Life expectancy discussions in a multisite sample of Australian medical oncology outpatients

Oncology nurse perceptions about life expectancy discussions: a cross-sectional study exploring what patients want to know, and why doctors don't disclose

Background: Sensitive and patient-centred discussion about life expectancy has clear benefits for patients with advanced cancer and their families. The perceptions of oncology nurses about disclosure of life expectancy, and the barriers to disclosure, have rarely been explored. Objectives/Aims/Hypotheses: To examine oncology nurses' perceptions of the: (1) proportion of patients with advanced cancer who want, receive and understand estimates of life expectancy; (2) reasons why doctors may not provide estimates of life expectancy. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Australian oncology nurses who were members of a professional society or worked at a participating metropolitan cancer centre were emailed a link to an anonymous online survey. Participants provided socio-demographic characteristics and their perceptions about the proportion of patients with advanced cancer who (a) want, (b) are provided with, (c) receive and (d) understand estimates of life expectancy, as well as the reasons estimates of life expectancy may not be provided. Results: A total of 104 nurses participated. While 51% of nurses perceived that most patients (>75%) want to be provided with an estimate of their life expectancy, 63% of nurses reported that <50% of patients were provided with an estimate. Further, 85% of nurses indicated that <50% of patients understand the estimate. The most frequent reason nurses perceived doctors did not provide an estimate of life expectancy was because the doctor didn't have an accurate idea of life expectancy (80.8%). Almost one-fifth of nurses (18.3%) thought that doctors did not provide estimates because they felt it was not their responsibility to do so. Conclusions: Strategies to ensure a patient-centred approach to life expectancy discussions with patients with advanced cancer are urgently needed. Impact statement: Oncology nurses perceive that many patients with advanced cancer are not provided with an accurate estimate of their life expectancy and few understand the information provided to them.

Systems-level audit and feedback interventions to improve oncology care: a scoping review

Audit and feedback is commonly used as a method of both monitoring and attempting to improve the quality of healthcare. No review has examined the literature on systems-level audit and feedback strategies to improve the quality of oncology care. This scoping review examines the number, care focus (technical, nontechnical, or both) and methodological quality of published intervention studies which have used systems-level audit and feedback intended to improve the quality of care delivered in oncology treatment centers. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane database were searched, from inception to March 2021, for intervention studies which examined the effectiveness of systems-level audit and feedback in improving care for cancer patients. Studies which met the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) minimum design criteria were then assessed using the EPOC risk of bias tool. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted for those meeting methodological criteria. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the results. A total of 32 intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 53% focused on technical aspects of care, 31% focused on nontechnical and 16% focused on both. Four of the included 32 studies met the EPOC minimum design criteria (13%). Most studies had a before-after study design (75%; n = 24) and methodological quality of the final four studies was moderate. Audit and feedback studies involving oncology treatment centers have primarily focused on technical care aspects. The low number and moderate methodological quality of the studies make it difficult to draw clear inferences about the effectiveness of systems-level audit and feedback. Furthermore, high-quality audit and feedback interventions are required across technical and nontechnical aspects of care to quantify the effectiveness of strategies for improving cancer care and ensure healthcare resources are being optimized.

Communicating prognostic information: what do oncologists think patients with incurable cancer should be told?

BACKGROUND

People with incurable cancer require information about their prognosis to make informed decisions about their future.

AIMS

To determine the frequency, form and documentation of prognostic discussions between oncologists and their patients with incurable cancer.

METHODS

We surveyed medical oncologists in Australia and New Zealand about their practices communicating prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 206 medical oncologists completed the survey. Respondent characteristics were: median age 40 years (range 27-75), female 51%, trainee 22%; and 71% had completed specific training on communicating prognosis. Respondents reported discussing prognosis with a patient a median of 10 times per month (interquartile range 4-15); 88% reported explaining that 'the cancer is incurable' to all their patients with incurable cancer and 84% reported always or usually providing a quantitative estimate of survival time. The preferred method for explaining expected survival time (EST) was providing 'multiple ranges of time with probabilities, for example best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios' (52% of respondents). The most frequently reported barriers to discussing EST were: 'family members requesting that prognostic information not be discussed' (57% of respondents), and 'not knowing the EST' (46% of respondents). Twenty percent reported always documenting prognostic discussions and the EST in the patient's medical record, and 11% reported always documenting this information in their letters to other doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most oncologists reported providing quantitative estimates of EST to their patients with incurable cancer, but very few reported documenting this information. Methods to help oncologists estimate, explain and document survival time are needed to improve communication of prognosis.

Assessing patients' experiences of cancer care across the treatment pathway: a mapping review of recent psychosocial cancer care publications

PURPOSE

Patients are a critical source of information about the quality of the components of cancer care that contributes to optimal psychosocial outcomes. Recently published research was examined to determine the: (1) proportion of studies that examined at least one of 14 components of cancer care, (2) the proportion of studies that included multiple components of care, and (3) the phase of the cancer care pathway in which data collection occurred (i.e. pre-, during and post-treatment).

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched to retrieve all data-based publications indexed for two international psychosocial cancer care journals (Supportive Care in Cancer and Psycho-Oncology) over a 2-year period. A total of 333 publications yielded 214 eligible publications that were assessed against the 14 components of care for which measurement by healthcare providers at multiple phases during cancer care is recommended. Publications were coded based on the: (1) specific component/s of care focused upon in the research, (2) number of components examined and (3) timing of data collection.

RESULTS

The most frequently assessed component of care was physical and psychosocial screening (n = 198, 93%). Most studies (n = 187, 87%) examined a single component of care. No studies assessed all 14 components. Only seven studies (2.1%) examined components of care across multiple phases of the care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Recently published studies have examined limited segments of patients' experiences of cancer care. To improve psychosocial outcomes among people living with and beyond cancer, there should be a greater focus on patients' experiences across multiple components and the whole care pathway.

Medical oncology outpatients' preferences and experiences with advanced care planning: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Medical oncology outpatients are a group for whom advance care planning (ACP) activities are particularly relevant. Patient views can help prioritise areas for improving end of life communication. The study aimed to determine in a sample of medical oncology outpatients: (1) the perceived importance of participating in ACP activities; (2) the proportion of patients who have ever participated in ACP activities; and (3) the proportion of patients who had not yet participated in ACP activities who were willing to do so in next month.

METHODS

Adult medical oncology outpatients in two Australian cancer treatment centres were consecutively approached to complete a pen-and-paper survey. Items explored perceived importance, previous participation, and willingness to participate across key ACP activities including: discussing wishes with their family or doctor; recording wishes in a written document; appointing a substitute decision maker (SDM); and discussing life-expectancy.

RESULTS

185 participants completed the survey (51% consent rate). Most patients agreed it was important to: discuss end of life wishes with family (85%) and doctors (70%) and formally record wishes (73%). Few had discussed end of life wishes with a doctor (11%), recorded their wishes (15%); chosen a SDM (28%); discussed life expectancy (30%); or discussed end of life wishes with family (30%). Among those who had not participated in ACP, most were willing to discuss life expectancy (66%); discuss end of life wishes with family (57%) and a doctor (55%); and formally record wishes (56%) in the next month. Fewer wanted to appoint a SDM (40%).

CONCLUSION

Although medical oncology outpatients perceive ACP activities are important, rates of uptake are relatively low. The willingness of many patients to engage in ACP activities suggests a gap in current ACP practice. Efforts should focus on ensuring patients and families have clarity about the legal and other ramifications of ACP activities, and better education and training of health care providers in initiating conversations about end of life issues.

Prevalence and correlates of patient-centred preparatory information provision to computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging outpatients: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Responsiveness to information preferences is key to high-quality, patient-centred care. This study examined the top ten preparatory information items not delivered in accordance with medical imaging outpatients' preferences, and patient characteristics associated with reporting a greater number of unmet information preferences.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography outpatients were recruited consecutively in one major public hospital waiting room. Participants self-administered a touchscreen computer questionnaire assessing their sociodemographic and scan characteristics, and unmet preferences for 33 guideline-endorsed preparatory information items.

RESULTS

Of 317 eligible patients, 280 (88%) consented to participate. Given equal rankings, the top ten unmet information preferences included 13 items which were endorsed by at least 25% of participants, and commonly related to receiving 'too little' information. One item related to the pre-scan period, seven items to the scan period and five items to the post-scan period. None of the patient characteristics examined were significantly associated with reporting a greater number of unmet information preferences.

CONCLUSION

There is room to improve responsiveness to medical imaging outpatients' preparatory information preferences. Improvements should be targeted at individuals, rather than groups defined by sociodemographic or scan characteristics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A standardised approach to addressing individual patient's information preferences is needed.