Breaking silence: a survey of barriers to goals of care discussions from the perspective of oncology practitioners

Fairness in Predicting Cancer Mortality Across Racial Subgroups

Importance

Machine learning has potential to transform cancer care by helping clinicians prioritize patients for serious illness conversations. However, models need to be evaluated for unequal performance across racial groups (ie, racial bias) so that existing racial disparities are not exacerbated.

Objective

To evaluate whether racial bias exists in a predictive machine learning model that identifies 180-day cancer mortality risk among patients with solid malignant tumors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, a machine learning model to predict cancer mortality for patients aged 21 years or older diagnosed with cancer between January 2016 and December 2021 was developed with a random forest algorithm using retrospective data from the Mount Sinai Health System cancer registry, Social Security Death Index, and electronic health records up to the date when databases were accessed for cohort extraction (February 2022).

Exposure

Race category.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were model discriminatory performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], F1 score) among each race category (Asian, Black, Native American, White, and other or unknown) and fairness metrics (equal opportunity, equalized odds, and disparate impact) among each pairwise comparison of race categories. True-positive rate ratios represented equal opportunity; both true-positive and false-positive rate ratios, equalized odds; and the percentage of predictive positive rate ratios, disparate impact. All metrics were estimated as a proportion or ratio, with variability captured through 95% CIs. The prespecified criterion for the model's clinical use was a threshold of at least 80% for fairness metrics across different racial groups to ensure the model's prediction would not be biased against any specific race.

Results

The test validation dataset included 43 274 patients with balanced demographics. Mean (SD) age was 64.09 (14.26) years, with 49.6% older than 65 years. A total of 53.3% were female; 9.5%, Asian; 18.9%, Black; 0.1%, Native American; 52.2%, White; and 19.2%, other or unknown race; 0.1% had missing race data. A total of 88.9% of patients were alive, and 11.1% were dead. The AUROCs, F1 scores, and fairness metrics maintained reasonable concordance among the racial subgroups: the AUROCs ranged from 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.78) for Asian patients and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.77) for Black patients to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.79) for patients with other or unknown race; F1 scores, from 0.32 (95% CI, 0.32-0.33) for White patients to 0.40 (95% CI, 0.39-0.42) for Black patients; equal opportunity ratios, from 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98) for Black patients compared with White patients to 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04) for Black patients compared with patients with other or unknown race; equalized odds ratios, from 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92) for Black patients compared with White patients to 1.16 (1.10-1.21) for Black patients compared with patients with other or unknown race; and disparate impact ratios, from 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89) for Black patients compared with White patients to 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.22) for Black patients compared with patients with other or unknown race.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, the lack of significant variation in performance or fairness metrics indicated an absence of racial bias, suggesting that the model fairly identified cancer mortality risk across racial groups. It remains essential to consistently review the model's application in clinical settings to ensure equitable patient care.

Development and perception of surgery-specific goals of care discussions in the preoperative setting: A learning pilot

BACKGROUND

Goals of care discussions are infrequently documented in the preoperative period. Furthermore, documentation does not consistently address what matters most to patients, although patient values (PV) are central to person-centered care.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group was formed. An electronic note comprised of (1) topics of discussion, (2) PV, and (3) advance care planning (ACP), was created and embedded into existing note templates for Gynecologic Surgical Oncology. Surgeons and advanced practice providers (APPs) were educated to conduct and document these conversations in preoperative clinic for patients undergoing cancer surgery for a pilot period. Data were collected regarding usage of the template. Focus groups with surgeons, APPs, and patients were conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed on transcripts.

RESULTS

During the pilot, 7 surgeon/APP teams utilized the template on a total of 55 notes. Average number of notes completed per surgeon was 7.8 (SD 8.5). Forty-six notes (84%) included topics of discussion, 15 (27%) included PV, 4 (7%) included ACP. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts revealed that clinicians and patients perceived the initiative to be useful and important, although implementation barriers were identified.

CONCLUSION

Creating a surgery-specific GOC template is feasible. Iterative revisions are needed to increase utility in clinic workflows.

Life Goal Domains, Traits, and Setting Process in the Collaboration between Healthcare Professionals and Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review

Objectives

: This study aimed to describe the classification of goal domains, goal traits, and the goal-setting process as revealed by previous life goal-setting practices of healthcare professionals collaborating with cancer survivors.

Methods

: The design was a scoping review. The MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, and CINAHL databases were searched and mapped for papers with descriptions of goal domains, goal traits, and the goal-setting process. Goal domains were classified as life goals that were health-related, psychological, social, achievement-related, and leisure goals. Goal traits were classified based on specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timed (SMART) criteria. The goal-setting process was classified based on the frameworks of goal-setting phases (preparation, formulation, follow-up) and their components.

Results

: In total, 229 papers were identified, and 24 papers were included in the final analysis. All papers included health-related goals, followed by psychological and social goals. All goal domains were included in 41.7% of the papers. Relevant goals were the most common and timed goals were the least common. All papers included either of the components that comprise the preparation or formulation phases. We found that 12.5% of papers did not include any of the three components of the follow-up phase.

Conclusions

: The life goals collaboratively set between cancer survivors and healthcare professionals were characterized by the following: psychological and social goal domains, numerous goal domains, more relevant goals and fewer timed goals, low proportion of patient education in the preparation phase, and high proportion of evaluation of progress or achievement in the follow-up phase.

The PACT Project: Feasibility of a Multidisciplinary, Multi-Faceted Intervention to Promote Goals of Care Conversations

BACKGROUND

Patients living with serious illness generally want their physicians to facilitate Goals of Care conversations (GoCc), yet physicians may lack time and skills to engage in these conversations in the outpatient setting. The problem may be addressed by supporting multiple members of the clinical team to facilitate GoCc with the patient while admitted to the hospital.

METHODS

A multi-modal training and mentored implementation program was developed. A group of 10 hospitals were recruited to participate. Each hospital selected a primary inpatient unit on which to start the intervention, then expanded to a secondary unit later in the project. The number of trained facilitators (champions) and the number of documented GoCc were tracked over time.

RESULTS

Nine of 10 hospitals completed the 3-year project. Most of the units were general medical-surgical units. Forty-eight champions were trained at the kick-off conference, attended primarily by nurses, physicians, and social workers. By the end of the project, 153 champions had been trained. A total of 51 087 patients were admitted to PACT units with 85.4% being screened for eligibility. Of the patients who were eligible, over 68% had documented GoCc.

CONCLUSION

A multifaceted quality improvement intervention focused on serious illness communication skills can support a diverse clinical workforce to facilitate inpatient GoCc over time.

Conducting Goals of Care Conversations: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: Internal medicine (IM) residents discuss a patient's goals of care (GOC) as part of their initial consultation. Residents have described inexperience, general discomfort, limited formal teaching, and prognostic uncertainty as barriers to effective GOC conversations. The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid changes to the healthcare system on the individual, patient, and systemic level that might exacerbate and/or introduce new barriers to IM residents' GOC conversations. This qualitative study examines how the early COVID-19 pandemic challenged IM residents' ability to have effective GOC conversations. Methods: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, participants (n=11) completed a semi-structured interview. Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously using an open coding, constant comparison process. Interviews were completed until no new themes were identified. Results: Residents self-described their GOC conversations in 5 steps: normalization of the conversation, introduction of expected clinical course, discussion of possible care plans, exploration of the patient's values, and occasionally providing a recommendation. Residents described limited structured teaching around GOC conversations and instead relied on observed role-modelling and self-practice to hone their skillset. Residents described an increased sense of urgency to have GOC conversations due to the uncertainty of clinical course and potential for rapid deterioration of patients with COVID-19. Residents identified restrictive visitor policies as a significant barrier that contributed to feelings of dehumanization. Residents felt that these limitations affected their GOC conversations and potentially resulted in discordant care plans which contributed to moral distress. Conclusion: The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in several barriers that challenged residents' ability to conduct effective GOC conversations. This is on the background of previously reported discomfort and limited formal training in conducting GOC conversations. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model involving teaching validated GOC frameworks, positive role-modelling, and experiential learning to support GOC conversation education in post-graduate medical education.

"Postponing it Any Later Would not be so Great": A Cognitive Interview Study of How Physicians Decide to Initiate Goals of Care Discussions in the Hospital

BACKGROUND

There are missed opportunities to discuss goals and preferences for care with seriously ill patients in the acute care setting. It is unknown which factors most influence clinician decision-making about communication at the point of care.

OBJECTIVE

This study utilized a cognitive-interviewing technique to better understand what leads clinicians to decide to have a goals of care (GOC) discussion in the acute care setting.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 15 oncologists, intensivists and hospitalists were recruited from a single academic medical center in a large urban area. Participants completed a cognitive interview describing their thought process when deciding whether to engage in GOC discussions in clinical vignettes.

RESULTS

6 interconnected factors emerged as important in determining how likely the physician was to consider engaging in GOC at that time; (1) the participants' mental model of GOC, (2) timing of GOC related to stability, acuity and reversibility of the patient's condition, (3) clinical factors such as uncertainty, prognosis and recency of diagnosis, (4) patient factors including age and emotional state, (5) participants' role on the care team, and (6) clinician factors such as emotion and communication skill level.

CONCLUSION

Participants were hesitant to commit to the present moment as the right time for GOC discussions based on variations in clinical presentation. Clinical decision support systems that include more targeted information about risk of clinical deterioration and likelihood of reversal of the acute condition may prompt physicians to discuss GOC, but more support for managing discomfort with uncertainty is also needed.

Barriers and facilitators that hospital clinicians perceive to discuss the personal values, wishes, and needs of patients in palliative care: a mixed-methods systematic review

Background

The exploration and monitoring of the personal values, wishes, and needs (VWN) of patients in the palliative phase by hospital clinicians is essential for guiding appropriate palliative care.

Objective

To explore the barriers and facilitators concerning communication with patients in the palliative phase about their VWN as perceived by hospital clinicians.

Design

A mixed-methods systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for mixed-method systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021216693).

Data sources and methods

Eight databases, including PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL, were searched without time restrictions. The search string was built using the search Palliative cAre Literature rEview iTeraTive mEthod (PALETTE) framework. Eligible studies focused on (1) hospital clinicians and (2) perceived barriers and facilitators regarding the exploration and monitoring of the VWN of adult patients in the palliative phase. Two researchers independently selected articles and evaluated the quality. Findings were synthesized using a convergent integrated approach.

Results

In total, 29 studies were included: 14 quantitative, 13 qualitative, and 2 mixed methods. Five synthesized findings were identified: (1) the clinician's professional manners, (2) the image formed of the patient and loved ones, (3) the human aspect of being a clinician, (4) the multidisciplinary collaboration, and (5) the contextual preconditions. Most studies seemed focused on communication about treatment decision making.

Conclusion

A patient-centered approach seems lacking when clinicians discuss the patient's VWN, since most studies focused on treatment decision making rather than on the exploration and monitoring of the multidimensional well-being of patients. This review emphasizes the need for the development and integration of a systematic approach to explore and monitor the patients' VWN to improve appropriate palliative care in hospitals.

Video Intervention and Goals-of-Care Documentation in Hospitalized Older Adults: The VIDEO-PCE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite the benefits of goals-of-care (GOC) communication, many hospitalized individuals never communicate their goals or preferences to clinicians.

Objective

To assess whether a GOC video intervention delivered by palliative care educators (PCEs) increased the rate of GOC documentation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial included patients aged 65 years or older admitted to 1 of 14 units at 2 urban hospitals in New York and Boston from July 1, 2021, to October 31, 2022.

Intervention

The intervention involved PCEs (social workers and nurses trained in GOC communication) facilitating GOC conversations with patients and/or their decision-makers using a library of brief, certified video decision aids available in 29 languages. Patients in the control period received usual care.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was GOC documentation, which included any documentation of a goals conversation, limitation of life-sustaining treatment, palliative care, hospice, or time-limited trials and was obtained by natural language processing.

Results

A total of 10 802 patients (mean [SD] age, 78 [8] years; 51.6% male) were admitted to 1 of 14 hospital units. Goals-of-care documentation during the intervention phase occurred among 3744 of 6023 patients (62.2%) compared with 2396 of 4779 patients (50.1%) in the usual care phase (P < .001). Proportions of documented GOC discussions for Black or African American individuals (865 of 1376 [62.9%] vs 596 of 1125 [53.0%]), Hispanic or Latino individuals (311 of 548 [56.8%] vs 218 of 451 [48.3%]), non-English speakers (586 of 1059 [55.3%] vs 405 of 863 [46.9%]), and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (520 of 681 [76.4%] vs 355 of 570 [62.3%]) were greater during the intervention phase compared with the usual care phase.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of older adults, a GOC video intervention delivered by PCEs resulted in higher rates of GOC documentation compared with usual care, including among Black or African American individuals, Hispanic or Latino individuals, non-English speakers, and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. The findings suggest that this form of patient-centered care delivery may be a beneficial decision support tool.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04857060.

Factors and Barriers to Goals-of-Care Conversations for Patients With Cancer and Inpatient Mortality

PURPOSE

Conversations about personal values and goals of care (GOC) at the end of life are essential in caring for patients with advanced cancer. However, GOC conversations may be influenced by patient and oncologist factors during transitions of care.

METHODS

We electronically administered surveys to medical oncologists of inpatients who died from May 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. Primary outcomes included oncologists' knowledge of inpatient death, anticipation of patient death, and recollection of GOC discussions. Secondary outcomes, including GOC documentation and advance directives (ADs), were collected retrospectively from electronic health records. Outcomes were analyzed for association with patient, oncologist, and patient-oncologist relationship factors.

RESULTS

For 75 patients who died, 104/158 (66%) surveys were completed by 40 inpatient and 64 outpatient oncologists. Eighty-one oncologists (77.9%) were aware of patients' deaths, 68 (65.4%) anticipated patients' deaths within 6 months, and 67 (64.4%) recalled having GOC discussions before or during the terminal hospitalization. Outpatient oncologists were more likely to report knowledge of patient death (P < .001), as were those with longer therapeutic relationships (P < .001). Inpatient oncologists were more likely to correctly anticipate patient death (P = .014). Secondary outcomes revealed 21.3% of patients had documented GOC discussions before admission and 33.3% had ADs; patients with a longer duration of cancer diagnosis were more likely to have ADs (P = .003). Oncologist-reported barriers to GOC included unrealistic expectations from patients or family (25%) and decreased patient participation because of clinical conditions (15%).

CONCLUSION

Most oncologists recalled having GOC discussions for patients with inpatient mortality, yet documentation of serious illness conversations remained suboptimal. Further studies are needed to examine barriers to GOC conversations and documentation during transitions of care and across health care settings.

Silent Conversations: Goals of Care and End-of-Life Quality in Relapsed High-Risk Leukemia

Background

Advanced practice providers (APPs) affect high-quality health care through leadership, evidence-based practice implementation, and quality improvement projects. When planning solutions to clinical problems, leadership must solicit APP input to promote success. Hematology patients are more likely to receive poor-quality end-of-life (EOL) care than those with solid tumors. Regardless of disease, aggressive EOL care is increasing despite evidence that it is often inconsistent with patients' goals of care (GOC). Data regarding this phenomenon in hematology specifically is lacking. The distorted association of "end of life" with "goals of care" has "silenced" crucial goals discussions in patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk leukemia, which raises concerns for the provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values and preferences. Hematologists may possess certain traits and distinct barriers leading to what one might call an aversion to GOC discussions in the inpatient setting.

Aims

(1) Quantify hematologists' rate of participation in a GOC pathway initiative during two separate months. (2) Explore the hematologists' definition of and barriers to having GOC discussions.

Design

This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design (follow-up explanations variant).

Sample

Quantitative: Hematology inpatient admissions during two nonconsecutive months in 2021. Qualitative: Eighteen leukemia hematologists from one dedicated cancer center.

Results

During the 2 months, an average of 36% of admissions met the criteria for GOC pathway initiation, 19% of those had an appropriate initiation order, and < 1% had a properly documented and billed GOC discussion. Nine hematologists responded to a SurveyMonkey poll with two questions. All nine included clinical situation and communication in their definition of GOC discussions. Time limitations and prognostic uncertainty were the two most reported barriers.

Discussion

The findings demonstrate that the apprehension of hematologists to have GOC conversations is similarly seen in the APPs' reluctance to initiate a pathway intended to lead to GOC conversations. The percentage of eligible inpatient admissions meeting the specified criteria was similar between the 2 months; however, the number of appropriate referrals and documented or billed GOC discussions was higher in the earlier month, demonstrating temporal decline. Further research inquiry is needed to explore causation of this phenomenon.

Surgeon-reported Factors Influencing Adoption of Quality Standards for Goal-concordant Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

This study explored surgical oncologists' perspectives on factors influencing adoption of quality standards in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program includes communication standards designed to facilitate goal-concordant care, yet little is known about how surgeons believe these standards align with clinical practice.

METHODS

Semistructured video-based interviews were conducted from November 2020 to January 2021 with academic surgical oncologists purposively sampled based on demographics, region, palliative care certification, and years in practice. Interviews addressed: (1) adherence to standards documenting care preferences for life-sustaining treatment, surrogate decision-maker, and goals of surgery; and (2) factors influencing their adoption into practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, qualitatively analyzed, and conducted until thematic saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Twenty-six surgeons participated (57.7% male, 8.5 mean years in practice, 19.2% palliative care board-certified). Surgeons reported low adherence to documenting care preferences and surrogate decision-maker and high adherence to discussing, but not documenting, goals of surgery. Participants held conflicting views about the relevance of care preferences to preoperative conversations and surrogate decision-maker documentation by the surgeon and questioned the direct connection between documentation of quality standards and higher value patient care. Key themes regarding factors influencing adoption of quality standards included organizational culture, workflow, and multidisciplinary collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgeons routinely discuss goals of surgery, documentation is inconsistent; care preferences and surrogate decision-makers are rarely discussed or documented. Adherence to these standards would be facilitated by multidisciplinary collaboration, institutional standardization, and evidence linking standards to higher value care.

Cancer clinical trial providers' perspectives on communicating goals of care: A key informant study

Objectives

There has been limited research to date exploring provider communication in the context of cancer clinical trials. To elucidate multidisciplinary care providers' experiences, this qualitative study sought to understand their perspectives and communication patterns around goals of care discussions with patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials.

Methods

Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, chaplains, nurses, and administrative staff in a cancer research hospital (N=19). Data were analyzed and interpreted using thematic analysis.

Results

Providers hold varied perspectives on goals of care in cancer clinical trials, highlighting the tension and potential for misalignment between scientific and clinical (patient-centered) goals. Inherent institutional hierarchies may impede some team members from initiating goal discussions. Care transitions (e.g., stopping treatment or initiating hospice) offer critical opportunities for goals of care discussions.

Conclusion

Conflicting perspectives among team members, perceptions of provider roles, and communication patterns could help explain some of the communication challenges previously documented in advanced cancer and clinical trial care.

Innovation

This qualitative study contributes to the literature on healthcare team communication in the clinical trial context and highlights tangible opportunities to better leverage providers' diverse experience and improve patient-centered care.

Benefits of Structured Advance Care Plan in end-of-Life Care Planning among Older Oncology Patients: A Retrospective Pilot Study

Objectives: Studies suggest that advance care planning (ACP) results in improved quality of life and reduced healthcare consumption. We assessed how the use of a structured advance care planning tool (ACPT) in oncology patients relates to their healthcare consumption before death, and to the match between preferred and actual place of death. Methods: We performed a pilot study at a teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Endpoints were 1) healthcare consumption at three and one month(s) before death, and 2) the match between preferred and actual place of death. Results: The study included 75 patients without an ACPT (group 1) and 59 patients with an ACPT (group 2) of whom the preferred place of care or death were documented at least three months before death in 15 patients (subgroup 2b). Compared to group 1, patients in group 2 had significantly more healthcare consumption. However, compared to group 1, patients in subgroup 2b underwent significantly less diagnostic (33.3% (n  =  5) versus 69.3% (n  =  52), p < 0.05) and laboratory tests (33.3% (n  =  5) versus 62.7% (n  =  47), p < 0.05) one month before death. Patients in subgroup 2b died at their preferred place more often (76.9%, n  =  10) compared to patients in group 1 (58.3%, n  =  7) (NS), which meant more deaths at home and less in-hospital-deaths. Conclusions: The results suggest that timely documentation of the preferred place of care or death in a structured ACPT may result in less healthcare consumption and a better match between the preferred and actual place of death.

Association between immigrant status and advanced cancer patients' location and quality of death

Background

Cancer patients often prefer to die at home, a location associated with better quality of death (QoD). Several studies demonstrate disparities in end‐of‐life care among immigrant populations in the United States. This study aimed to evaluate how immigrant status affects location and quality of death among patients with advanced cancer in the United States.

Methods

Data were derived from Coping with Cancer, a federally funded multi‐site prospective study of advanced cancer patients and caregivers. The sample of patients who died during the study period was weighted (N_w = 308) to reduce statistically significant differences between immigrant (N_w = 49) and nonimmigrant (N_w = 259) study participants. Primary outcomes were location of death, death at preferred location, and poor QoD.

Results

Analyses adjusted for covariates indicated that patients who were immigrants were more likely to die in a hospital than home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65–6.71) and less likely to die where they preferred (AOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20–0.90). Furthermore, immigrants were more likely to have poor QoD (AOR, 5.47; 95% CI, 2.70–11.08).

Conclusions

Immigrants, as compared to nonimmigrants, are more likely to die in hospital settings, less likely to die at their preferred location, and more likely to have poor QoD.

Lay summary

Cancer patients typically prefer to die in their own homes, which is associated with improved quality of death.

However, disparities in end‐of‐life care among immigrant populations in the United States remain significant.

Our study found that immigrants are less likely to die in their preferred locations and more likely to die in hospital settings, resulting in poorer quality of death.

Disparities in end‐of‐life care and quality of death are prevalent among immigrants. The findings of this study illustrate that immigrants in the United States are more likely to die in hospital settings and less likely to die at their preferred location.

Linguistic barriers in communication between oncologists and cancer patients with migration background in Germany: an explorative analysis based on the perspective of the oncologists from the mixed-methods study POM

OBJECTIVE

We aimed at investigating the predictors of linguistic barriers among office-based haemato-oncologists during consultation with migrant cancer patients in Germany.

METHODS

Physicians from haemato-oncological practices were invited to participate in a cross-sectional study. Linguistic barriers and family factors were ascertained using a newly developed online-questionnaire with the scales "Overall linguistic barriers", "Self-perceived linguistic barriers" and "Family factors - antagonistic behaviour". Predictors of linguistic barriers were identified using multivariate ANOVA via step-wise backwards selection.

RESULTS

Fifty-five physicians participated in the study. Treating patients from Sub-Saharan Africa predicted higher overall and self-perceived linguistic barriers (F [2,46] = 4.51, p = .04; and F [3,45] = 5.44, p = .02, respectively). Working in an single practice (F [3,45] = 4.19; p = .05) predicted higher self-perceived linguistic barriers. Employees who could act as translators predicted lower barriers in form of antagonistic behaviour from relatives (F [2,48] = 6.12; p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that linguistic barriers are affected by the level of linguistic concordance between patients and medical personnel. A temporary solution might be the presence of linguistically competent personnel in the practice. However, the results of this study highlight the need for greater availability of linguistic competent translators for consultations in haemato-oncological practices.

Changing Rates of Goals of Care Designations in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer During a Multifactorial Advanced Care Planning Initiative: A Real-World Evidence Study

PURPOSE

Goals of care (GoC) designations are an important part of advanced care planning (ACP) for patients with incurable cancers. Studies of outpatient oncology records show that most patients do not have GoC documented. We performed a retrospective analysis of changes in GoC designations in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in Northern Alberta, Canada, during a system-wide ACP quality improvement initiative.

METHODS

Four hundred seventy-one patients with newly diagnosis of advanced, non-neuroendocrine pancreatic cancer between 2010 and 2015 in Northern Alberta, Canada, were included. The ACP initiation launched April 2014, and included educational materials for patients and families, and a coded system of GoC designations describing care philosophies and preferences for resuscitation and medical interventions. Data sources included the Alberta Cancer Registry and oncology-specific electronic medical records.

RESULTS

25.5% of patients had a documented GoC, which increased over the study period (Mantel-Haenszel test-of-trend P < .001; increased from 7.8% in 2010 to 50.0% in 2015). GoC designations occurred later in patients who received palliative chemotherapy versus those who did not (median 130 days from diagnosis [95% CI, 76.019 to 183.981] v 36 days [95% CI, 28.107 to 43.893]; P < .001), and coincided with the end of treatment (median 4.5 days from last treatment). 64.8% of GoC designations were documented by palliative care physicians, but the proportion documented by medical oncologists increased with time (Mantel-Haenszel test-of-trend P = .020; increased from 0% in 2010 to 52.1% in 2015).

CONCLUSION

GoC documentation increased in the outpatient records of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer during the system-wide, multifactorial ACP initiative. GoC documentation by medical oncologists also increased. These data provide real-world evidence supporting the impact of a specific ACP initiative to improve rates of GoC designation in patients with advanced cancer.

Goals of care communication and higher-value care for patients with advanced-stage cancer: A systematic review of the evidence

CONTEXT

Goals-of-care communication (GOCC) is recommended to increase the value of cancer care near the end of life (EOL).

OBJECTIVES

Conduct a systematic review of the evidence that GOCC is associated with higher-value care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMB Reviews, CINAHL, and PsycInfo from inception to July 2019. We analyzed the population,design, and results and the authors' definitions of GOCC. Risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were selected. Ten articles reported results from 8 interventions; 17 characterized participants' perspectives; and 5 were retrospective The topics, behaviors, timing, and anticipated outcomes of GOCC varied significantly and were indistinguishable from practices such as advance care planning. GOCC typically focused on treatment outcomes rather than patients' goals. Four of 5 interventions increased evidence of GOCC after clinician training. Only one reported improved patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

No consensus exists about what GOCC entails. There is limited evidence that GOCC increases the value of EOL care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future studies should focus on how to engage patients in conversations about their personal goals and integrate their goals into care planning. Clinicians can encourage GOCC by explaining how patients' goals influence decisions especially as treatment options become limited.

Barriers and facilitators for shared decision-making in oncology inpatient practice: an explorative study of the healthcare providers' perspective

BACKGROUND

In cancer care, shared decision-making (SDM) is especially relevant as different treatment options have a different impact on prognosis and patients' quality of life. However, evidence suggests that SDM is not routinely practiced. Furthermore, literature is mostly focussed on the outpatient setting. This study explored healthcare providers' perspectives on SDM for oncology inpatients and identified barriers and facilitators.

METHOD

In this qualitative study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were held with five nurses, eleven residents, four oncologists, and two healthcare managers caring for oncology inpatients of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden hospital.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals do not always clearly state when a decision is required. On a patient level, comprehension barriers, language barrier, and distraction by emotions or sickness are recognized as barriers for adequate patient's communication. On a healthcare professional level, having awareness to inform about choices, being able to transfer this information, connecting to the patient, having substantial experience, and a good patient-physician relationship were facilitators. On an organizational, level, time, private rooms, continuity in care, and suboptimal use of the electronic health record were barriers.

CONCLUSION

While SDM is recognized and valued, its implementation is inconsistent. Addressing the several barriers found and optimizing the facilitators is imperative. A start could be by raising awareness for SDM in the inpatient setting, adding SDM as part of the care pathway, stating to patients when a decision is required, reporting on the SDM process in the electronic health record, and describing the nurses' role in SDM.

Portable Medical Orders and End of Life Measures in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Patients with AML or MDS often receive high-intensity care near EOL, including admission to the hospital/ICU and life-sustaining treatments.

Completion of a portable medical order form >30 days before death was associated with lower intensity care near the end of life.

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or a myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) experience high rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital death at the end of life. Early goals-of-care (GOC) discussions may reduce the intensity of end-of-life (EOL) care. Portable Medical Order forms, known as Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) forms in New York state, assist patients in translating GOC discussions into specific medical orders that communicate their wishes during a medical emergency. To determine whether the timing of completion of a MOLST form is associated with EOL care in patients with AML or MDS, we conducted a retrospective study of 358 adult patients with AML or MDS treated at a single academic center and its affiliated sites, who died during a 5-year period. One-third of patients completed at least 1 MOLST form >30 days before death. Compared with patients who completed a MOLST form within 30 days of death or never, those who completed a MOLST form >30 days before death were less likely to receive transfusion (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; P < .01), chemotherapy (AOR, 0.24; P < .01), or life-sustaining treatments (AOR, 0.21; P < .01) or to be admitted to the ICU (AOR, 0.21; P < .01) at EOL. They were also more likely to use hospice services (AOR, 2.72; P < .01). Earlier MOLST form completion was associated with lower intensity of care near EOL in patients with MDS or AML.

Perspectives on Advance Care Planning for Patients with Hematologic Malignancy: An International Clinician Questionnaire

Rationale: Critical illness is common in patients with hematologic malignancy (HM). Advance care planning (ACP) can allow these patients to express their care preferences before life-threatening illnesses. Objectives: To evaluate physicians' perspectives surrounding ACP in patients with HM. Methods: We administered a survey to intensivists and hematologic oncologists who care for patients with HM across Canada and the United Kingdom. Potential respondents were identified from institutions that have a hematologic-oncology program. The survey was disseminated electronically. Results: A total of 111 physicians completed the survey, with a response rate of 19% (39% across those who opened the e-mail); 52% of respondents were intensivists, and 48% of respondents were hematologic oncologists. Of the responses, 15.5% of physicians reported that ACP happens routinely at their institution, whereas 8.3% of physicians stated that code status is routinely discussed. ACP discussions were most commonly reported at the onset of critical illness (84.3% of respondents), during disease recurrence (52.9% of respondents), or during the transition to a strictly palliative approach (54.9% of respondents). Commonly cited barriers to ACP centered on physicians' concern about the reaction of the patient or family. Conclusions: This study emphasizes the need for earlier and more frequent ACP discussions in this high-risk population with a variety of barriers identified.

Goals of Care Discussions Over the Course of a Patient's End of Life Admission: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

As deaths in hospitals increase, clear discussions regarding resuscitation status and treatment limitations, referred to as goals of care (GOC), are vital. GOC may need revision as disease and patient priorities change over time. There is limited data about who is involved in GOC discussions, and how this changes as patients deteriorate in hospital.

AIMS

To review the timing and clinicians involved in GOC discussions for a cohort of patients who died in hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective observational audit of 80 consecutive end of life admissions between March 11th and April 9th, 2019.

RESULTS

Of 80 patients, 75 (93.6%) had GOC recorded during their admission, about half for ward-based non-burdensome symptom management or end-of-life care. GOC were revised in 68.0% of cases. Medical staff involved in initial versus final GOC discussions included home team junior doctor (54.7% versus 72.5%), home team consultant (37.3% versus 56.9%) and ICU doctor (16.0% versus 21.6%). For initial versus final GOC decisions, patients were involved in 34.7% versus 31.4%, and family in 53.3% versus 86.3%. Dying was documented for 92.0% of patients and this was documented to have been communicated to the family and patient in 98.6% and 19.5% of cases respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

As patients deteriorated, family and senior clinician involvement in GOC discussions increased, but patient involvement did not. Junior doctors were most heavily involved in discussions. We advocate for further GOC training and modeling to enhance junior doctors' confidence and competence in conducting and involving patients and families in GOC conversations.

Efficacy of an Online Curriculum for Perioperative Goals of Care and Code Status Discussions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Preoperative goals of care (GOC) and code status (CS) discussions are important in achieving an in-depth understanding of the patient's care goals in the setting of a serious illness, enabling the clinician to ensure patient autonomy and shared decision making. Past studies have shown that anesthesiologists are not formally trained in leading these discussions and may lack the necessary skill set. We created an innovative online video curriculum designed to teach these skills. This curriculum was compared to a traditional method of learning from reading the medical literature.

METHODS

In this bi-institutional randomized controlled trial at 2 major academic medical centers, 60 anesthesiology trainees were randomized to receive the educational content in 1 of 2 formats: (1) the novel video curriculum (video group) or (2) journal articles (reading group). Thirty residents were assigned to the experimental video curriculum group, and 30 were assigned to the reading group. The content incorporated into the 2 formats focused on general preoperative evaluation of patients and communication strategies pertaining to GOC and CS discussions. Residents in both groups underwent a pre- and postintervention objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with standardized patients. Both OSCEs were scored using the same 24-point rubric. Score changes between the 2 OSCEs were examined using linear regression, and interrater reliability was assessed using weighted Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Residents receiving the video curriculum performed significantly better overall on the OSCE encounter, with a mean score of 4.19 compared to 3.79 in the reading group. The video curriculum group also demonstrated statistically significant increased scores on 8 of 24 rubric categories when compared to the reading group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel video curriculum led to significant increases in resident performance during simulated GOC discussions and modest increases during CS discussions. Further development and refinement of this curriculum are warranted.

The Quality of End-of-Life Care for Women Deceased From Metastatic Breast Cancer

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) carries unique disease burdens with potential for poor-quality end-of-life (EOL) care. It is the purpose of this article to explore the association of poor-quality EOL care indicators according to key tumor, demographic, social, and clinical factors. End-of-life quality indicators were based on Emanuel and Emanuel's good death model in conjunction with Earle et al (2003). A single-institution retrospective chart review of women deceased from MBC between November 2016 and November 2019 with double-verification chart review was completed. Data were analyzed with descriptive, correlative, and comparative statistics. Total sample was N = 167 women, with 14.4% (n = 24) Black and 85.6% (n = 143) White. Mean (SD) age was 55.3 (11.73) years. Overall, MBC survival was 3.12 years (SD, 3.31): White women, 41.2 months (3.4 years), and Black women, 19 months (1.6 years). A total of 64.1% (n = 107) experienced 1 or more indicators of poor-quality EOL care. Patients more likely to experience poor-quality EOL care were older (P = .03), estrogen negative (P = .08), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (P = .07), from more deprived neighborhoods (P = .02), married (P = .05), and with physical (P = .001) and mental (P = .002) comorbidities. Understanding sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with poor EOL MBC care may be useful for proactive patient navigation.

Goals of care discussions: perceptions of radiation and medical oncologists

BACKGROUND

Goals of care discussions (GOCD) are essential when counseling patients with cancer. Respective roles of radiation oncologists (RO) and medical oncologists (MO) in GOCD can be unclear. This study aims to clarify the dynamics and barriers to GOCD.

METHODS

Five hundred and fifty-four ROs and 1604 MOs at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers were sent an anonymous electronic survey regarding demographics, opinions, training in GOCD, GOCD frequency, and three vignettes. Response formats were Yes/No, Likert-type, and free response. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Likert-type scores were reported as median [interquartile range].

RESULTS

There were 76 (13.7%) RO and 153 (9.5%) MO who completed surveys. Sixty-three percent of RO and 66% of MO reported GOCD with > 50% of patients (p = 0.90). GOCD were initiated for declining performance status (74%) and poor life expectancy (69%). More MO (42%) received formal GOCD training compared to RO (18%) (p < 0.01). MO were more comfortable conducting GOCD than RO (p < 0.01). RO-conducted GOCD were rated to be less important by MO compared to RO (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of MO reported being "not at all" or "somewhat" comfortable with RO-conducted GOCD. RO-initiated GOCD with new patients were rated less appropriate by RO compared to MO perceptions of RO-initiated GOCD (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

While MO and RO conduct GOCD with similar frequency, MO are more comfortable conducting GOCD and are more likely to have formal training. MO rate importance of RO involvement lower than RO. Further research is needed to understand interdisciplinary dynamics that may impact GOCD and subsequent patient care outcomes.

Outcomes of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest in adult patients with metastatic solid cancers: A Nationwide Inpatient Sample database analysis from 2012 to 2014

BACKGROUND

Cardiopulmonary arrest is known to have a poor prognosis, further worsened by preexisting comorbidities. With improved treatment, the prevalence of metastatic cancers is rapidly increasing; however, the outcomes of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ICPR) remain to be well described. This study examines the epidemiology, associations, and outcomes of ICPR in these patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2012-2014) including patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic cancers. Primary outcome was inpatient mortality following ICPR. Factors associated with the primary outcome were analyzed using univariate/multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among all admissions with metastatic cancers (n = 5,500,684), 0.47% (n = 26,070) received ICPR. Inpatient mortality was 81.77% (n = 8905) versus 68.90% among those without metastatic solid cancers and receiving ICPR. Inpatient palliative care encounter was documented in 18.95% of patients with metastatic cancer who received ICPR. On multivariate logistic regression, some of the notable factors associated with higher mortality included being of African American or Hispanic race and hospital admission over the weekend. Factors associated with lower mortality included female sex, elective admission, and head and neck as the primary site. Admissions with ICPR were associated with higher mean total charge of hospitalization (by $48,670) compared with admissions without ICPR. Of those who survived ICPR, 43.82% were transferred to another facility after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult patients with metastatic solid cancers having ICPR, 81.8% died within the same hospital admission. Race and admission type predicted mortality. Despite known poor prognosis, only a minority had palliative care.

LAY SUMMARY

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation during hospitalization for patients who have metastatic cancer has a very poor outcome with a mortality rate of 81.77%. Inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation in these patients is also associated with a significantly higher cost of care, longer length of stay, and high rate of transfer to a different health care facility upon discharge. Knowledge of these outcomes is helpful in discussing the pros and cons of pursuing aggressive resuscitative interventions with patients and families.

Association between strong patient-oncologist agreement regarding goals of care and aggressive care at end-of-life for patients with advanced cancer

INTRODUCTION

The ability of oncologists to understand patients' goals of care is recognized as a key component of quality care. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of patient-oncologist agreement regarding goals of care upon aggressive care at end of life (EOL) for patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists were interviewed at study enrollment and every 3 months thereafter until patient death or end of the study period (15 months). A 100-point visual analogue scale was used to represent goals of care, with quality of life (scored as 0) and survival (scored as 100) as anchors. Strong goal of care agreement for survival was defined as oncologist and patient dyadic goal of care scores that fell between 70 and 100 (100 = highest goal for survival) and for comfort, dyadic goal of care values that fell between 0 and 30 (0 = high goal for comfort).

RESULTS

Two hundred and six patients and eleven oncologists provided data. At the last interview prior to death, 23.3% of dyads had strong goal of care agreement for either survival (8.3%) or comfort (15%) and 76.7% had no strong agreement. There was a significant association between aggressive care use and categories of dyadic agreement regarding goals of care (p = 0.024, Cramer's V = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

A large percentage of oncologists did not understand their patients' EOL goals of care. While aggressive care aligned with categories of dyadic agreement for goals of care, high rates of aggressive care were reported.

The hospital care of patients with cancer: a retrospective analysis of the characteristics of their hospital stay in comparison with other medical conditions

PURPOSE

Hospital admission is a frequent occurrence among patients with cancer, and a significant proportion of patients admitted to medical units have cancer. Their hospital stay has features that may be different compared with patients without cancer. We performed a retrospective analysis of the characteristics of patients with cancer admitted for medical conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied the administrative data of patients with solid cancer admitted to the medical department of a large referral hospital over a 12-month period and compared them with those of patients without cancer.

RESULTS

Seven thousand eight hundred two consecutive admissions were analysed, of which 1099 (14.1%) had a principal or associated diagnosis of cancer. Admissions were distributed across 12 units, with 44% concentrated in the medical oncology unit and 56% in other units. Patients with cancer were more frequently men and were younger than patients without cancer. Admission less frequently involved the emergency department (ED), while discharge was more frequently assisted. The in-hospital death rate was higher, as was the readmission rate. Length of stay was longer (11.3 days vs. 9.8 days; p < 0.0001). Patients with cancer admitted to the medical oncology unit used the ED even less, and their length of stay was shorter than that of patients with cancer admitted in other units.

CONCLUSIONS

The in-hospital pathway of patients with cancer displays specific issues and adds complexity to hospital stay of patients with medical conditions. The medical oncology unit plays a role in reducing ED use and in providing efficient care. The evidence gathered should help in shaping new models of care and in improving adequate clinical competencies.

Advance Care Planning in Cancer: Patient Preferences for Personnel and Timing

PURPOSE:

Opportunities for advance care planning (ACP) discussions continue to be missed despite the demonstrated benefit of such conversations. This is in part because of a poor understanding of patient preferences. We aimed to determine oncology patients’ preferences surrounding ACP with a focus on the choice of which health care providers to have the conversation with and the timing of conversations.

METHODS:

A cross-sectional 19-question survey of surgical and medical oncology patients in a tertiary care hospital was conducted that assessed knowledge, experience, and preferences surrounding ACP. Quantitative variables were reported with descriptive statistics, and a coding structure was developed to analyze qualitative data.

RESULTS:

Two hundred patients were surveyed. Only 24% of patients reported previously having ACP discussions with their physicians despite 82.5% reporting a wish to do so. Patients felt that these discussions were a priority for them (to alleviate familial guilt, maintain control, and prevent others’ values from guiding end-of-life care), but they reported that previous experiences with ACP had been neither comprehensive nor effective. Most patients (43.5%) preferred to have ACP discussions with their primary care providers (PCPs) compared with 7% preferring their surgeon and 5.5% preferring their oncologist. Trust and familiarity with PCPs arose as the dominant theme underlying this selection. Most patients (94%) preferred to have ACP discussions early, with 45% wishing such a discussion had been initiated before their cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSION:

Patients with cancer prefer to have ACP discussions with their PCPs and prefer to do so early in their disease course.

A stepped-wedge randomised-controlled trial assessing the implementation, impact and costs of a prospective feedback loop to promote appropriate care and treatment for older patients in acute hospitals at the end of life: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Hospitalisation rates for the older population have been increasing with end-of-life care becoming a more medicalised and costly experience. There is evidence that some of these patients received non-beneficial treatment during their final hospitalisation with a third of the non-beneficial treatment duration spent in intensive care units. This study aims to increase appropriate care and treatment decisions and pathways for older patients at the end of life in Australia. This study will implement and evaluate a prospective feedback loop and tailored clinical response intervention at three hospitals in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted with up to 21 clinical teams in three acute hospitals over 70 weeks. The study involves clinical teams providing care to patients aged 75 years or older, who are prospectively identified to be at risk of non-beneficial treatment using two validated tools for detecting death and deterioration risks. The intervention's feedback loop will provide the teams with a summary of these patients' risk profiles as a stimulus for a tailored clinical response in the intervention phase. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will be used to inform the intervention's implementation and process evaluation. The study will determine the impact of the intervention on patient outcomes related to appropriate care and treatment at the end of life in hospitals, as well as the associated healthcare resource use and costs. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who are admitted to intensive care units. A process evaluation will be carried out to assess the implementation, mechanisms of impact, and contextual barriers and enablers of the intervention.

DISCUSSION

This intervention is expected to have a positive impact on the care of older patients near the end of life, specifically to improve clinical decision-making about treatment pathways and what constitutes appropriate care for these patients. These will reduce the incidence of non-beneficial treatment, and improve the efficiency of hospital resources and quality of care. The process evaluation results will be useful to inform subsequent intervention implementation at other hospitals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12619000675123p (approved 6 May 2019).

The perception of people with cancer of starting a conversation about palliative care: A qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

Communication and patient-centred care are important determinants for timely initiation of palliative care. Therefore, we aimed to understand and explain the behaviour "starting a conversation about palliative care with a professional carer" from the perspective of people with incurable cancer.

METHODS

A qualitative study using semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 25 people with incurable cancer: 13 not (yet) receiving palliative care and 12 receiving palliative care; 4 started the conversation themselves. Determinants related to the defined behaviour were matched with concepts in existing behavioural theories.

RESULTS

Both positive and negative stances towards starting a conversation about palliative care with a professional carer were found. Influencing behavioural factors were identified, such as knowledge (e.g. about palliative care), attitude (e.g. association of palliative care with quality of life) and social influence (e.g. relationship with the professional carer). We modelled the determinants into a behavioural model.

CONCLUSION

The behavioural model developed helps to explain why people with incurable cancer do or do not start a conversation about palliative care with their professional carer. By targeting the modifiable determinants of the model, promising interventions can be developed to help patients taken the initiative in communication about palliative care with a professional carer.

Prognosticating for Adult Patients With Advanced Incurable Cancer: a Needed Oncologist Skill

Patients with advanced cancer and their families commonly seek information about prognosis to aid decision-making in medical (e.g. surrounding treatment), psychological (e.g. saying goodbye), and social (e.g. getting affairs in order) domains. Oncologists therefore have a responsibility to identify and address these requests by formulating and sensitively communicating information about prognosis. Current evidence suggests that clinician predictions are correlated with actual survival but tend to be overestimations. In an attempt to cultivate prognostic skills, it is recommended that clinicians practice formulating and recording subjective estimates of prognosis in advanced cancer patient’s medical notes. When possible, a multi-professional prognostic estimate should be sought as these may be more accurate than individual predictions alone. Clinicians may consider auditing the accuracy of their predictions periodically and using feedback from this process to improve their prognostic skills.

Clinicians may also consider using validated prognostic tools to complement their clinical judgements. However, there is currently only limited evidence about the comparative accuracy of different prognostic tools or the extent to which these measures are superior to clinical judgement. Oncologists and palliative care physicians should ensure that they receive adequate training in advanced communication skills, which builds upon their pre-existing skills, to sensitively deliver information on prognosis. In particular, clinicians should acknowledge their own prognostic uncertainty and should emphasise the supportive care that can continue to be provided after stopping cancer-directed therapies.