“Don’t Talk to Them About Goals of Care”: Understanding Disparities in Advance Care Planning

Author:

Ashana Deepshikha Charan12,D’Arcangelo Noah3,Gazarian Priscilla K4,Gupta Avni45,Perez Stephen4,Reich Amanda J4,Tjia Jennifer6,Halpern Scott D278,Weissman Joel S4,Ladin Keren39ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

2. Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

3. Research on Ethics, Aging, and Community Health (REACH Lab), Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA

4. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

5. Department of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA

6. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA

7. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

8. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

9. Department of Occupational Therapy and Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract

Abstract Background Structurally marginalized groups experience disproportionately low rates of advance care planning (ACP). To improve equitable patient-centered end-of-life care, we examine barriers and facilitators to ACP among clinicians as they are central participants in these discussions. Method In this national study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively selected clinicians from 6 diverse health systems between August 2018 and June 2019. Thematic analysis yielded themes characterizing clinicians’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ACP among patients, and patient-centered ways of overcoming them. Results Among 74 participants, 49 (66.2%) were physicians, 16.2% were nurses, and 13.5% were social workers. Most worked in primary care (35.1%), geriatrics (21.1%), and palliative care (19.3%) settings. Clinicians most frequently expressed difficulty discussing ACP with certain racial and ethnic groups (African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American) (31.1%), non-native English speakers (24.3%), and those with certain religious beliefs (Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, and Muslim) (13.5%). Clinicians were more likely to attribute barriers to ACP completion to patients (62.2%), than to clinicians (35.1%) or health systems (37.8%). Three themes characterized clinicians’ difficulty approaching ACP (preconceived views of patients’ preferences, narrow definitions of successful ACP, and lack of institutional resources), while the final theme illustrated facilitators to ACP (acknowledging bias and rejecting stereotypes, mission-driven focus on ACP, and acceptance of all preferences). Conclusions Most clinicians avoided ACP with certain racial and ethnic groups, those with limited English fluency, and persons with certain religious beliefs. Our findings provide evidence to support development of clinician-level and institutional-level interventions and to reduce disparities in ACP.

Funder

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Nursing Research

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Geriatrics and Gerontology,Aging

Cited by 48 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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