ABSTRACT
Bias in advanced heart failure therapy allocation results in inequitable outcomes for minoritized populations. The purpose of this study was to examine how bias is introduced during group decision-making with an interprofessional team using Breathett's Model of Heart Failure Decision-Making. This was a secondary qualitative descriptive analysis from a study focused on bias in advanced heart failure therapy allocation. Team meetings were recorded and transcribed from four heart failure centers. Breathett's Model was applied both deductively and inductively to transcripts (n = 12). Bias was identified during discussions about patient characteristics, clinical fragility, and prior clinical decision-making. Some patients were labeled as "good citizens" or as adherent/non-adherent while others benefited from strong advocacy from interprofessional team members. Social determinants of health also impacted therapy allocation. Interprofessional collaboration with advanced heart failure therapy allocation may be enhanced with the inclusion of patient advocates and limit of clinical decision-making using subjective data.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Patient Care Team , Humans , Heart Failure/therapy , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Qualitative Research , Interprofessional Relations , Cooperative Behavior , Clinical Decision-Making , Male , Female , Social Determinants of Health , Decision Making , Group Processes , Middle AgedABSTRACT
As the U.S. population's demographics shift, young U.S. adults are increasingly engaged in informal caregiving for aging generations. Yet, there is little research on the unique experiences and needs of young adults who take on caregiving roles for adult cancer patients. Herein we demonstrate through a theoretical description that young adult cancer care partners deserve distinct recognition in the cancer control continuum given the psychological, physical, financial, and social features unique to their cancer experience.
