Talking about dying and death: Essentials of communicating about approaching death from the perspective of major stakeholders

OBJECTIVES

Although caring for dying patients and their family caregivers (FC) is integral to patient care, training in communication about approaching death is almost inexistent in medical and nursing curricula. Consequently, many health professionals have insufficient knowledge about conducting these conversations. In order to gain a broader insight into essential aspects of this communication from different perspectives, we conducted focus groups with key stakeholders.

METHODS

Medical specialists, nurses, medical students, bereaved FC and patient representatives participated in five focus groups (n = 30). Following a focus group schedule, we elicited relevant aspects of communication about approaching death, associated emotions, and appropriate communication frameworks. We analyzed data thematically.

RESULTS

Four main themes were central to conversations about approaching death: (1) embracing care within medical expertise, (2) preparing the conversation while remaining open to the unexpected, (3) recognizing and reflecting on own emotions and reactions, and (4) establishing a meaningful connection with others.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Communicating about approaching death with dying patients and their FC can be complex and challenging at a professional and personal level. With the recognition of the dying phase, a process is initiated for which health professionals need solid clinical knowledge about but also effective communication skills, constant self-reflection and self-care strategies. Comprehensive training and supervision while dealing with the challenges of communicating approaching death to dying patients and their FC are key, particularly for trainees, less experienced physicians and nurses. The essential components identified in this study can help health professionals to master these conversations.

In-person and virtual adaptation of an interprofessional palliative care communications skills training course for pediatric oncology clinicians

Purpose

Effective, empathic communication is crucial for pediatric oncology clinicians when discussing palliative and end-of-life (PC/EOL) care with parents of children with cancer. Unfortunately, many parents report inadequate communication at these distressing times. This study evaluates the communication skills training (CST) clinicians received to deliver a PC/EOL communication intervention as part of a multi-site randomized-controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

Clinicians from eight sites formed dyads (one physician and one nurse [RN] or advanced practice provider [APP]) and were trained over 3 days (in-person or virtually). Training was adapted from VitalTalk™ and included didactic instruction, videos, visual aids, and dedicated time to practice with simulated patients. Study participants completed a confidential, post-training online evaluation survey. A self-reported quality assurance checklist was used to measure fidelity to the communication protocol when delivered to parents during the RCT.

Results

Thirty clinicians completed training; 26 completed post-training surveys including twelve (46.1%) physicians, 8 (30.8%) RNs and 6 (23.1%) APPs. Most were female (65.4%); white (80.8%), not Latinx (88.5%); 40-50 years old (53.9%); and in practice over 10 years (65.4%). Nine (34.6%) trained in-person; the rest trained virtually. Ninety-two percent reported the course was valuable or very valuable for developing their PC/EOL communication skills and 96% reported learning something new. Dyads trained virtually had similar fidelity to those trained in-person (95% and 90% respectively) when delivering the PC/EOL communication intervention to parents.

Conclusion

This PC/EOL CST was valuable for improving pediatric oncology clinicians' communication skills, successfully implemented in-person and virtually, and translated effectively into practice.

Child-centered communication interventions in pediatric oncology: A scoping review and proposed new communication model

Child-centered communication in pediatric oncology can be challenging. We aimed to review communication interventions with children about cancer treatment and prognosis to identify potentially effective child-centered communication models and approaches. We updated a previous review on communication interventions in oncology and searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and PsychINFO for studies indexed between October 2019 up to October 2022. We further searched for ongoing studies on ClinicalTrials.gov. Communication interventions targeting pediatric oncology patients (below 18 years), with outcomes of communication, psychological symptoms or satisfaction in the target population were eligible. We identified 685 titles/abstracts, screened the full text of 34 studies and included only one published study and two ongoing studies. The published study tested a communication tool to help clinicians inform adolescents about treatment options and facilitate shared decision-making. No communication models were identified. We drew on knowledge from existing studies and guidelines to develop a new child-centered communication model.

A complex communication skills training program for physicians providing advanced cancer care - content development and barriers and solutions for implementation

Background: Early integration of oncology and patient-centered palliative care is the recommended clinical practice model for patients with advanced cancer. General and specific communication skills are necessary to achieve integrated patient-centered care, but require organized training to be adequately mastered. Challenges and barriers on several levels, i.e. organizational, professional and individual may, however, hamper implementation. The development, implementation, and evaluation of such an educational program focusing on communication skills contain many steps, considerations and lessons learned, which are described in this article.Methods: A multi-professional faculty developed, implemented, and evaluated an educational program through a 5-step approach. The program was part of a Norwegian cluster-randomized controlled trial aiming to test the effect of early integration of oncology and palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.Results: The result is the PALLiON educational program; a multi-faceted, evidence-based, and learner-centered program with a specific focus on physicians' communication skills. Four modules were developed: lectures, discussion groups, skills training, and coaching. These were implemented at the six intervention hospitals using different teaching strategies. Evaluation in a subgroup of participants showed a positive appraisal of the group discussions and skills training.Conclusion:We present our experiences and reflections regarding implementation and lessons learned, which should be considered in future developments and implementations; (1) Include experienced faculty with various backgrounds, (2) Be both evidence-based and learner-centered, (3) Choose teaching strategies wisely, (4) Expect resistance and skepticism, (5) Team up with management and gatekeepers, (6) Expect time to fly, and (7) Plan thorough assessment of the evaluation and effect.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03088202.

Cancer-related psychosocial challenges

Over the past decade, cancer incidence has increased globally while its mortality has decreased. Accordingly, healthcare practitioners aim to provide comprehensive care to cancer patients. The biopsychosocial model suggests medical professionals' understanding of how psychosocial factors influence the entire course of cancer is critical. However, until now, an integrative review summarising the full scope of these psychosocial domains has been lacking. This review substantiates that cancer patients, survivors, their caregivers, and oncology professionals face substantial psychosocial challenges. Cancer patients and survivors may experience deterioration of self-concept, disturbance of body image, sexual problems and difficulties in social relationships while attempting to cope with casual issues. The burdens of care provision and the impact on the health of caregivers of cancer patients are also noteworthy. Improving the quality of patient-doctor communication and overcoming burnout are significant challenges for oncology healthcare professionals.

Effect of a Community Health Worker Intervention on Acute Care Use, Advance Care Planning, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Adults With Advanced Stages of Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Deficiencies in advance care planning and symptom management are associated with avoidable acute care use among patients with cancer. Community health worker (CHW)-led approaches may be an approach to reduce acute care use but remain untested in community settings.

Objective

To determine whether a CHW-led advance care planning and symptom screening intervention can reduce acute care use more than usual care in a community setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial was conducted among patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage or recurrent solid and hematologic cancers from August 8, 2017, through November 30, 2021. Data analysis was performed November 30, 2021, through January 1, 2022, by intention to treat.

Interventions

Participants were randomized 1:1 to usual care (control group) or usual care with the 6-month CHW-led intervention (intervention group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was acute care use. Secondary outcomes included advance care planning documentation, supportive care use, patient-reported outcomes, survival, and end-of-life care use.

Results

Among 128 participants, median (range) age was 67 (19-89) years; 61 (47.7%) were female; and 2 (1.6%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 11 (8.6%) were Asian, 5 (3.9%) were Black, 23 (18.0%) were Hispanic or Latino, 2 (1.6%) were of mixed race, 2 (1.6%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 86 (67.2%) were White, and 20 (15.6%) did not report race. Intervention participants had 62% lower risk of acute care use than the control (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.76) within 6 months. At 12 months, intervention participants had 17% lower odds of acute care use (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98), 8 times the odds of advance care planning documentation (OR, 7.18; 95% CI, 2.85-18.13), 4 times the odds of palliative care (OR, 4.46; 95% CI, 1.88-10.55), nearly double the odds of hospice (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.16-2.88), and nearly double the odds of improved mental and emotional health from enrollment to 6 and 12 months postenrollment (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.03-3.28; and OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.04-4.65, respectively) than the control. There were no differences in the death (control, 26 [40.6%] vs intervention, 32 [50.0%]). Fewer intervention participants had acute care use (0 vs 6 [23.1%]) in the month before death than the control.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, integration of a CHW-led intervention into cancer care reduced acute care use and is one approach to improve cancer care delivery for patients with advanced stages of disease in community settings.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03154190.

A prospective cross-sectional survey comparing patient and provider expectations regarding ovarian cancer prognosis

•

Providers believe prognostic discussions are important for ovarian cancer patients.

•

Providers report having prognostic conversations more often than patients.

•

Ovarian cancer patients and providers have different expectations surrounding treatment, remission, and survival.

•

Age, marital status, religion, and cancer stage may affect patient perceptions of ovarian cancer prognosis.

Introduction

There is limited data comparing patient and physician expectations regarding ovarian cancer prognosis. Our primary objective was to compare physician and patient estimates of survival to 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years; secondary objectives included comparing provider and patient responses on the likelihood of requiring future treatments and categorizing patient and provider preferences regarding communication about prognosis.

Methods

A prospective cross-sectional survey was delivered to 10 gynecologic oncology providers and 50 adult ovarian cancer patients from November 2015-April 2016 at one institution. Descriptive statistics were used to categorize survey answers and compare survey answers between patients and providers; multivariable logistic regression evaluated patient survey responses.

Results

All providers (100%) believed treating providers should discuss prognosis and 90% reported having prognostic conversations with patients, compared to 63%, 37%, and 4% of patients who reported discussing prognosis, living wills/advance directives, and palliative care/hospice services, respectively, with their provider. Compared to their provider, patients gave significantly lower estimations of requiring any future therapy (mean score 84.6 vs 74, p <.001) and future chemotherapy (mean score 84.1 vs 69.8, p <.001) and significantly higher estimations of requiring future surgery (mean score 23.3 vs 40, p <.001), achieving remission (mean score 33.5 vs 47.5, p =.009), survival to 1 year (mean score 77.1 vs 86.4, p =.002), and survival to 5 years (mean score 40.5 vs 61.3, p <.001).

Conclusions

Although gynecologic oncology providers believe it is important to discuss prognosis and end-of-life care, there are gaps in communication, knowledge, and expectations between providers and ovarian cancer patients.

What is the evidence for efficacy of advance care planning in improving patient outcomes? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objectives

To conduct an up-to-date systematic review of all randomised controlled trials assessing efficacy of advance care planning (ACP) in improving patient outcomes, healthcare use/costs and documentation.

Design

Narrative synthesis conducted for randomised controlled trials. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases) for English-language randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials on 11 May 2020 and updated it on 12 May 2021 using the same search strategy. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer.

Results

We reviewed 132 eligible trials published between 1992 and May 2021; 64% were high-quality. We categorised study outcomes as patient (distal and proximal), healthcare use and process outcomes. There was mixed evidence that ACP interventions improved distal patient outcomes including end-of-life care consistent with preferences (25%; 3/12 with improvement), quality of life (0/14 studies), mental health (21%; 4/19) and home deaths (25%; 1/4), or that it reduced healthcare use/costs (18%; 4/22 studies). However, we found more consistent evidence that ACP interventions improve proximal patient outcomes including quality of patient–physician communication (68%; 13/19), preference for comfort care (70%; 16/23), decisional conflict (64%; 9/14) and patient-caregiver congruence in preference (82%; 18/22) and that it improved ACP documentation (a process outcome; 63%; 34/54).

Conclusion

This review provides the most comprehensive evidence to date regarding the efficacy of ACP on key patient outcomes and healthcare use/costs. Findings suggest a need to rethink the main purpose and outcomes of ACP.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020184080.

The DISCO App: A pilot test of a multi-level intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer through improved cost communication☆

Objective

Financial toxicity affects 30–50% of people with cancer in the US. Although experts recommend patients and physicians discuss treatment cost, cost discussions occur infrequently. We pilot-tested the feasibility, acceptability and influence on outcomes of the DIScussions of COst (DISCO) App, a multi-level communication intervention designed to improve cost discussions and related outcomes.

Methods

While waiting to see their physician, patients (n = 32) used the DISCO App on a tablet. Physicians were given a cost discussion tip sheet. Clinic visits were video recorded and patients completed pre- and post-intervention measures of self-efficacy for managing costs, self-efficacy for interacting with physicians, cost-related distress, and perceptions of the DISCO App. Coders observed the recordings to determine the presence of cost discussions, initiators, and topics.

Results

Most patients reported needing ≤15 min to use the DISCO App, and that it made it easier to ask cost-related questions. Findings showed increased self-efficacy for managing treatment costs (p = .02) and for interacting with physicians (p = .001). All visits included a cost discussion.

Conclusions

Prompting patients to discuss costs may improve cost treatment discussions and related outcomes.

Innovation

An app-based and tailorable treatment-cost communication intervention is feasible, acceptable, and demonstrates promise in prompting cost discussions and improving outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT03676920 (September 19, 2018).

Development and Evaluation of a Decision Aid to Support Patients' Participatory Decision-Making for Tumor-Specific and Palliative Therapy for Advanced Cancer: Protocol for a Pre-Post Study

Background

To support advanced cancer patients and their oncologists in therapeutic decisions, we aim to develop a decision aid (DA) in a multiphased, bicentric study. The DA aims to help patients to better understand risks and benefits of the available treatment options including the options of standard palliative care or cancer-specific treatment (ie, off-label drug use within an individual treatment plan).

Objective

This study protocol outlines the development and testing of the DA in a pre-post study targeting a heterogeneous population of advanced cancer patients.

Methods

In the first step, we will assess patients’ information and decisional needs as well as the views of the health care providers regarding the content and implementation of the DA. Through a scoping review, we aim to analyze specific characteristics of the decision-making process and to specify the treatment options, outcomes, and probabilities. An interdisciplinary research group of experts will develop and review the DA. In the second step, testing of the DA (design and field testing) with patients and oncologists will be conducted. As a last step, we will run a pre-post design study with 70 doctor-patient encounters to assess improvements on the primary study outcome: patients’ level of decisional conflict. In addition, the user acceptance of all involved parties will be tested.

Results

Interviews with cancer patients, oncologists, and health care providers (ie, nurses, nutritionists) as well as a literature review from phase I have been completed. The field testing is scheduled for April 2021 to August 2021, with the final revision scheduled for September 2021. The pre-post study of the DA and acceptance testing are scheduled to start in October 2021 and shall be finished in September 2022.

Conclusions

A unique feature of this study is the development of a DA for patients with different types of advanced cancer, which covers a wide range of topics relevant for patients near the end of life such as forgoing cancer-specific therapy and switching to best supportive care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04606238; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04606238.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/24954

Using Process Indicators to Monitor Documentation of Patient-Centred Variables in an Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Pathway-Results from a Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite robust evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating clinical and patient-reported benefits of integrated oncology and palliative care, the tumour-centred focus is predominant. This single-centre process evaluation monitors documentation of required patient-centred variables during an RCT.

METHODS

Performance status, patient self-reported symptoms, weight and summaries to general practitioners were assessed from June 2017 to July 2020 in three consultation types: first oncological after study inclusion and palliative and oncological consultations during chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were used to monitor if the pre-defined program fulfilment of ≥85% documentation was reached.

RESULTS

435 consultations were monitored in 76 patients; 60.5% males, 86.8% with GI cancers; 76 (17.5%) were from the first oncological consultations, 87 (20.0%) and 272 (62.5%) from palliative or subsequent oncological consultations. Program fulfilment differed across consultation types with 94.8% in the palliative consultations (83.3-100%), relative to 65.8% (62.5-75.0%) and 69.2% (57.0-84.3%) for first and subsequent oncological consultations over time, respectively. Use of self-reported symptoms was consistently lower in the oncological consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

The documentation level of required core variables was not satisfactory, notwithstanding their high clinical relevance and continuous reminders during study. Pre-trial optimization strategies are paramount to promote integration and reduce professional and personal barriers towards a more patient-centred focus.

Patients' Communication Preferences Around Cancer Symptom Reporting During Cancer Treatment: A Phenomenological Study

Background:

The purpose of this descriptive phenomenological study was to gain an in-depth understanding of cancer patients’ experiences and perspectives on self-reporting their symptoms. Patients with cancer experience a wide variety of symptoms from both their disease and treatment, yet clinicians are often unaware of their patients’ symptoms due to poor reporting methods. Poorly documented symptoms are more likely to go untreated, causing increased symptom distress and decreased quality of life for patients. Effective, real-time communication between patients and health-care practitioners is key to symptom assessment and management. Moreover, it is important for patients’ communication preferences to be taken into account when developing symptom management plans.

Methods:

This qualitative study focused on the symptom reporting experiences of 13 adults in the United States with advanced or metastatic cancer who were undergoing systemic cancer treatment. Data were collected via interviews.

Results:

The findings revealed that a personalized symptom management plan, prompt reporting, and timely communication with health-care practitioners improved patients’ physical and emotional wellbeing.

Conclusions:

A better understanding of cancer patients’ experiences self-reporting their symptoms may lead to improved communication methods and more effective reporting systems, which ultimately reduce patient burden and enhance patients’ self-advocacy. Ensuring that patients’ preferences for reporting their symptoms are met may positively influence the likelihood and timeliness of symptom self-reporting. Developing new and improved ways for health-care teams to manage symptoms is vital to improving patients’ quality of life.

External Validation of the Bone Metastases Ensemble Trees for Survival (BMETS) Machine Learning Model to Predict Survival in Patients With Symptomatic Bone Metastases

PURPOSE

The Bone Metastases Ensemble Trees for Survival (BMETS) model uses a machine learning algorithm to estimate survival time following consultation for palliative radiation therapy for symptomatic bone metastases (SBM). BMETS was developed at a tertiary-care, academic medical center, but its validity and stability when applied to external data sets are unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with palliative radiation therapy for SBM from May 2013 to May 2016 at two hospital-based community radiation oncology clinics were included, and medical records were retrospectively reviewed to collect model covariates and survival time. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival from consultation to death or last follow-up. Model discrimination was estimated using time-dependent area under the curve (tAUC), which was calculated using survival predictions from BMETS based on the initial training data set.

RESULTS

A total of 216 sites of SBM were treated in 182 patients. Most common histologies were breast (27%), lung (23%), and prostate (23%). Compared with the BMETS training set, the external validation population was older (mean age, 67 v 62 years; P < .001), had more primary breast (27% v 19%; P = .03) and prostate cancer (20% v 12%; P = .01), and survived longer (median, 10.7 v 6.4 months). When the BMETS model was applied to the external data set, tAUC values at 3, 6, and 12 months were 0.82, 0.77, and 0.77, respectively. When refit with data from the combined training and external validation sets, tAUC remained > 0.79.

CONCLUSION

BMETS maintained high discriminative ability when applied to an external validation set and when refit with new data, supporting its generalizability, stability, and the feasibility of dynamic modeling.

Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

We assessed inpatient perceived shared decision making (SDM) and tested the association of SDM with inpatient satisfaction in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai, China.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 2585 inpatients in 47 public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai in July and August 2018 was conducted. We assessed overall SDM and 4 aspects of SDM and tested the factors influencing SDM and the association of SDM with patient satisfaction (patient satisfaction with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care), by adopting linear or two-level regression models.

RESULTS

The positive response rate (PRR) and high positive response rate (HPRR) to overall SDM among the inpatients of public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai were relatively high (95.30% and 87.86%, respectively), while the HPRR to "My physician informed me of different treatment alternatives" was relatively low (80.09%). In addition, the inpatients who underwent surgery during admission had higher HPRRs and adjusted HPRRs to overall SDM than those who did not undergo surgery. The study showed that the adjusted high satisfaction rates (HSRs) with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care among the inpatients with high level of overall SDM were higher (96.50%, 68.44%, 89.50% and 92.60%) than those among the inpatients without a high level of overall SDM (71.77%, 35.19%, 57.30% and 67.49%). The greatest differences in the adjusted HSRs between the inpatients with and without a high level of SDM were found in inpatient satisfaction with medical expenses and informed consent in SDM. Moreover, 46.22% of the variances in the HSRs with overall inpatient care across the hospitals were attributed to the hospital type (general hospitals vs. specialty hospitals).

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient PRRs and HPRRs to SDM in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai are relatively high overall but lower to information regarding alternatives. SDM can be affected by the SDM preference of both the patients and physicians and medical condition. Patient satisfaction can be improved through better SDM and should be committed at the hospital level.

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.

Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumour Research Collaboration and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Lung Neuroendocrine Tumors: An International Collaborative Endorsement and Update of the 2015 European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Expert Consensus Guidelines

Lung neuroendocrine tumors (LNETs) are uncommon cancers, and there is a paucity of randomized evidence to guide practice. As a result, current guidelines from different neuroendocrine tumor societies vary considerably. There is a need to update and harmonize global consensus guidelines. This article reports the best practice guidelines produced by a collaboration between the Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumour Research Collaboration and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society. We performed a formal endorsement and updating process of the 2015 European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society expert consensus article on LNET. A systematic review from January 2013 to October 2017 was conducted to procure the most recent evidence. The stepwise endorsement process involved experts from all major subspecialties, patients, and advocates. Guided by discussion of the most recent evidence, each statement from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society was either endorsed, modified, or removed. New consensus statements were added if appropriate. The search yielded 1109 new publications, of which 230 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 12 statements were endorsed, 22 statements were modified or updated, one was removed, and two were added. Critical answered questions for each topic in LNET were identified. Through the consensus process, guidelines for the management of patients with local and metastatic neuroendocrine tumors have been updated to include both recent evidence and practice changes relating to technological and definitional advances. The guidelines provide clear, evidence-based statements aimed at harmonizing the global approach to patients with LNETs, on the basis of the principles of person-centered and LNET-specific care. The importance of LNET-directed research and person-centered care throughout the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up journey is emphasized along with directions for future collaborative research.

Illness and prognostic understanding in patients with hematologic malignancies

It is critical for patients with hematologic malignancies to have an accurate understanding of their illness and prognosis to make informed treatment decisions. Illness and prognostic understanding have primarily been studied in patients with solid tumors, however, data in patients with hematologic malignancies are rapidly growing. Patients with hematologic malignancies often face a unique and unpredictable illness trajectory with the possibility of cure persisting even in relapsed and refractory settings. These patients often require intensive therapies such as high-dose chemotherapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT), or CAR T-cell therapy, which carry with them significant risk of morbidity, mortality, and prognostic uncertainty. In this review article, we first described the current literature on illness and prognostic understanding in patients with hematologic malignancies including 1) patients' varying desire for prognostic information; (2) patients' prognostic misperceptions, (3) the association between patients' prognostic understanding and their psychological outcomes; and (4) barriers to prognostic understanding. Next, we examined insights gained from the literature about illness and prognostic understanding in patients with solid tumors to guide our understanding of the research gaps in hematologic malignancies. Future studies are needed to better delineate the longitudinal relationship between prognostic understanding, psychological distress, and coping in patients with hematologic malignancies. Strategies such as communicating effectively about prognosis, cultivating adaptive coping in the face of a terminal prognosis, and integrating specialty palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies have the potential to improve patients' prognostic understanding and their quality of life and care.

Painting a Rational Picture During Highly Emotional End-of-Life Discussions: a Qualitative Study of Internal Medicine Trainees and Faculty

BACKGROUND

High-quality communication about end-of-life care results in greater patient and family satisfaction. End-of-life discussions should occur early during the patient's disease trajectory and yet is often addressed only when patients become severely ill. As a result, end-of-life discussions are commonly initiated during unplanned hospital admissions, which create additional challenges for physicians, patients, and families.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand how internal medicine attending physicians and trainees experience end-of-life discussions with patients and families during acute hospitalizations.

DESIGN

We conducted an interview-based qualitative study using an interpretivist approach. We selected participants based on purposeful maximal variation and theoretical sampling strategies. We conducted an individual, in-depth, semi-structured interview with each participant.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited 15 internal medicine physicians with variable levels of clinical training and experience who worked in one of five university-affiliated academic hospitals.

APPROACH

Interview transcripts were analyzed inductively and reflectively. Data were grouped by themes and categories. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently, led to iterative adjustments of the interview guide, and continued until theoretical sufficiency was reached.

KEY RESULTS

Physicians depicted end-of-life discussions as a process directed at painting a realistic picture of a clinical situation. By focusing their efforts on reaching a shared understanding of a clinical situation with patients/families, physicians self-delineated the boundaries of their professional responsibilities regarding end-of-life care (i.e., help with understanding, not with accepting or making the "right" decisions). Information sharing took precedence over emotional support in most physicians' accounts of end-of-life discussions. However, the emotional impact of end-of-life discussions on families and physicians was readily recognized by participants.

CONCLUSION

End-of-life discussions are complex, dynamic social interactions that involve multiple, complementary competencies. Focusing mostly on sharing clinical information during end-of-life discussions may distract physicians from providing emotional support to families and prevent improvements of end-of-life care delivered in acute care settings.

Recommendations for spiritual care in cancer patients: a clinical practice guideline for oncology nurses in Iran

BACKGROUND

In spite of the necessity of implementing spiritual care practices for cancer patients, there is no clear process in this regard in palliative care programs of the health system of countries. The present study was designed with the aim of developing a clinical practice guideline of spiritual care in cancer patients for oncology nurses in the current context.

METHODS

This is a multi-method study which was conducted in five stages within the framework of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline. A research committee consisting of four focal and 16 secondary members was formed. The stages included determining the scope of the study, developing guideline (a qualitative study and a systematic review, triangulation of the data, and producing a preliminary draft), consultation stage (validation of the guideline in three rounds of the Delphi study), as well as revision and publication stages.

RESULTS

The clinical guideline of spiritual care with 84 evidence-based recommendations was developed in three main areas, including the human resources, care settings, and the process of spiritual care.

CONCLUSIONS

We are hoping by applying this clinical guideline in oncology settings to move towards an integrated spiritual care plan for cancer patients in the context of our health system. Healthcare organizations should support to form spiritual care teams under supervision of the oncology nurses with qualified healthcare providers and a trained clergy. Through holistic care, they can constantly examine the spiritual needs of cancer patients alongside their other needs by focusing on the phases of the nursing process.

Molecular Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

This guideline provides recommendations for available tissue-based prostate cancer biomarkers geared toward patient selection for active surveillance, identification of clinically significant disease, choice of postprostatectomy adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy, and to address emerging questions such as the relative value of tissue biomarkers compared with magnetic resonance imaging.

METHODS

An ASCO multidisciplinary Expert Panel, with representatives from the European Association of Urology, American Urological Association, and the College of American Pathologists, conducted a systematic literature review of localized prostate cancer biomarker studies between January 2013 and January 2019. Numerous tissue-based molecular biomarkers were evaluated for their prognostic capabilities and potential for improving management decisions. Here, the Panel makes recommendations regarding the clinical use and indications of these biomarkers.

RESULTS

Of 555 studies identified, 77 were selected for inclusion plus 32 additional references selected by the Expert Panel. Few biomarkers had rigorous testing involving multiple cohorts and only 5 of these tests are commercially available currently: Oncotype Dx Prostate, Prolaris, Decipher, Decipher PORTOS, and ProMark. With various degrees of value and validation, multiple biomarkers have been shown to refine risk stratification and can be considered for select men to improve management decisions. There is a paucity of prospective studies assessing short- and long-term outcomes of patients when these markers are integrated into clinical decision making.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Tissue-based molecular biomarkers (evaluating the sample with the highest volume of the highest Gleason pattern) may improve risk stratification when added to standard clinical parameters, but the Expert Panel endorses their use only in situations in which the assay results, when considered as a whole with routine clinical factors, are likely to affect a clinical decision. These assays are not recommended for routine use as they have not been prospectively tested or shown to improve long-term outcomes-for example, quality of life, need for treatment, or survival. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

Standardization of Inpatient CPR Status Discussions and Documentation Within the Division of Hematology-Oncology at UPMC Shadyside: Results From PDSA Cycles 1 and 2

PURPOSE

In December 2016, 49% of patients admitted to inpatient oncology services at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Shadyside Hospital had cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) status discussion documentation before discharge. The aim of this project was to improve the rate of CPR status conversations.

METHODS

During Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle 1, a stakeholder workgroup was formed in January 2017 by oncology faculty, fellows, nurses, advance practice providers (APPs), medicine housestaff, and palliative care faculty. All oncology clinicians and inpatient team members were reminded weekly to discuss and document CPR status preferences. APPs received training on efficient and effective CPR status assessment from palliative care faculty. Oncology leadership received monthly e-mail updates of CPR status documentation rates and endorsed CPR status best practice guidelines. For PDSA cycle 2, patient charts without CPR status documentation in March 2018 were reviewed, and themes were shared with oncology leadership and reviewed with APPs.

RESULTS

After PDSA cycle 1, CPR status assessment rates increased from 49% to greater than 80%. In 2017, more than 1,500 more CPR status discussions were documented than in 2016. The percentage of patients discharged with "comfort measures only" or "do not resuscitate" orders increased from 14.2% (95% CI, 9.5% to 19.0%) to 19.8% (95% CI, 15.6% to 24.0%). For PDSA cycle 2, charts of 60 patients without CPR assessment were reviewed. Of these, 52% were admitted overnight by nocturnists and 48% by daytime APPs. Fifty-five percent of patients (n = 33 of 60) had metastatic disease. CPR status was documented on previous admissions for 53% of patients (n = 31 of 60) in the past 12 months. Fifteen percent (n = 11 of 60) were admitted for scheduled inpatient chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

A multipronged approach significantly increased CPR status assessments. More patients transitioned to comfort measures only or do not resuscitate when their preferences were clearly assessed and documented.

Information Needs Expressed During Patient-Oriented Oncology Consultations: Quantity, Variation, and Barriers

High-quality oncology consultation includes patient-oriented communication tailored to patients' individualized needs. Common methods used in studies to increase question-asking are prompt lists and coaching pre-consultations. However, our patients were encouraged to ask questions by the physician during their visit. We aimed to estimate the quantity, nature, and variation of their questions when they were invited to ask by their oncologist. During radiotherapy consultations from 2012 to 2016, patient's questions were deliberately elicited and physician-transcribed. We derived mean and median number of questions per patient, variance by patient factors, and a taxonomy of subjects using thematic analysis. Three hundred ninety-six patients asked 2386 questions, median asked per patient = 6 (interquartile range = 4). We found significant variance with age (mean = 6.9 questions for < 60 years, 5.4 for ≥ 70 years) p = 0.018, insurance type (mean = 4.7 for Medicaid, 7.2 for private insurance) p = 0.0004, and tumor site (mean number of questions: skin = 4.6, lymphoma = 5.2, lung = 5.8, breast = 6.1, prostate = 6.3, rectum = 6.7 head and neck = 6.9, brain = 7.0, bladder = 7.2, anus = 8.8, others = 5.8) p = 0.0440. Of the diverse set of 57 topics, the commonest were 1. logistics, 2. radiotherapy details, 3. side effects, 4. diagnosis, and 5. stage and prognosis. Only 17 topics were asked by more > 10% of patients and 40 topics were asked by < 10% of patients. With median of 6 questions, it is practicable to routinely elicit and address individualized information needs. Potential barriers may be older and underinsured patients. The wide variety of topics, often pertaining to individuals' case, suggests that cancer clinicians should take time-out during consultation to elicit patients' questions to accomplish best-practice communication.

Delivering Challenging News: An Illness-Trajectory Communication Curriculum for Multispecialty Oncology Residents and Fellows

Introduction

Published curricula to teach communication skills for postgraduate fellows in oncology are few in number despite the fact that oncologists conduct many difficult discussions with their patients and their families. Such discussions may include disclosing initial diagnosis or relapse of a patient's cancer or relaying a poor prognosis or change to palliative care.

Methods

An eight-module course on communication in oncology practice was delivered over 2 months for palliative and oncology fellows and radiation oncology residents. Learners were given a precourse survey in which they were asked to rate their proficiency in various communication tasks. Each learner then participated in a videotaped precourse objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) on breaking bad news with standardized patients (SPs). The course took place over 8 weeks with weekly didactics and role-play. At the end of the course, a second OSCE took place. After the course was completed, the fellows again filled out a proficiency survey.

Results

Twenty-two learners participated over 2 years of this course. Participants reported a significant increase in perceived competence in all areas on the postcourse survey. SP feedback on OSCEs pre- and postcourse indicated improvement in skills for learners. Pre- and postcourse OSCE video assessment revealed a significant improvement in global communication skills.

Discussion

Initial data show that this course successfully improved communication skills and increased fellows' comfort level across several domains of communication. Future directions include validating our assessment tool, expanding the topic base, and investigating the impact on practice after course completion.

Impact of Electronic Self-Assessment and Self-Care Technology on Adherence to Clinician Recommendations and Self-Management Activity for Cancer Treatment-Related Symptoms: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing cancer treatment experience symptoms that negatively affect their quality of life and adherence to treatment. The early identification and management of treatment-related symptoms are critical to prevent symptom distress due to unmanaged symptoms. However, the early identification and management of treatment-related symptoms are complex as most cancer treatments are delivered on an outpatient basis where patients are granted less face-to-face time with clinicians. The Electronic Symptom Assessment and Self-Care (ESRA-C) promotes participant self-management of treatment-related symptoms by providing participants with communication coaching and symptom self-report, education, and tracking features. While the ESRA-C intervention has been demonstrated to improve symptom distress significantly, little is known as to how the ESRA-C influenced participants' self-management practices and adherence to clinician recommendations for symptom/quality of life issues (SQIs).

OBJECTIVE

To compare participant adherence to clinician recommendations and additional self-management strategy use for SQIs between ESRA-C intervention and control (electronic symptom assessment and participant symptom reports alone) group participants. Secondarily, we explored the impact of participant adherence to clinician recommendations and additional self-management strategy use for SQIs on symptom control, symptom management satisfaction, and symptom distress. Lastly, we examined baseline predictors of participant adherence to clinician recommendations and additional self-management strategy use for SQIs.

METHODS

This study presents an analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Participants beginning a new chemotherapy or radiotherapy regimen were recruited from oncology outpatient centers and were randomized to receive the ESRA-C intervention or control during treatment. Patients were included in this analysis if they remained on study through the duration of treatment and self-reported at least one bothersome SQI three-to-six weeks after beginning treatment. The Symptom Distress Scale-15 and Self-Management of SQIs Questionnaire were completed two weeks later. Based on Self-Management of SQIs Questionnaire ratings, participants were placed into adherence to clinician recommendations (adhered/did not adhere/did not receive recommendations) and additional self-management strategy use (yes/no) categories.

RESULTS

Most participants were adherent to clinician recommendations (273/370, 73.8%), while fewer used additional self-management strategies for SQIs (182/370, 49.2%). There were no differences in the frequency of participant adherence to clinician recommendations (chi-square test, P=.99) or self-management strategy use (chi-square test, P=.80) between intervention (n=182) and control treatment groups (n=188). Participants who received clinician recommendations reported the highest treatment satisfaction (n=355, P<.001 by analysis of variance; ANOVA), although lowest distress was reported by participants who did not follow clinician recommendations (n=322, P=.04 by ANOVA) for top 2 SQIs. Women (n=188) reported greater additional self-management strategy use than men (n=182, P=0.03 by chi-square test).

CONCLUSIONS

ESRA-C intervention use did not improve participants' adherence to clinician recommendations or additional self-management strategy use for SQIs in comparison to the control. Future research is needed to determine which factors are important in improving patients' self-management practices and symptom distress following ESRA-C use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00852852; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00852852 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73rEhNWkU).

Pediatric oncology nurses' perceptions of prognosis-related communication

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of prognosis-related information is an essential aspect of communication with pediatric patients with cancer and their families. The nurse is believed to play an important role in this process, but nurse perceptions and experiences have not been well-described.

PURPOSE

Provide an exploration of pediatric oncology nurses' experiences with prognosis-related communication (PRC).

METHOD

Mixed-methods, multiphase design. This paper highlights the qualitative portion of the study.

FINDINGS

Three themes were identified: Importance of collaboration, impact of PRC, and delivery of prognostic information.

DISCUSSION

Collaboration is a critical element of PRC. Nurses are often not included in the disclosure process, which limits the ability of nurses to fully function in their roles, compromising patient, family, and nurse outcomes. A paradigm shift is required to empower nurses to be more active participants. More education of physicians and nurses is necessary to consistently engage nurses in PRC and prepare nurses for critical conversations.

Facilitators and Barriers to Oncologists’ Conduct of Goals of Care Conversations

Introduction:

Goals of care (GoC) conversations optimally begin early in the course of cancer care, yet most happen near the end of life. We sought to describe oncologist-reported facilitators of and barriers to GoC conversations with patients who have advanced cancer.

Methods and Materials:

We conducted individual, semistructured qualitative interviews with oncologists from 4 academic, community, municipal, and rural hospitals in New York and Connecticut. Interview topics included approach to GoC conversations, facilitators, barriers, and organizational influences. We analyzed data using interpretive description. We collected demographic and practice information and surveyed oncologists on their communication skills training. We calculated descriptive statistics for quantitative data.

Results:

Oncologists (n = 21) had a mean age of 46 years (range: 34-68), 67% were male, 71% were White, 24% were Asian, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. They reported an average of 20 years in practice (range: 8-42), and 62% had received training on having GoC conversations. Facilitators included patient’s poor functional status, patient’s high health literacy, family understanding and acceptance, oncologist’s practice experience, and a supportive practice environment. Barriers included certain patient demographic and clinical characteristics, patient religion and culture, patient’s denial, and lack of time.

Conclusion:

GoC conversations may be facilitated by enabling oncologists to conduct these conversations despite difficult circumstances and emotional reactions by activating patients and family via increased health literacy and by advancing palliative-informed practice environments.