Family Carers' Experiences of Goals of Care Conversations in Acute Hospital Settings.

End-of-life Goals of Care (GoC) discussions aim to support care that is consistent with patients' preferences and values. This study uses an exploratory qualitative design drawing upon a social constructivist epistemology to examine family carers' perspectives on GoC within acute Australian hospital settings. Twenty-five family carers of aging inpatients were recruited from six Australian hospitals to participate in recorded, semi-structured interviews. Data were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Three main themes were developed. Theme 1 explored carers' experiences of GoC discussions-identifying varying levels of preparedness and carers' hopes for open, two-way discussions initiated by empathic Health Care Professionals (HCPs). Theme 2 examined carers' unmet needs for time, space, consistency, and support to make careful decisions. Theme 3 identified carers advocating for patients' needs when they could not do it themselves. Preparing carers and normalizing GoC discussions relating to end-of-life care maximizes benefits for patients, carers, and HCPs involved.

A Qualitative Exploration of Seriously Ill Patients' Experiences of Goals of Care Discussions in Australian Hospital Settings.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care (GOC) is a communication and decision-making process that occurs between a clinician and a patient (or surrogate decision-maker) during an episode of care to facilitate a plan of care that is consistent with the patient's preferences and values. Little is known about patients' experiences of these discussions. OBJECTIVE: This study explored patients' perspectives of the GOC discussion in the hospital setting. DESIGN: An explorative qualitative design was used within a social constructionist framework. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients were recruited from six Australian hospitals across two states. Eligible patients had had a GOC discussion and they were identified by the senior nurse or their doctor for informed consent and interview. APPROACH: Semi-structured individual or dyadic interviews (with the carer/family member present) were conducted at the bedside or at the patient's home (for recently discharged patients). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed for themes. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-eight patient interviews were completed. The key themes identified were (1) values and expectations, and (2) communication (sub-themes: (i) facilitators of the conversation, (ii) barriers to the conversation, and (iii) influence of the environment). Most patients viewed the conversation as necessary and valued having their preferences heard. Effective communication strategies and a safe, private setting were facilitators of the GOC discussion. Deficits in any of these key elements functioned as a barrier to the process. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication, and patients' values and expectations set the stage for goals of care discussions; however, the environment plays a significant role. Communication skills training and education designed to equip clinicians to negotiate GOC interactions effectively are essential. These interventions must also be accompanied by systemic changes including building a culture supportive of GOC, clear policies and guidelines, and champions who facilitate uptake of GOC discussions.

Evaluating the Liverpool Care Pathway for care of the terminally ill in rural Australia.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates a pilot implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), a clinical tool used to guide the care of dying patients in the last days of life, on the end-of-life care for dying patients in three regions in rural Australia. METHODS: The LCP was implemented at 13 participating sites: nine hospitals (general wards), one community-based palliative care service, and three in-hospital palliative care units. To evaluate the implementation of the LCP, 415 eligible patient records were examined: 223 pre-implementation and 192 post-implementation (116 on the LCP and 76 receiving usual care). The primary analysis compared all patients pre-implementation of the LCP versus all patients post-implementation. RESULTS: Increases were found post-implementation for communication with other health professionals and with patients or family (pre-69 %, post-87 %; p ≤ 0.000), use of palliative medications (pre-87 %, post-98 %; p ≤ 0.000) and frequency of symptom assessments (pre-66 %, post-82 %; p ≤ 0.000). Fewer blood and radiological investigations were conducted and venous access devices used in the post-implementation groups than in the pre-implementation period. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that when rigorously implemented, the LCP improves important components of end-of-life care for dying patients and their families.