was 15 minutes (range, 10-20 minutes). Among the different hospital types, there was no significant difference in encounter time. There was no difference in the length of the encounter whether a high-quality GoC discussion took place or not (15 v 14 minutes; P = .9). If there was imaging evidence of cancer progression, the median encounter time was 18 minutes compared with 13 minutes for no progression ( P = .03). In a multivariate model, oncologist productivity, patient age, and Medicare coverage affected duration of the encounter., Conclusion: Oncologists can complete high-quality GoC discussions in 15 minutes. These data refute the common misperception that discussing such matters with patients with advanced cancer requires significant time.

Purpose: Patients with advanced cancer often have a poor understanding of cancer incurability, which correlates with more aggressive treatment near the end of life (EOL). We sought to determine whether training oncologists to elicit patient values for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions will increase and improve these discussions. We explored its impact on use of aggressive care at EOL., Methods: We enrolled and used block randomization to assign 92% of solid tumor oncologists to 2-hour communication skills training and four coaching sessions. We surveyed 265 patient with newly diagnosed advanced cancer with < 2-year life expectancy at baseline and 6 months. We assessed prevalence and quality of GoC communication, change in communication skills, and use of aggressive care in the last month of life., Results: Intervention (INT) oncologists' (n = 11) skill to elicit patient values increased (27%-55%), while usual care (UC) oncologists' (n = 11) skill did not (9%-0%; P = .01). Forty-eight percent (n = 74) INT v 51% (n = 56) UC patients reported a GoC discussion ( P = .61). There was no difference in the prevalence or quality of GoC communication between groups (global odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.23). Within 6 months, there was no difference in deaths (18 INT v 16 UC; P = .51), mean hospitalizations (0.47 INT v 0.42 UC; P = .63), intensive care unit admissions (5% INT v 9% UC; P = .65), or chemotherapy (26% INT v 16% UC; P = .39)., Conclusion: Use of a coaching model focused on teaching oncologists to elicit patient values improved that skill but did not increase prevalence or quality of GoC discussions among patients with advanced cancer. There was no impact on high care utilization at EOL.

Purpose: To study factors that have an impact on the conduct of high-quality goals of care (GoC) discussions and productivity of oncologists among four different practice settings in patients with advanced cancer., Methods: Solid-tumor oncologists from community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals were randomly assigned to receive a coaching model of communication skills to help them facilitate a GoC discussion with newly diagnosed patients with advanced cancer who had a less-than-2-year prognosis. Patients were surveyed after the first restaging visit regarding the quality of the GoC discussion on a scale of 0 to 10 (0, worst; 10, best) with a score of 8 or better indicating a high-quality GoC discussion. Productivity was measured by work revenue value units (wRVUs) per hour for the day each oncologist saw the study patient after imaging., Results: The four sites differed significantly in the socioeconomic patient populations they served and in the characteristics of the oncologists who cared for the patients. Overall median productivity across the four sites was 3.6 wRVU/hour, with the highest observed in the community hospital (4.3 wRVU/hour) and the lowest in the rural setting (2.9 wRVU/hour; P < .001). There was no significant difference in productivity observed when high-quality GOC discussion occurred versus when it did not (3.6 v 3.7 wRVU/hour; P = .86)., Conclusion: Despite differences in patient populations and oncologists' characteristics between the four practice settings, the conduct of high-quality GoC discussions did not affect productivity.

Introduction: Goals of care (GoC) conversations optimally begin early in the course of cancer care, yet most happen near the end of life. We sought to describe oncologist-reported facilitators of and barriers to GoC conversations with patients who have advanced cancer., Methods and Materials: We conducted individual, semistructured qualitative interviews with oncologists from 4 academic, community, municipal, and rural hospitals in New York and Connecticut. Interview topics included approach to GoC conversations, facilitators, barriers, and organizational influences. We analyzed data using interpretive description. We collected demographic and practice information and surveyed oncologists on their communication skills training. We calculated descriptive statistics for quantitative data., Results: Oncologists (n = 21) had a mean age of 46 years (range: 34-68), 67% were male, 71% were White, 24% were Asian, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. They reported an average of 20 years in practice (range: 8-42), and 62% had received training on having GoC conversations. Facilitators included patient's poor functional status, patient's high health literacy, family understanding and acceptance, oncologist's practice experience, and a supportive practice environment. Barriers included certain patient demographic and clinical characteristics, patient religion and culture, patient's denial, and lack of time., Conclusion: GoC conversations may be facilitated by enabling oncologists to conduct these conversations despite difficult circumstances and emotional reactions by activating patients and family via increased health literacy and by advancing palliative-informed practice environments.

Objective: Family members can significantly impact advanced cancer patients' treatment and are important participants in goals of care (GoC) conversations. Yet, research on patient and physician perspectives about family involvement and influence on GoC conversations is limited. Our purpose was to describe patients' and oncologists' perspectives about family involvement and influence on GoC conversations among patients with advanced cancer., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews at academic, community, and municipal hospitals (n = 4) with patients with advanced cancer (n = 39) and their oncologists (n = 21). Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. We analyzed data using interpretive description. Three coders independently coded transcripts, compared codes, and resolved discrepancies., Results: We identified 4 themes common to patients and oncologists regarding family involvement in GoC conversations: (1) Presence and Duration of Family Involvement; (2) Family Expectations; (3) Protecting patients'/Family Members' Feelings; and (4) Patient-Family Disagreement. For patients, we identified 2 additional themes: (1) Family and Oncologist Relationship and (2) Effects of Cancer on Family. Both patients and oncologists emphasized the importance of family support for the patient's understanding of their illness and on patients' emotions. We also identified ways in which family involvement may benefit or prove challenging to GoC conversations., Conclusions: Patients and oncologists have similar views about family involvement in GoC conversations. Learning how to communicate with family members should be a critical component of physician education in palliative care., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Context: Although recommendations are for goals of care (GoC) conversations to happen early and often, their timing and content over the disease course remain unclear., Objectives: To describe perceptions of the timing and content of GoC conversations among oncologists and patients with advanced cancer., Methods: Semi-structured interviews with oncologists and patients at four hospitals in New York and Connecticut. We analyzed data using interpretive description., Results: Oncologists (n = 21) were 67% male, averaged 46 years old (range 34-68 years), and had a mean 20 years (range 8-42 years) in practice. Advanced cancer patients (n = 39) were 59% female with a mean age of 58 years (range 26-88 years). Oncologists and patients viewed GoC conversations along an initial, intermediate, and final continuum. Oncologists reported having initial GoC conversations to build rapport, provide disease information, and clarify and consider treatment intent and options. Intermediate conversations focused on changes in treatment and side effects. Final conversations occurred when patients were hospice-eligible and covered the shift to comfort care, a treatment summary, and advance directives. Timing and content were influenced by cancer type, disease status, and emotional state. Patients supported beginning GoC conversations early, but had different preferences for content of initial conversations. Some wanted complete information; others found this overwhelming. Patients felt intermediate GoC conversations should occur at decision points with time for processing. Content of intermediate and final conversations was dependent on patients' prognosis, questions, and treatment decisions., Conclusion: Although GoC conversations should follow individual patient preferences, our findings offer structure for their timing and content., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)