Perceptions of palliative care among hematologic malignancy specialists: a mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Patients with hematologic malignancies are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. Reasons for this difference are poorly understood. METHODS: This was a multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic and solid tumor oncologists using surveys assessing referral practices and in-depth semistructured interviews exploring views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We analyzed qualitative interview data using constant comparative methods to explore reasons for observed differences. RESULTS: Among 66 interviewees, 23 oncologists cared exclusively for patients with hematologic malignancies; 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven (30%) of 23 hematologic oncologists reported never referring to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred. In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex patient cases. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophic concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and preference for controlling even palliative aspects of patient care. CONCLUSION: Most hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for comanaging patients with complex cases. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic malignancy specialists.

Development of a post-intensive care unit storytelling intervention for surrogates involved in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Surrogates involved in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for a loved one in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at increased risk for adverse psychological outcomes that can last for months to years after the ICU experience. Post-ICU interventions to reduce surrogate distress have not yet been developed. We sought to (1) describe a conceptual framework underlying the beneficial mental health effects of storytelling, and (2) present formative work developing a storytelling intervention to reduce distress for recently bereaved surrogates. METHOD: An interdisciplinary team conceived the idea for a storytelling intervention based on evidence from narrative theory that storytelling reduces distress from traumatic events through emotional disclosure, cognitive processing, and social connection. We developed an initial storytelling guide based on this theory and the clinical perspectives of team members. We then conducted a case series with recently bereaved surrogates to iteratively test and modify the guide. RESULTS: The storytelling guide covered three key domains of the surrogate's experience of the patient's illness and death: antecedents, ICU experience, and aftermath. The facilitator focused on the parts of a story that appeared to generate strong emotions and used nonjudgmental statements to attend to these emotions. Between September 2012 and May 2013, we identified 28 eligible surrogates from a medical ICU and consented 20 for medical record review and recontact; 10 became eligible, of whom 6 consented and completed the storytelling intervention. The single-session storytelling intervention lasted from 40 to 92 minutes. All storytelling participants endorsed the intervention as acceptable, and five of six reported it as helpful. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Surrogate storytelling is an innovative and acceptable post-ICU intervention for recently bereaved surrogates and should be evaluated further.

Oncologist factors that influence referrals to subspecialty palliative care clinics.

PURPOSE: Recent research and professional guidelines support expanded use of outpatient subspecialty palliative care in oncology, but provider referral practices vary widely. We sought to explore oncologist factors that influence referrals to outpatient palliative care. METHODS: Multisite, qualitative interview study at three academic cancer centers in the United States with well-established palliative care clinics. Seventy-four medical oncologists participated in semistructured interviews between February and October 2012. The interview guide asked about experiences and decision making regarding outpatient palliative care use. A multidisciplinary team analyzed interview transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop and refine themes related to palliative care referral decisions. RESULTS: We identified three main oncologist barriers to subspecialty palliative care referrals at sites with comprehensive palliative care clinics: persistent conceptions of palliative care as an alternative philosophy of care incompatible with cancer therapy, a predominant belief that providing palliative care is an integral part of the oncologist's role, and a lack of knowledge about locally available services. Participants described their views of subspecialty palliative care as evolving in response to increasing availability of services and positive referral experiences, but emphasized that views of palliative care as valuable in addition to standard oncology care were not universally shared by oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Improving provision of palliative care in oncology will likely require efforts beyond increasing service availability. Raising awareness of ways in which subspecialty palliative care complements standard oncology care and developing ways for oncologists and palliative care physicians to collaborate and integrate their respective skills may help.

Discussion of treatment trials in intensive care.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to characterize whether and how the option of a treatment trial is discussed with surrogates in intensive care units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We audio-recorded 72 family conferences for 72 patients at high risk for death or severe functional impairment in 5 intensive care units in San Francisco, California. We analyzed transcripts to develop a coding framework for whether and how trials were discussed. RESULTS: Trials were offered in 15% of conferences. We identified 2 types: (1) time-limited trials, defined as continuing all intensive, life-sustaining treatments, with a plan to reassess after a defined time period based on prespecified clinical milestones, and (2) symptom-limited trials, defined as using basic medical care aimed at survival (rather than purely comfort-focused treatment) once ventilatory support is withdrawn, with a plan to reassess based on patient symptoms. Clinicians frequently did not inform surrogates about key elements of the trial such as criteria by which the effectiveness of the trial would be evaluated and possible next steps based on trial results. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of critically ill patients, trials were infrequently and incompletely discussed. Additional work is needed to improve communication about treatment trials and evaluate their impact on patient and family outcomes.

"It hurts to know... and it helps": exploring how surrogates in the ICU cope with prognostic information.

BACKGROUND: Surrogates of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) want honest prognostic information, but they also want to hear good news. There has been little examination of how surrogates navigate these dual needs or how clinicians should respond. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was explore how surrogates in the ICU experience and cope with prognostic information and describe their recommendations for clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with 30 surrogates facing life-sustaining treatment decisions in five ICUs in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates in the ICU focused on general experiences, emotional needs, informational needs, and recommendations for clinicians. We inductively analyzed transcripts for key themes using constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Surrogates experience a tension between wanting to know what to expect and needing to remain hopeful. This tension underlies their experience receiving prognostic information and may lead to behaviors that allow continued hope in the face of bad news, including: 1) focusing on small details rather than the big picture, 2) relying on gut instincts or personal beliefs about the patient, 3) seeking more positive prognostic information from other sources, and, for a minority, 4) avoiding or disbelieving prognostic information. Surrogates emphasize the importance of frequent communication and call on physicians to gently help them prepare for the worst and hope for the best. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates in the ICU experience conflicting emotional and informational needs. They describe behaviors that give the appearance of avoiding bad news while simultaneously asking physicians to help them cope with prognostic information.

I don't want to be the one saying 'we should just let him die': intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have addressed external factors associated with difficulty in surrogate decision making, intrapersonal sources of tension are an important element of decision making that have received little attention. OBJECTIVE: To characterize key intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit (ICU), and explore associated coping strategies. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty surrogates from five ICUs at two hospitals in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who were actively involved in making life-sustaining treatment decisions for a critically ill loved one. APPROACH: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates, focused on intrapersonal tensions, role challenges, and coping strategies. We analyzed transcripts using constant comparative methods. KEY RESULTS: Surrogates experience significant emotional conflict between the desire to act in accordance with their loved one's values and 1) not wanting to feel responsible for a loved one's death, 2) a desire to pursue any chance of recovery, and 3) the need to preserve family well-being. Associated coping strategies included 1) recalling previous discussions with a loved one, 2) sharing decisions with family members, 3) delaying or deferring decision making, 4) spiritual/religious practices, and 5) story-telling. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates' struggle to reconcile personal and family emotional needs with their loved ones' wishes, and utilize common coping strategies to combat intrapersonal tensions. These data suggest reasons surrogates may struggle to follow a strict substituted judgment standard. They also suggest ways clinicians may improve decision making, including attending to surrogates' emotions, facilitating family decision making, and eliciting potential emotional conflicts and spiritual needs.

Association between physicians' beliefs and the option of comfort care for critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: For critically ill patients at high risk of death, reasonable treatment options include attempts at life prolongation and treatment focused on comfort. Little is known about whether and how physicians present the option of comfort care to surrogates. This study assessed how comfort care is presented to surrogates and whether physicians' beliefs are associated with whether comfort care is presented as an option. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 72 audio-recorded family conferences about treatment decisions in five ICUs at two hospitals in San Francisco, California. One hundred sixty-nine family members and 54 physicians participated. Patients were at high risk of death or severe functional impairment. Transcripts of audio-recorded conferences were coded to identify whether physicians offered comfort care as an alternative to life-sustaining treatment and to characterize the stated risks and benefits. Physicians completed a questionnaire indicating the strength of their belief that life support should be foregone. RESULTS: The inpatient mortality rate was 72 %. Using a broad definition of comfort-oriented treatment, this option was presented in 56 % (95 % CI, 44-67 %) of conferences. In clustered multivariate models, the only independent predictor of offering comfort care as an option was the strength of the physician's belief that life support should be foregone [OR 1.38 (1.14-1.66), p = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians did not explicitly inform surrogates about the option of comfort-oriented treatment in roughly half of clinician-family meetings. Physicians who more strongly believe that the appropriate goal of care is life prolongation are less likely to inform surrogates about the option of comfort care.