Should we be talking about guidelines with patients? A qualitative analysis in metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Little data exist on perceptions of guideline-based care in oncology. This qualitative analysis describes patients' and oncologists' views on the value of guideline-based care as well as discussing guidelines when making metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment decisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In-person interviews completed with MBC patients and community oncologists and focus groups with academic oncologists were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts independently using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Participants included 20 MBC patients, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Most patients were unfamiliar with the term "guidelines." All patients desired to know if they were receiving guideline-discordant treatment but were often willing to accept this treatment. Five themes emerged explaining this including trusting the oncologist, relying on the oncologist's experiences, being informed of rationale for deviation, personalized treatment, and openness to novel therapies. Physician discussions regarding the importance of guidelines revealed three themes: consistency with scientific evidence, insurance coverage, and limiting unusual practices. Oncologists identified three major limitations in using guidelines: lack of consensus, inability to "think outside the box" to personalize treatment, and lack of guideline timeliness. Although some oncologists discussed guidelines, it was often not considered a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients expressed a desire to know whether they were receiving guideline-based care but were amenable to guideline-discordant treatment if the rationale was made clear. Providers' preference to limit discussions of guidelines is discordant with patients' desire for this information and may limit shared decision-making.

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists

BACKGROUND

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice.

CONCLUSION

Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

How family caregivers of persons with advanced cancer assist with upstream healthcare decision-making: A qualitative study

Aims

Numerous healthcare decisions are faced by persons with advanced cancer from diagnosis to end-of-life. The family caregiver role in these decisions has focused on being a surrogate decision-maker, however, little is known about the caregiver’s role in supporting upstream patient decision-making. We aimed to describe the roles of family caregivers in assisting community-dwelling advanced cancer patients with healthcare decision-making across settings and contexts.

Methods

Qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with community-dwelling persons with metastatic cancer (n = 18) and their family caregivers (n = 20) recruited from outpatient oncology clinics of a large tertiary care academic medical center, between October 2016 and October 2017. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

Findings

Caregivers averaged 56 years and were mostly female (95%), white (85%), and the patient’s partner/spouse (70%). Patients averaged 58 years and were mostly male (67%) in self-reported “fair” or “poor” health (50%) with genitourinary (33%), lung (17%), and hematologic (17%) cancers. Themes describing family member roles in supporting patients’ upstream healthcare decision-making were: 1) seeking information about the cancer, its trajectory, and treatments options; 2) ensuring family and healthcare clinicians have a common understanding of the patient’s treatment plan and condition; 3) facilitating discussions with patients about their values and the framing of their illness; 5) posing “what if” scenarios about current and potential future health states and treatments; 6) addressing collateral decisions (e.g., work arrangements) resulting from medical treatment choices; 6) originating healthcare-related decision points, including decisions about seeking emergency care; and 7) making healthcare decisions for patients who preferred to delegate healthcare decisions to their family caregivers.

Conclusions

These findings highlight a previously unreported and understudied set of critical decision partnering roles that cancer family caregivers play in patient healthcare decision-making. Optimizing these roles may represent novel targets for early decision support interventions for family caregivers.

Surrogates' Perceptions of Service Quality While Making Decisions for ICU Patients

A qualitative secondary analysis was undertaken to identify aspects of health care service quality in an intensive care unit from the perspective of surrogate decision makers (N = 19) who were making decisions for relatives at end of life. Directed content analysis was guided by the Donabedian model of health care quality. Nineteen participants averaged 59 years old and were over half female (53%) and patients' spouses (53%) and adult children (32%). Salient aspects of quality service included surrogate perceptions that clinicians conveyed honesty about the patient's condition and in an easily understandable way; staff were sensitive and responsive to emotions and practical needs; clinicians demonstrated a clear, confident understanding of the patient's condition; and support by clinicians was given for surrogates' choices. Surrogates also commented on the hospital and intensive care unit environment, including cleanliness, comfort, privacy, and noise level. Further research is needed to explore how decision-support strategies might include service quality concepts.

How family caregivers assist with upstream health care decision making by community-dwelling persons with advanced cancer: A qualitative study

13

Background: In the palliative care context, the family caregiver role in patients’ healthcare decision-making has focused on being a surrogate decision-maker at end of life. Less is known about family caregiver’s role in supporting upstream patient decision-making in advanced cancer. Methods: Qualitative descriptive study consisting of one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with persons with metastatic cancer and their family caregivers. We elicited family members’ perspectives on how they assist their relatives with any current and prospective healthcare decisions. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Co-investigators reviewed and refined themes. Results: Caregivers (n = 20) averaged 56 years of age and were mostly female (95%), White (85%), and the patient’s partner/spouse (70%). Patients (n = 18) averaged 58 years of age and were mostly male (67%) in “fair” or “poor” health (50%) with genitourinary (33%), lung (17%), and hematologic (17%) cancers. Themes describing family member roles in supporting patients’ decision-making were: 1) seeking information about the cancer, its trajectory, and different treatments options; 2) identifying treatment and disease decision points, including decisions about seeking emergent care; 3) ensuring family members have a common understanding of the patient’s plan of care; 4) initiating and facilitating conversations with patients about coping, values, beliefs, and “what if” scenarios about current and potential future health states and treatments; 5) implementing choices (e.g., providing transportation) and addressing “spillover” decisions (e.g., work arrangements) resulting from medical treatment choices; and 6) making upstream healthcare decisions on behalf of patients who preferred to have decisions made by their family caregivers. Conclusions: These data highlight a previously unreported and understudied set of critical decision partnering roles that cancer family caregivers play in patient healthcare decision-making. Optimizing these roles may represent novel targets for early palliative care decision support interventions for family caregivers.

Integrating the ENABLE early palliative care approach in community cancer centers: Results of an implementation trial

114

Background: Despite national guidelines recommending early palliative care (EPC) for individuals newly-diagnosed with metastatic cancer, it is rarely available in rural community cancer centers serving underserved populations. We conducted the first implementation trial of EPC in rural cancer centers using the evidence-based ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) model of early, concurrent oncology palliative care. Methods: Mixed methods case study of a 4-year American Cancer Society-funded 4-site, implementation trial using a virtual learning collaborative in AL and SC. Guided by the RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance) framework, we gathered qualitative and quantitative data via monthly reports and yearly in-person site visits using: 1) a RE-AIM Self-Assessment Tool completed by site staff to measure reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance; 2) EPC General Organizational Index (GOI) to measure capacity for EPC services and implementation progress; and 3) field notes from site interviews and final reports. Results: Across the 4 sites, 62 patients (range: 4–31; mean: 15) and 46 caregivers (range: 2–22; mean: 12) participated. Baseline patient characteristics included: mean age of 58, 70% female, 17% Black or minority, 57% some college or college, 49% rural dwelling, and 57% non-gynecologic cancer. Sites enrolled at least 58% of the patients they planned to enroll (range: 58%–100%; average: 84%), of which 44% received 100% of ENABLE content and nearly 60% received two-thirds. Reasons for not completing all six sessions included death, unrecorded contacts, or lost to follow up. Longitudinal GOI scores indicated a trend of improved capacity for EPC services at three of the four sites. Qualitative data from site lead interviews revealed administrative (presence or lack of palliative ‘champions’), clinical (having adequate training), and economic (reimbursement) implementation barriers and facilitators. Conclusions: This pilot implementation study demonstrated feasibility and areas to enhance implementation in a larger comparative effectiveness trial to enhance scaling and spreading EPC in community practices.

Should we be talking about guidelines with patients? A qualitative analysis in metastatic breast cancer

217

Background: Little data exist on patient perceptions of guideline-based care. This qualitative analysis describes patient and oncologist views on the value of discussing guidelines when making metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment decisions. Methods: In-person interviews completed by MBC patients and community medical oncologists and focus groups for academic medical oncologists were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts independently using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results: Participants included 20 MBC patients, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. The majority of patients (80%) were unfamiliar with the term “guidelines”. However, all patients desired to know if they were receiving guideline discordant treatment. As one patient commented “ I'm supposed to know the guidelines and it's not supposed to be a secret to me.” Among patients willing to receive care inconsistent with guidelines, several themes emerged including trusting the oncologist, relying on the oncologist’s prior experiences, being informed of rationale for deviation, personalized treatment, and openness to novel therapies. Physician discussions on the importance of guidelines revealed themes such as consistency with scientific evidence, insurance coverage, and limiting unusual practices. Oncologists identified limitations to guidelines including lack of expert consensus, inability to “ think outside the box” to personalize treatment, and lack of guideline timeliness. Although some oncologists discussed guidelines, a common sentiment was that sharing this information is not a priority. One physician commented that sharing the guidelines with patients is, “ getting too much into the how you practice medicine, and they may not want to know, kind of like eating at a restaurant. You don't need to know how the cook's preparing everything.” Conclusions: Both patients and physicians expressed reasons why guideline discordant treatments would be acceptable. Providers’ preference to limit discussions of guidelines is discordant with patients’ desire for this information and may limit shared decision-making.

Trust but verify: Patterns of obtaining health information and the role of physician trust in decision-making amongst patients with metastatic breast cancer

218

Background: Increasing emphasis on patient-centered care has led to shared decision making, which better aligns medical decisions with patient preferences for care. In its 2004 report, Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion, the US Institute of Medicine defines health literacy as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions. However, little is known about the confluent role of patient health information seeking patterns and physician trust in the decision-making process. Therefore, we assessed perspectives of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and health care professionals regarding how health information seeking and physician trust influence decision making. Methods: Qualitative interviews with 26 MBC patients and 6 community oncologists, as well as 3 separate focus groups involving lay navigators, nurses, and academic oncologists, were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using a content analysis approach that included a constant comparative method to generate themes from the transcribed textual data. Results: Five prominent themes emerged from these responses. (1) Patients’ primary source of treatment information were physicians. (2) Patients differed in their approach to seeking further health information regarding the discussed treatment options (e.g. internet websites, family and friends, support groups). (3) Patients trusted their physician’s recommendations to achieve their goals of care. (4) Oncologists were cognizant of their fundamental role in facilitating informed decision making (5) Patient and physician discordant perspectives on shared decision making were apparent. Conclusions: Patient procurement of health information and their capacity to use it effectively to make informed decisions in conjunction with their trust in physicians, may play an important role in shared decision making.

Biologic, demographic, and social factors affecting triple negative breast cancer outcomes

BACKGROUND

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype that disproportionately affects women who are African American, younger, or carriers of the BRCA1 gene. No targeted treatments exist for the disease, which has distinct features and presents unique challenges to patients who have been diagnosed with it.

OBJECTIVES

TNBC is reviewed in this article according to incidence, tumor grade, stage of diagnosis, biologic and social risk factors, mortality, and treatment.

METHODS

Published articles pertaining to TNBC and located through online database searches were reviewed. Articles were selected either because they offered the most current information about TNBC or contributed to the understanding of TNBC.

FINDINGS

Biologic, demographic, and social factors present unique challenges in the treatment of women with TNBC. Knowing about the characteristics of TNBC and the populations who are most at risk for the disease might help healthcare providers better respond to their patients. It may also facilitate responsiveness to patients' needs and enhance their quality of life.

"An addendum to breast cancer": the triple negative experience

PURPOSE

The triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtype, known to be aggressive with high recurrence and mortality rates, disproportionately affects African-Americans, young women, and BRCA1 carriers. TNBC does not respond to hormonal or biologic agents, limiting treatment options. The unique characteristics of the disease and the populations disproportionately affected indicate a need to examine the responses of this group. No known studies describe the psychosocial experiences of women with TNBC. The purpose of this study is to begin to fill that gap and to explore participants' psychosocial needs.

METHOD

An interpretive descriptive qualitative approach was used with in-depth interviews. A purposive sample of adult women with TNBC was recruited. Dominant themes were extracted through iterative and constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 22 participants, nearly half were women of color, and the majority was under the age of 60 years and within 5 years of diagnosis. The central theme was a perception of TNBC as "an addendum" to breast cancer. There were four subthemes: TNBC is Different: "Bottom line, it's not good"; Feeling Insecure: "Flying without a net"; Decision-Making and Understanding: "A steep learning curve"; and Looking Back: "Coulda, shoulda, woulda." Participants expressed a need for support in managing intense uncertainty with a TNBC diagnosis and in decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with all subtypes of breast cancer have typically been studied together. This is the first study on the psychosocial needs specifically of women with TNBC. The findings suggest that women with TNBC may have unique experiences and unmet psychosocial needs.

Causal attribution among cancer survivors of the 10 most common cancers

In an attempt to understand and cope with their diagnosis, individuals with cancer may develop beliefs about the cause of their illness and these causal attributions may impact psychosocial adjustment. Connecticut participants (N = 775) from the American Cancer Society's Study of Cancer Survivors-I completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing beliefs of the cause of their cancer and if they had contemplated the question "why me?" regarding their diagnosis. Written causal belief responses were coded into thematic categories and defined as either in (modifiable) or out (fixed) of an individual's control. Using logistic regression, the authors examined associations between sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial measures and identifying modifiable causal attributions, as well as contemplating "why me." Most cancer survivors (78.2%) identified one or more causes. Lifestyle and biological factors were most common, whereas psychological factors were least common, with some variation by cancer type. After multivariate adjustment, only cancer type was associated with identifying modifiable causes. Participants who contemplated "why me" (47.5%) were more likely to be younger and reported a greater number of cancer-related problems. In conclusion, the majority of cancer survivors reported specific causal attributions, and many had contemplated "why me." Understanding and assessing causal attributions and more general existential questions regarding diagnosis could aid in our understanding of survivors' adjustment and psychosocial well-being. Additional research in large populations is also needed to determine if other characteristics are associated with identifying modifiable causal attributions and asking "why me."

Unnecessary arrhythmia monitoring and underutilization of ischemia and QT interval monitoring in current clinical practice: baseline results of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to examine the appropriate use of arrhythmia, ischemia, and QTc interval monitoring in the acute care setting.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline data of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography (PULSE) trial, a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of implementing electrocardiographic monitoring practice standards. Research nurses reviewed medical records for indications for monitoring and observed if arrhythmia, ischemia, and QT interval monitoring was being done on 1816 patients in 17 hospitals.

RESULTS

Almost all (99%) patients with an indication for arrhythmia monitoring were being monitored, but 85% of patients with no indication were monitored. Of patients with an indication for ischemia monitoring, 35% were being monitored; but 26% with no indication were being monitored for ST-segment changes. Only 21% of patients with an indication for QT interval monitoring had a QTc documented, but 18% of patients with no indication had a QTc documented.

CONCLUSION

Our data show evidence of inappropriate monitoring: undermonitoring for ischemia and QTc prolongation and overmonitoring for all 3 types of monitoring, especially arrhythmia monitoring.