1
|
Mann A. 'To improve quality of life': Diverging enactments of a value in nephrology clinical practices. Health (London) 2024; 28:698-715. [PMID: 37772459 DOI: 10.1177/13634593231200128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/30/2023]
Abstract
Quality of life has become a central value in the provision of healthcare for patients with chronic conditions. This has engendered debates in critical medical sociology on the non-neutral effects that valuing health and illness, medical interventions, and health care delivery in terms of quality of life yields. Focusing on the case of nephrology, this paper presents qualitative data collected in Austria of two dialysis units in which nephrologists initiated projects aimed towards 'the improvement of patients' quality of life'. Whereas the first involved nurses supporting patients in the administration of peritoneal dialysis at home, the second implied the provision of treatment and care exclusively focused on a well-being 'in the here and now' to patients. By conceptualising physicians as actors within networks of relations and values enacted in practices, it analyses how in both dialysis units reference to quality of life enabled nephrologists to problematise the provision of standard haemodialysis treatment to multi-morbid, elderly patients, to develop a new treatment protocol, and to interest and enrol others in the provision of healthcare according this new protocol. Valuing medical interventions in terms of quality of life not only leads to a governmentalization of living and an economisation of health. It also allows physicians to articulate a socio-medico-ethical problem - the availability of life-prolonging technologies for a growing population of elderly, multi-morbid patients - and develop solutions locally. What the solutions consist in may fundamentally differ, however.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Mann
- University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mandhana DM, Jacome CS, Ballard DI, Tesfai Y, Johnson SB, Gionfriddo MR, Espinoza Suarez NR, Perneth SA, Su L, Montori VM. Developing and validating the Unhurried Conversations Assessment Tool (UCAT). PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2024; 123:108237. [PMID: 38461793 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108237] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2023] [Revised: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 02/29/2024] [Indexed: 03/12/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Given the importance of unhurried conversations for providing careful and kind care, we sought to create, test, and validate the Unhurried Conversations Assessment Tool (UCAT) for assessing the unhurriedness of patient-clinician consultations. METHODS In the first two phases, the unhurried conversation dimensions were identified and transformed into an assessment tool. In the third phase, two independent raters used UCAT to evaluate the unhurriedness of 100 randomly selected consultations from 184 videos recorded for a large research trial. UCAT's psychometric properties were evaluated using this data. RESULTS UCAT demonstrates content validity based on the literature and expert review. EFA and reliability analyses confirm its construct validity and internal consistency. The seven formative dimensions account for 89.93% of the variance in unhurriedness, each displaying excellent internal consistency (α > 0.90). Inter-rater agreement for the overall assessment item was fair (ICC = 0.59), with individual dimension ICCs ranging from 0.26 (poor) to 0.95 (excellent). CONCLUSION UCAT components comprehensively assess the unhurriedness of consultations. The tool exhibits content and construct validity and can be used reliably. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS UCAT's design and psychometric properties make it a practical and efficient tool. Clinicians can use it for self-evaluations and training to foster unhurried conversations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dron M Mandhana
- Department of Communication, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA; Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Cristian Soto Jacome
- Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Norwalk Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Nuvance Health, Norwalk, CT, USA
| | - Dawna I Ballard
- Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Communication Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| | - Yohanna Tesfai
- Department of Communication Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| | - Sarah B Johnson
- Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Michael R Gionfriddo
- Division of Pharmaceutical, Administrative, and Social Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Nataly R Espinoza Suarez
- Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; VITAM - Centre for Sustainable Health Research, Integrated University Health and Social Services Center of Capitale-Nationale, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Faculty of Nursing, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada
| | - Sandra Algarin Perneth
- Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Lillian Su
- Division of Cardiovascular Intensive Care Medicine, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Victor M Montori
- Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Eli K, Harlock J, Huxley CJ, Bernstein C, Mann C, Spencer R, Griffiths F, Slowther AM. Patient and relative experiences of the ReSPECT process in the community: an interview-based study. BMC PRIMARY CARE 2024; 25:115. [PMID: 38632508 PMCID: PMC11022317 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02283-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was launched in the UK in 2016. ReSPECT is designed to facilitate meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals, patients, and their relatives about preferences for treatment in future emergencies; however, no study has investigated patients' and relatives' experiences of ReSPECT in the community. OBJECTIVES To explore how patients and relatives in community settings experience the ReSPECT process and engage with the completed form. METHODS Patients who had a ReSPECT form were identified through general practice surgeries in three areas in England; either patients or their relatives (where patients lacked capacity) were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, focusing on the participants' understandings and experiences of the ReSPECT process and form. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS Thirteen interviews took place (six with patients, four with relatives, three with patient and relative pairs). Four themes were developed: (1) ReSPECT records a patient's wishes, but is entangled in wider relationships; (2) healthcare professionals' framings of ReSPECT influence patients' and relatives' experiences; (3) patients and relatives perceive ReSPECT as a do-not-resuscitate or end-of-life form; (4) patients' and relatives' relationships with the ReSPECT form as a material object vary widely. Patients valued the opportunity to express their wishes and conceptualised ReSPECT as a process of caring for themselves and for their family members' emotional wellbeing. Participants who described their ReSPECT experiences positively said healthcare professionals clearly explained the ReSPECT process and form, allocated sufficient time for an open discussion of patients' preferences, and provided empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations. In cases where participants said healthcare professionals did not provide clear explanations or did not engage them in a conversation, experiences ranged from confusion about the form and how it would be used to lingering feelings of worry, upset, or being burdened with responsibility. CONCLUSIONS When ReSPECT conversations involved an open discussion of patients' preferences, clear information about the ReSPECT process, and empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations, working with a healthcare professional to co-develop a record of treatment preferences and recommendations could be an empowering experience, providing patients and relatives with peace of mind.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karin Eli
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
| | - Jenny Harlock
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Caroline J Huxley
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Celia Bernstein
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Claire Mann
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Rachel Spencer
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Frances Griffiths
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Slowther
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Warner BE, Lound A, Grailey K, Vindrola-Padros C, Wells M, Brett SJ. Perspectives of healthcare professionals and older patients on shared decision-making for treatment escalation planning in the acute hospital setting: a systematic review and qualitative thematic synthesis. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 62:102144. [PMID: 37588625 PMCID: PMC10425683 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Revised: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Shared Decision-Making (SDM) between patients and clinicians is increasingly considered important. Treament Escalation Plans (TEP) are individualised documents outlining life-saving interventions to be considered in the event of clinical deterioration. SDM can inform subjective goals of care in TEP but it remains unclear how much it is considered beneficial by patients and clinicians. We aimed to synthesise the existing knowledge of clinician and older patient (generally aged ≥65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting. Methods Systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases as well as grey literature from database inception to June 8, 2023, using the Sample (older patients, clinicians, acute setting; studies relating to patients whose main diagnosis was cancer or single organ failure were excluded as these conditions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) tool. Primary data (published participant quotations, field notes, survey results) and descriptive author comments were extracted and qualitative thematic synthesis was performed to generate analytic themes. Quality assessment was made using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess overall confidence in each thematic finding according to methodology, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the contributing studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022361593. Findings Following duplicate exclusion there were 1916 studies screened and ultimately 13 studies were included, all from European and North American settings. Clinician-orientated themes were: treatment escalation is a medical decision (high confidence); clinicians want the best for their patients amidst uncertainty (high confidence); involving patients and families in decisions is not always meaningful and can involve conflict (high confidence); treatment escalation planning exists within the clinical environment, organisation and society (moderate confidence). Patient-orientated themes were: patients' relationships with Treatment Escalation Planning are complex (low confidence); interactions with doctors are important but communication is not always easy (moderate confidence); patients are highly aware of their families when considering TEP (moderate confidence). Interpretation Based on current evidence, TEP decisions appear dominated by clinicians' perspectives, motivated by achieving the best for patients and challenged by complex decisions, communication and environmental factors; older patients' perspectives have seldom been explored, but their input on decisions may be modest. Presenting the context and challenge of SDM during professional education may allow reflection and a more nuanced approach. Future research should seek to understand what approach to TEP decision-making patients and clinicians consider to be optimum in the acute setting so that a mutually acceptable standard can be defined in policy. Funding HCA International and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bronwen E. Warner
- Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Management and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK
| | - Adam Lound
- Patient Experience Research Centre, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Kate Grailey
- Centre for Health Policy, Institute for Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK
| | | | - Mary Wells
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Stephen J. Brett
- Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Management and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Eli K, Huxley CJ, Hawkes CA, Perkins GD, Slowther AM, Griffiths F. Why are some ReSPECT conversations left incomplete? A qualitative case study analysis. Resusc Plus 2022; 10:100255. [PMID: 35734306 PMCID: PMC9207560 DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2022] [Revised: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background As an emergency care and treatment planning process (ECTP), a key feature of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is the engagement of patients and/or their representatives in conversations about treatment options including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, qualitative research suggests that some ReSPECT conversations lead to partial or no decision-making about treatment recommendations. This paper explores why some ReSPECT conversations are left incomplete. Methods Drawing on observation and interview data collected in four National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England, this paper offers an in-depth exploration of six case studies in which ReSPECT conversations were incomplete. Using thematic analysis, we triangulate fieldnote data documenting these conversations with interview data in which the doctors who conducted these conversations shared their perceptions and reflected on their decision-making processes. Results We identified two themes, both focused on 'mismatch': (1) Mismatch between the doctor's clinical priorities and the patient's/family's immediate needs; and (2) mismatch between the doctor's conversation scripts, which included patient autonomy, the feasibility of CPR, and what medicine can and should do to prolong a patient's life, and the patient's/family's understandings of these concepts. Conclusions This case study analysis of six ReSPECT conversations found that mismatch between doctors' priorities and understandings and those of patients and/or their relatives led to incomplete ReSPECT conversations. Future research should explore methods to overcome these mismatches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karin Eli
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, UK
| | | | | | - Gavin D. Perkins
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, UK
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|