here:now – Conceptual model of the impact of an experiential arts program on persons with dementia and their care partners

Community-based arts programs for persons with dementia and their care partners hold tremendous potential for increasing cognitive, social, and creative engagement and improving quality of life for these dyads. This is a qualitative, grounded theory analysis of here:now, a joint arts engagement program for persons with dementia and their care partners that involves gallery tours and art classes. Twenty-one care partners and 13 persons with dementia completed in-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews approximately two weeks following participation in the program. The program was well received by both persons with dementia and care partners as evidenced by high levels of engagement, mindfulness, social connection, and positive interactions. Factors identified as important to the experience included the museum space itself, the facilitation process, and socialization with other participants. Results form the basis for a conceptual model for assessing outcomes of arts programming and highlight the unique position of museums to support persons with dementia and their care partners in the community.

Reframing the goals of care conversation: "we're in a different place"

PURPOSE

Existing recommendations for communicating with patients with metastatic cancer about redefining goals of care when anticancer treatment is unlikely to provide benefit are based on limited evidence. This study was designed to elicit patient and family views on commonly used communication practices.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were 37 patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer and 20 bereaved family members who listened to audiorecordings of oncology fellows instructed to discuss a transition in goals of care with a standardized patient for whom evidence-based palliative chemotherapy was no longer effective. During semistructured qualitative interviews, participants commented on the audiorecordings to give feedback on what they liked or disliked about the oncologist's communication. These comments were transcribed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Three preferred communication practices were identified from participants' comments. The first practice involves a necessary disruption of the patient's expectations about "trying another chemo" ("We're in a different place"). The second practice is offering actionable responses to the disruption ("Here's what we can do now"). The third practice is to find a new place that acknowledges death is closer yet still allows for "living forward" ("Use your inner wisdom").

CONCLUSION

This study of patient and family feedback indicates that patients and families perceive a conversation about goals of care to require disruption of an existing routine, followed by a process of searching and then reconfiguration, rather than a logical decision process. These findings suggest that assessing quality from patient perspectives must take into account a period of disruption and chaos.

What patients value when oncologists give news of cancer recurrence: commentary on specific moments in audio-recorded conversations

PURPOSE

Recommendations for communicating bad or serious news are based on limited evidence. This study was designed to understand patient perspectives on what patients value when oncologists communicate news of cancer recurrence.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were 23 patients treated for a gastrointestinal cancer at a tertiary U.S. cancer center within the past 2 years, who had semistructured qualitative interviews in which they listened to audio recordings of an oncology fellow discussing news of cancer recurrence with a standardized patient. Participants paused the audio recording to comment on what they liked or disliked about the oncologist's communication.

RESULT

Three themes were identified that refine existing approaches to discussing serious news. The first theme, recognition, described how the oncologist responded to the gravity of the news of cancer recurrence for the patient. Participants saw the need for recognition throughout the encounter and not just after the news was given. The second theme, guiding, describes what participants wanted after hearing the news, which was for the oncologist to draw on her biomedical expertise to frame the news and plan next steps. The third theme, responsiveness, referred to the oncologist's ability to sense the need for recognition or guidance and to move fluidly between them.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that oncologists giving news of cancer recurrence could think of the communication as going back and forth between recognition and guidance and could ask themselves: "Have I demonstrated that I recognize the patient's experience hearing the news?" and "Have I provided guidance to the next steps?"

Why don't patients enroll in hospice? Can we do anything about it?

BACKGROUND

United States hospice organizations aim to provide quality, patient-centered end-of-life care to patients in the last 6 months of life, yet some of these organizations observe that some hospice-eligible patients who are referred to hospice do not initially enroll.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To identify reasons that eligible patients do not enroll in hospice (phase 1).

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

To identify strategies used by hospice providers to address these reasons (phase 2).

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews analyzed using content analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

In phase 1, we interviewed 30 patients and/or family members of patients who had a hospice admissions visit, but who did not enroll. In phase 2, we interviewed 19 hospice staff and national experts.

APPROACH

In phase 1, we asked participants to describe the patient's illness, the hospice referral, and why they had not enrolled. We performed a content analysis to characterize their reasons for not enrolling in hospice. In phase 2, we enrolled hospice admissions staff and hospice experts. We asked them to describe how they would respond to each reason (from phase 1) during an admissions visit with a potential new hospice patient. We identified key phrases, and summarized their recommendations.

RESULTS

Reasons that patients hadn't enrolled fell into three broad categories: patient/family perceptions (e.g., "not ready"), hospice specific issues (e.g., variable definitions of hospice-eligible patients), and systems issues (e.g., concerns about continuity of care). Hospice staff/experts had encountered each reason, and offered strategies at the individual and organizational level for responding.

CONCLUSIONS

In hopes of increasing hospice enrollment among hospice-eligible patients, non-hospice and hospice clinicians may want to adopt some of the strategies used by hospice staff/experts for talking about hospice with patients/families and may want to familiarize themselves with the differences between hospice organizations in their area. Hospices may want to reconsider their admission policies and procedures in light of patients' and families' perceptions and concerns.

Surviving surrogate decision-making: what helps and hampers the experience of making medical decisions for others

BACKGROUND

A majority of end-of-life medical decisions are made by surrogate decision-makers who have varying degrees of preparation and comfort with their role. Having a seriously ill family member is stressful for surrogates. Moreover, most clinicians have had little training in working effectively with surrogates.

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the challenges of decision-making from the surrogate's perspective.

DESIGN

Semistructured telephone interview study of the experience of surrogate decision-making.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty designated surrogates with previous decision-making experience.

APPROACH

We asked surrogates to describe and reflect on their experience of making medical decisions for others. After coding transcripts, we conducted a content analysis to identify and categorize factors that made decision-making more or less difficult for surrogates.

RESULTS

Surrogates identified four types of factors: (1) surrogate characteristics and life circumstances (such as coping strategies and competing responsibilities), (2) surrogates' social networks (such as intrafamily discord about the "right" decision), (3) surrogate-patient relationships and communication (such as difficulties with honoring known preferences), and (4) surrogate-clinician communication and relationship (such as interacting with a single physician whom the surrogate recognizes as the clinical spokesperson vs. many clinicians).

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide insights into the challenges that surrogates encounter when making decisions for loved ones and indicate areas where clinicians could intervene to facilitate the process of surrogate decision-making. Clinicians may want to include surrogates in advance care planning prior to decision-making, identify and address surrogate stressors during decision-making, and designate one person to communicate information about the patient's condition, prognosis, and treatment options.

Beyond Substituted Judgment: How Surrogates Navigate End-of-Life Decision-Making

OBJECTIVES

To characterize how surrogates plan to make medical decisions for others.

DESIGN

Descriptive study using semistructured qualitative interviews.

SETTING

Surrogates were interviewed by telephone from their homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty experienced surrogate decision-makers identified to make decisions for older, chronically ill veterans.

MEASUREMENTS

Surrogates were asked to describe advance care planning conversations with loved ones and how they planned to make future medical decisions. Thematic content analysis was used to identify bases for decision-making.

RESULTS

Surrogates described the motivators and the content of advance care planning conversations with loved ones. Surrogates described five bases for decision-making: (1) conversations (making decisions based on their knowledge of their loved ones' preferences), (2) relying on documents (referring to their loved ones' advance care directives), (3) shared experience (believing an "inner sense" would guide decisions because of shared lived experience with loved ones), (4) surrogates' own values and preferences about life, and (5) surrogates' network (enlisting the help of others).

CONCLUSION

Although ethicists and clinicians expect surrogates to use substituted judgment or patients' best interests when making decisions, these data indicate that many surrogates rely on other factors such as their own best interests or mutual interests of themselves and the patient or intend to base substituted judgments on documents with which they have little familiarity.

How do surrogate decision makers describe hospice? Does it matter?

We interviewed 71 surrogate decision makers of older, chronically ill veterans to explore their knowledge of hospice and their role in helping loved ones access hospice services. We asked them to describe hospice and any previous hospice experiences. Of the group, 24 percent with hospice experience and 14 percent without hospice experience correctly described three key aspects of hospice: who hospice cares for, where the care is provided, and the goal of the care. Additionally, we found evidence that surrogates who correctly described the three key aspects of hospice were inclined to pursue hospice care for loved ones in the future, and surrogates who provided less complete descriptions of hospice might not access it. Since surrogates often help dying patients access care, incomplete knowledge of hospice may be an important barrier to hospice services. We advocate that clinicians discuss the three key aspects of hospice during routine advance care planning sessions with patients and their future surrogate decision makers.