Effects of an Interprofessional Communication Approach on Support Needs, Quality of Life, and Mood of Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Trial

Palliative rehabilitation and quality of life: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

International guidelines recommend the integration of multidisciplinary rehabilitation into palliative care services but its impact on quality of life across disease types is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of multidisciplinary palliative rehabilitation on quality of life and healthcare service outcomes for adults with an advanced, life-limiting illness.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PEDro were searched from the earliest records to February 2024.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of multidisciplinary palliative rehabilitation in adults with an advanced, life-limiting illness and reported quality of life were eligible.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Study characteristics, quality of life and health service usage data were extracted, and the methodological quality was assessed using PEDro. Meta-analyses using random effects were completed, and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were applied.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Quality of life and healthcare service outcomes.

RESULTS

27 randomised controlled trials (n=3571) were included. Palliative rehabilitation was associated with small improvements in quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56). These effects were significant across disease types: cancer (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.41), heart failure (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.05) and non-malignant respiratory diagnoses (SMD 0.77, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.24). Meta-analysis found low-certainty evidence, palliative rehabilitation reduced the length of stay by 1.84 readmission days.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Multidisciplinary palliative rehabilitation improves quality of life for adults with an advanced, life-limiting illness and can reduce time spent in hospital without costing more than usual care. Palliative rehabilitation should be incorporated into standard palliative care.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022372951.

Communication and support of patients and caregivers in chronic cancer care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline

•ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline with key recommendations for communication and support of cancer patients and caregivers. •The guideline discusses training in communication of oncology clinicians and research on communication in cancer care. •Practical recommendations aim to support oncology clinicians in their communication with patients and caregivers. •Figures summarising the responsibilities of the clinician, the oncology team and the health care institution are provided.

Impact research of pain nursing combined with hospice care on quality of life for patients with advanced lung cancer

This study aims to evaluate the impact of integrating pain nursing with hospice care on the quality of life among patients with advanced lung cancer. This study involving 60 advanced lung cancer patients admitted from January 2022 to January 2023. Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: the observation group received a combination of pain nursing and hospice care, while the control group received standard nursing care. The study assessed changes in the numeric rating scale for pain, self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), cancer fatigue scale (CFS), death attitude, and various quality of life dimensions as measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. Post-intervention, both groups exhibited reductions in numeric rating scale, SAS, SDS, and CFS scores compared to baseline, with more significant improvements observed in the observation group (P < .05). Additionally, post-intervention scores for death attitude and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 domains (physical, cognitive, social, role, and emotional functioning, as well as overall health) increased in both groups, with the observation group showing greater improvements than the control group (P < .05). The combination of pain nursing and hospice care significantly reduces pain, anxiety, and depression, decreases cancer-related fatigue, and improves the quality of life and death attitudes in patients with advanced lung cancer, highlighting the benefits of this integrative approach in palliative care settings.

Effects of transitional care interventions on quality of life in people with lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To identify and appraise the quality of evidence of transitional care interventions on quality of life in lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND

Quality of life is a strong predictor of survival. The transition from hospital to home is a high-risk period for patients' readmission and death, which seriously affect their quality of life.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to 22 October 2022. The primary outcome was quality of life. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4, results were expressed as standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. This study was complied with PRISMA guidelines and previously registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023429464).

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included consisting of a total of 1700 participants, and 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. It was found that transitional care interventions significantly improved quality of life (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.40, p = .03) and helped reduce symptoms (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI: -1.13 to -0.18, p = .007) in lung cancer patients, but did not significantly reduce anxiety and depression, and the effect on self-efficacy was unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that transitional care interventions can improve quality of life and reduce symptoms in patients, and that primarily educational interventions based on symptom management theory appeared to be more effective. But, there was no statistically significant effect on anxiety and depression.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study provides references for the application of transitional care interventions in the field of lung cancer care, and encourages nurses and physicians to apply transitional care plans to facilitate patients' safe transition from hospital to home.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes: a secondary data analysis based on large scale survey data

BACKGROUND

While interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is widely considered a key element of comprehensive patient treatment, evidence focusing on its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between employee-rated IPC and PROs in a clinical inpatient setting.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary data analysis of the entire patient and employee reported data collected by the Picker Institute Germany in cross-sectional surveys between 2003 and 2016. Individual patient data from departments within hospitals was matched with employee survey data from within 2 years of treatment at the department-level. Items assessing employee-rated IPC (independent variables) were included in Principal Component Analysis (PCA). All questions assessing PROs (overall satisfaction, less discomforts, complications, treatment success, willingness to recommend) served as main dependent variables in ordered logistic regression analyses. Results were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing as well as patients' and employees' gender, age, and education.

RESULTS

The data set resulted in 6154 patients from 19 hospitals respective 103 unique departments. The PCA revealed three principal components (department-specific IPC, interprofessional organization, and overall IPC), explaining 67% of the total variance. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .830 and Bartlett's test of sphericity highly significant (p < 0.001). An increase of 1 SD in department-specific IPC was associated with a statistically significant chance of a higher (i.e., better) PRO-rating about complications after discharge (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.13, p = 0.029). However, no further associations were found. Exploratory analyses revealed positive coefficients of department-specific IPC on all PROs for patients which were treated in surgical or internal medicine departments, whereas results were ambiguous for pediatric patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between department-level IPC and patient-level PROs remains - as documented in previous literature - unclear and results are of marginal effect sizes. Future studies should keep in mind the different types of IPC, their specific characteristics and possible effect mechanisms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study registration: Open Science Framework (DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2NYAX ); Date of registration: 09 November 2021.

Communication with patients with limited prognosis-an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study

PURPOSE

Oncological societies advocate the continuity of care, specialized communication, and early integration of palliative care. To comply with these recommendations, an interprofessional, longitudinally-structured communication concept, the Milestone Communication Approach (MCA), was previously developed, implemented, and evaluated. Our research question is: what are possible explanations from the patient perspective for prognosis and advance care planning being rarely a topic and for finding no differences between MCA and control groups concerning distress, quality of life, and mood?

METHODS

A pragmatic epistemological stance guided the study. A mixed-methods design was chosen including a pragmatic randomized trial (n = 171), qualitative interviews with patients (n = 13) and caregivers (n = 12), and a content analysis (133 milestone conversations, 54 follow-up calls). Data analysis involved the pillar integration process.

RESULTS

Two pillar themes emerged: 1 "approaching prognosis and advance care planning"; 2 "living with a life-threatening illness". Information on prognosis seemed to be offered, but patients' reactions were diverse. Some patients have to deal with having advanced lung cancer while nonetheless feeling healthy and seem not to be ready for prognostic information. All patients seemed to struggle to preserve their quality of life and keep distress under control.

CONCLUSION

Attending to patients' questions, worries and needs early in a disease trajectory seems key to helping patients adjust to living with lung cancer. If necessary clinicians should name their predicament: having to inform about prognosis versus respecting the patients wish to avoid it. Research should support better understanding of patients not wishing for prognostic information to successfully improve communication strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: German Clinical Trial Register No. DRKS00013649, registration date 12/22/2017, ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013649 ) and No. DRKS00013469, registration date 12/22/2017, ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013469 ).

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Factors related to implementation of an interprofessional communication concept in thoracic oncology: a mixed-methods study

Background

An innovative patient-centred interprofessional communication concept with advanced lung cancer patients (Heidelberg Milestone Communication Approach, MCA) has been developed and implemented. Role changes and interprofessional communication are challenging in a busy outpatient oncology service. The aim of the study was to present attitudes to interprofessional collaboration of professions in thoracic oncology during the implementation of MCA and to explore factors and experiences healthcare team members associate with its implementation.

Methods

In a longitudinal study, 3 of the 4 subscales of the validated German translation of the University of the West of England Interprofessional Questionnaire (UWE-IP-D) were collected prior to implementation of MCA (t0) with follow-up data collections at 4 months (t1), 10 months (t2) and 17 months (t3). Descriptive analysis included calculating subscale sum scores and categorizing each subscale into positive, neutral and negative attitudes. Interviews and focus groups on implementation and interprofessional collaboration in the context of MCA were conducted with healthcare staff. The topics were analysed deductively, guided by the Professional Interactions factor of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework.

Results

The survey with 87 staff (44 nurses, 13 physicians, 12 psycho-social staff, 7 therapists, and 11 others) participating at least once found heterogeneous attitudes. ‘Communication and Teamwork’ and ‘Interprofessional Relationships’ were characterized by primarily positive attitudes. Neutral attitudes to ‘Interprofessional Interaction’ were indicated by the majority of respondents. There were no differences between collection times. Fifteen staff members participated in the interviews and focus groups. The main interprofessional interaction factors associated with implementation concerned the knowledge of the MCA and the impact of the intervention on team roles, on information sharing and on transfer processes between wards. Adaptive processes led to a shift in the perception of responsibilities and interprofessional collaboration.

Conclusions

Positive experiences and potential shortfalls in the implementation were observed. Future introductions of interprofessional communication concepts require further activities which should address the attitudes of healthcare professionals towards interprofessional care.

Trial registration

DRKS00013469 / Date of registration: 22/12/2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-022-00977-6.