Unsolved problems and unwanted decision-making in the last year of life: A qualitative analysis of comments from bereaved caregivers

Caregiver Engagement in Serious Illness Communication in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Setting

CONTEXT

Prolonged management of critical illnesses in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACH) makes serious illness communication (SIC), a clinical imperative. SIC in LTACH is challenging as clinicians often lack training and patients are typically unable to participate-making caregivers central.

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative descriptive study characterized caregiver engagement in SIC encounters, while considering influencing factors, following the implementation of Ariadne Labs' SIC training at a LTACH in the Northeastern United States.

METHODS

Clinicians' documented SIC notes (2019-2020) were analyzed using directed content analysis. Codes were grouped into four categories generated from two factors that influence SIC-evidence of prognostic understanding (yes/no) and documented preferences (yes/no)-and caregiver engagement themes identified within each category.

RESULTS

Across 125 patient cases, 251 SIC notes were analyzed. In the presence of prognostic understanding and documented preferences, caregivers acted as upholders of patients' wishes (29%). With prognostic understanding but undocumented preferences, caregivers were postponers of healthcare decision-making (34%). When lacking prognostic understanding but having documented preferences, caregivers tended to be searchers, intent on identifying continued treatment options (13%). With poor prognostic understanding and undocumented preferences, caregivers were strugglers, having difficulty with the clinicians or family unit over healthcare decision-making (21%).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that two factors-prognostic understanding and documented preferences-are critical factors clinicians can leverage in tailoring SIC to meet caregivers' SIC needs in the LTACH setting. Such strategies shift attention away from SIC content alone toward factors that influence caregivers' ability to meaningfully engage in SIC to advance healthcare decision-making.

Specialist palliative care until the very end of life - reports of family caregivers and the multiprofessional team

BACKGROUND

Specialist palliative care (SPC) includes care for incurably ill patients and their family caregivers at home or on a palliative care ward until the very end of life. However, in the last days of life, patients can rarely express their needs and little is known about SPC outcomes as reported by multiprofessional SPC teams and family caregivers.

METHODS

Using the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS; Score 0-40), proxy assessments of SPC outcomes in the patient's last 3 days of life were performed by SPC teams and primary family caregivers of three home care and three inpatient services. Additional questions were asked about problems solved 'particularly well' or 'inadequately' (last 7 days), which were content analyzed and quantified.

RESULTS

Proxy assessments by SPC teams were available in 142 patients (of whom 51% had died at home). Family caregiver assessments exist for a subgroup of 60 of these patients. SPC teams (POS total score: mean 13.8, SD 6.3) reported SPC outcomes slightly better than family caregivers (mean 16.7, SD 6.8). The POS items consistently rated as least affected (= 0) by both, SPC teams and family caregivers, were 'not wasted time' (team 99%/family caregivers 87%), 'information' (84%/47%) and 'support' (53%/31%). Items rated as most affected (= 4) were 'patient anxiety' (31%/51%), 'life not worthwhile' (26%/35%) and 'no self-worth' (19%/30%). Both groups indicated more problems solved 'particularly well' than 'inadequately'; the latter concerned mainly clinically well-known challenges during end-of-life care and family caregiver care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the range and type of symptoms and other concerns reported in the patient's last days. Starting points for further improvements in family caregiver care and psychosocial and spiritual issues were identified.

Quality of care in the last year of life: adaptation and validation of the German “Views of Informal Carers’ Evaluation of Services – Last Year of Life – Cologne”

Background

To inform quality improvement and strengthen services provided in the last year of life, measuring quality of care is essential. For Germany, data on care experiences in the last year of life that go beyond diagnoses and care settings are still rare. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a German version of the ‘Views of Informal Carers’ Evaluation of Services – Short Form (VOICES-SF)’ suitable to assess the quality of care and services received across settings and healthcare providers in the German setting in the last year of life (VOICES-LYOL-Cologne).

Methods

VOICES-SF was adapted and translated following the ‘TRAPD’ team approach. Data collected in a retrospective cross-sectional survey with bereaved relatives in the region of Cologne, Germany were used to assess validity and reliability.

Results

Data from 351 bereaved relatives of adult decedents were analysed. The VOICES-LYOL-Cologne demonstrated construct validity in performing according to expected patterns, i.e. correlation of scores to care experiences and significant variability based on care settings. It further correlated with the PACIC-S9 Proxy, indicating good criterion validity. The newly added scale “subjective experiences of process and outcome of care in the last year of life” showed good internal consistency for each given care setting, except for the homecare setting. Test-retest analyses revealed no significant differences in satisfaction ratings according to the length of time since the patient’s death. Overall, our data demonstrated the feasibility of collecting patient care experiences reported by proxy-respondents across multiple care settings.

Conclusion

VOICES-LYOL-Cologne is the first German instrument to analyse care experiences in the last year of life in a comprehensive manner and encourages further research in German-speaking countries. This instrument enables the comparison of quality of care between settings and may be used to inform local and national quality improvement activities.

Trial registration

This study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00011925; Date of registration: 13/06/2017).