Colorectal Cancer Patients’ Reported Frequency, Content, and Satisfaction with Advance Care Planning Discussions

Author:

Hussein Said1,Lim Chloe Ahryung2ORCID,Manokaran Thulasie2,Kassam Shireen1,Earp Madalene1,Tang Patricia A.3ORCID,Karim Safiya3,Biondo Patricia1,Watanabe Sharon M.4ORCID,Sinnarajah Aynharan1ORCID,Tan Amy56,Simon Jessica1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, Canada

2. Internal Medicine Residency Program, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada

3. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada

4. Division of Palliative Care Medicine, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada

5. Division of Palliative Care, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada

6. Department of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada

Abstract

(1) Background: This observational cohort study describes the frequency, content, and satisfaction with advance care planning (ACP) conversations with healthcare providers (HCPs), as reported by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. (2) Methods: The patients were recruited from two tertiary cancer centers in Alberta, Canada. Using the My Conversations survey with previously validated questions, the patients were asked about specific ACP elements discussed, with which HCPs these elements were discussed, their satisfaction with these conversations, and whether they had a goals of care designation (GCD) order. We surveyed and analyzed data from the following four time points: enrollment, months 1, 2, and 3. (3) Results: In total, 131 patients were recruited. At enrollment, 24% of patients reported discussing at least one ACP topic. From enrollment to month 3, patients reported a high frequency of discussions (80.2% discussed fears, 71.0% discussed prognosis, 54.2% discussed treatment preferences at least once); however, only 44.3% of patients reported discussing what is important to them in considering health care preferences. Patients reported having ACP conversations most often with their oncologists (84.7%) and cancer clinic nurses (61.8%). Patients reported a high level of satisfaction with their ACP conversations, with over 80% of patients reported feeling heard and understood. From enrollment to month 3, there was an increase in the number of patients with a GCD order from 53% to 74%. (4) Conclusions: Patients reported more frequent conversations compared to the literature and clinical documentation. While the satisfaction with these conversations is high, there is room for quality improvement, particularly in eliciting patients’ personal goals for their treatment.

Funder

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Publisher

MDPI AG

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3