About this item:

61 Views | 26 Downloads

Author Notes:

Kristin E. Knutzen, MPH, Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30322. Email: kristin.knutzen@emory.edu

Ms Knutzen and Dr Barnato had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: Knutzen, Sacks, Alam, Liu, Pollak, Barnato. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: Knutzen, Sacks, Brody-Bizar, Holdcroft, Liu, Barnato. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Knutzen, Murray, Jain, Holdcroft, Alam, Liu, Pollak, Tulsky, Barnato. Statistical analysis: Sacks. Obtained funding: Tulsky, Barnato. Administrative, technical, or material support: Sacks, Liu, Tulsky, Barnato. Supervision: Knutzen, Murray, Barnato.

Judy Li, BA, Isabelle Hentschel, BA, and John Speicher, BA (all at Dartmouth College), assisted with listening to audio-recorded encounters and identifying instances of advance care planning, palliative care, treatment discontinuation, hospice care, and after-death wishes. Megan Murphy, MS (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth), assisted with the demographic data. Garrett T. Wasp, MD, MPH (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center), reviewed an earlier version of this article. Yael Schenker, MD, MAS (Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh), supervised data collection at the University of Pittsburgh. None of these individuals was compensated beyond their normal salary.

Disclosures: None reported.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

This study was supported by funding from the Susan J. and Richard M. Levy 1960 Academic Cluster in Health Care Delivery at Dartmouth College (to Dr Barnato). Drs Tulsky and Pollock received funding from the National Cancer Institute (grant R01 CA100387).

The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Keywords:

  • Oncology Patients

Actual and Missed Opportunities for End-of-Life Care Discussions With Oncology Patients

Show all authors Show less authors

Tools:

Journal Title:

JAMA Network Open

Volume:

Volume 4, Number 6

Publisher:

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

Importance Early discussion of end-of-life (EOL) care preferences improves clinical outcomes and goal-concordant care. However, most EOL discussions occur approximately 1 month before death, despite most patients desiring information earlier. Objective To describe successful navigation and missed opportunities for EOL discussions (eg, advance care planning, palliative care, discontinuation of disease-directed treatment, hospice care, and after-death wishes) between oncologists and outpatients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This study is a secondary qualitative analysis of outpatient visits audio-recorded between November 2010 and September 2014 for the Studying Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted at 2 US academic medical centers. Participants included medical, gynecological, and radiation oncologists and patients with stage IV malignant neoplasm, whom oncologists characterized as being ones whom they “…would not be surprised if they were admitted to an intensive care unit or died within one year.” Data were analyzed between January 2018 and August 2020. Exposures The parent study randomized participants to oncologist- and patient-directed interventions to facilitate discussion of emotions. Encounters were sampled across preintervention and postintervention periods and all 4 treatment conditions. Main Outcomes and Measures Secondary qualitative analysis was done of patient-oncologist dyads with 3 consecutive visits for EOL discussions, and a random sample of 7 to 8 dyads from 4 trial groups was analyzed for missed opportunities. Results The full sample included 141 patients (54 women [38.3%]) and 39 oncologists (8 women [19.5%]) (mean [SD] age for both patients and oncologists, 56.3 [10.0] years). Of 423 encounters, only 21 (5%) included EOL discussions. Oncologists reevaluated treatment options in response to patients’ concerns, honored patients as experts on their goals, or used anticipatory guidance to frame treatment reevaluation. In the random sample of 31 dyads and 93 encounters, 35 (38%) included at least 1 missed opportunity. Oncologists responded inadequately to patient concerns over disease progression or dying, used optimistic future talk to address patient concerns, or expressed concern over treatment discontinuation. Only 4 of 23 oncologists (17.4%) had both an EOL discussion and a missed opportunity. Conclusions and Relevance Opportunities for EOL discussions were rarely realized, whereas missed opportunities were more common, a trend that mirrored oncologists’ treatment style. There remains a need to address oncologists’ sensitivity to EOL discussions, to avoid unnecessary EOL treatment.

Copyright information:

2021 Knutzen KE et al. JAMA Network Open.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf).
Export to EndNote