RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Primary brain tumours newly affect >260 000 people each year worldwide. In the UK, every year >10 000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour while >5000 die annually from the disease. Prognoses are poor, cognitive deterioration common and patients have prolonged palliative needs. Advance care planning (ACP) may enable early discussion of future care decisions. Although a core commitment in the UK healthcare strategy, and the shared responsibility of clinical teams, ACP appears uncommon in practice. Evidence around ACP practice in neuro-oncology is limited. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to elicit key social and structural conditions contributing to the avoidance of ACP in neuro-oncology. DESIGN: A cross-sectional qualitative study design was used. SETTING: One tertiary care hospital in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen healthcare professionals working in neuro-oncology participated in this study, including neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, clinical nurse specialists, allied healthcare professionals and a neurologist. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants to explore their assumptions and experiences of ACP. Data were analysed thematically using the well-established framework method. RESULTS: Participants recognised the importance of ACP but few had ever completed formal ACP documentation. We identified eight key factors, which we suggest comprise three main conditions for avoidance: (1) difficulties being a highly emotive, time-intensive practice requiring the right 'window of opportunity' and (2) presence and availability of others; (3) ambiguities in ACP definition, purpose and practice. Combined, these created a 'culture of shared avoidance'. CONCLUSION: In busy clinical environments, 'shared responsibility' is interpreted as 'others' responsibility' laying the basis for a culture of avoidance. To address this, we suggest a 'generalists and specialists' model of ACP, wherein healthcare professionals undertake particular responsibilities. Healthcare professionals are already adopting this model informally, but without formalised structure it is likely to fail given a tendency for people to assume a generalist role.
Assuntos
Planejamento Antecipado de Cuidados , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Neoplasias Encefálicas , Pessoal de Saúde , Cuidados Paliativos , Papel Profissional , Assistência Terminal , Adulto , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neurologistas , Enfermeiros Clínicos , Oncologistas , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Inquéritos e Questionários , Reino UnidoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: In spite of considerable attention, patients diagnosed with cancer continue to report poor experiences of care. The root causes of this remain unclear. This exploratory study aimed to investigate new ways of understanding the experience of patients with cancer, using a literary-based research approach. DESIGN: Interviews were undertaken with four patients diagnosed with high-grade brain cancers at least 6â months from diagnosis and with people (n=5) identified by the patients as important in their care pathway. Interview transcripts were analysed by humanities academics as pieces of literature, where each patient's story was told from more than one person's perspective. The academics then came together in a facilitated workshop to agree major themes within the patient experiences. The themes were presented at a patient and carer event involving 70 participants to test the validity of the insights. RESULTS: Insights into the key issues for patients with cancer could be grouped into six themes: accountability; identity; life context; time; language; rigour and emotion. Patients often held a different perspective to the traditionally held medical views of what constitutes good care. For example, patients did not see any conflict between a doctor having scientific rigour and portraying emotion. CONCLUSIONS: One key feature of the approach was its comparative nature: patients often held different views from those traditionally held by physicians of what constitutes health and good outcomes. This revealed aspects that may be considered by healthcare professionals when designing improvements. Proposals for further testing are discussed, with a particular emphasis on the need for sensitivity to individual differences in experiences.