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

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
Thomas William LeBlanc ◽  
Jonathan David O'Donnell ◽  
Megan Crowley-Makota ◽  
Daniel Paul Dohan ◽  
Michael W. Rabow ◽  
...  

9 Background: Patients with hematologic malignancies have unmet palliative care needs but are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. This difference is poorly understood. Methods: Multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic oncologists and solid tumor oncologists. Between February and October 2012, oncologists at 3 academic medical centers with well-established palliative care services completed surveys assessing referral practices and in-depth, semi-structured interviews about their views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We then 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, and 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven of 23 hematologic oncologists (30%) reported never referring a patient to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred (p<0.001). In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, while most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex cases and/or offload burden in a busy clinic. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophical concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and a preference to control palliative aspects of patient care. Conclusions: Most hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, while solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for co-managing complex patients. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic oncologists.

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e230-e238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. LeBlanc ◽  
Jonathan D. O'Donnell ◽  
Megan Crowley-Matoka ◽  
Michael W. Rabow ◽  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
...  

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1231-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilson I. Gonsalves ◽  
Tsewang Tashi ◽  
Jairam Krishnamurthy ◽  
Tracy Davies ◽  
Stephanie Ortman ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Gagnon ◽  
Lyne Nadeau ◽  
Susan Scott ◽  
Serge Dumont ◽  
Neil MacDonald ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 1114-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice M Firth ◽  
Suzanne M O’Brien ◽  
Ping Guo ◽  
Jane Seymour ◽  
Heather Richardson ◽  
...  

Background: Specialist palliative care services have various configurations of staff, processes and interventions, which determine how care is delivered. Currently, there is no consistent way to define and distinguish these different models of care. Aim: To identify the core components that characterise and differentiate existing models of specialist palliative care in the United Kingdom. Design: Mixed-methods study: (1) semi-structured interviews to identify criteria, (2) two-round Delphi study to rank/refine criteria, and (3) structured interviews to test/refine criteria. Setting/participants: Specialist palliative care stakeholders from hospice inpatient, hospital advisory, and community settings. Results: (1)  Semi-structured interviews with 14 clinical leads, from eight UK organisations (five hospice inpatient units, two hospital advisory teams, five community teams), provided 34 preliminary criteria. (2)  Delphi study: Round 1 (54 participants): thirty-four criteria presented, seven removed and seven added. Round 2 (30 participants): these 34 criteria were ranked with the 15 highest ranked criteria, including setting, type of care, size of service, diagnoses, disciplines, mode of care, types of interventions, ‘out-of-hours’ components (referrals, times, disciplines, mode of care, type of care), external education, use of measures, bereavement follow-up and complex grief provision. (3)  Structured interviews with 21 UK service leads (six hospice inpatients, four hospital advisory and nine community teams) refined the criteria from (1) and (2), and provided four further contextual criteria (team purpose, funding, self-referral acceptance and discharge). Conclusion: In this innovative study, we derive 20 criteria to characterise and differentiate models of specialist palliative care – a major paradigm shift to enable accurate reporting and comparison in practice and research.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROSAMOND RHODES ◽  
JAMES J. STRAIN

Abstract:Palliative care has had a long-standing commitment to teaching medical students and other medical professionals about pain management, communication, supporting patients in their decisions, and providing compassionate end-of-life care. Palliative care programs also have a critical role in helping patients understand medical conditions, and in supporting them in dealing with pain, fear of dying, and the experiences of the terminal phase of their lives. We applaud their efforts to provide that critical training and fully support their continued important work in meeting the needs of patients and families. Although we appreciate the contributions of palliative care services, we have noted a problem involving some palliative care professionals’ attitudes, methods of decisionmaking, and use of language. In this article we explain these problems by discussing two cases that we encountered.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S668-S668
Author(s):  
Tess H Moeke-Maxwell ◽  
Kathleen R Mason ◽  
Merryn Gott

Abstract Older indigenous people and their families draw on specific tribal care customs to support end-of-life care as these help to fortify and strengthen older people. New Zealand’s health and palliative care services can either help or hinder families to utilise their care customs. The aim of the Pae Herenga study was to investigate the specific traditional care customs employed by older New Zealand Māori. This involved 60 face-to-face interviews with participants who had a life limiting illness (majority aged over 65), family carers, indigenous healers, spiritual practitioners, and health and palliative care professionals across four key geographical sites. Three digital story workshops involving 16 participants were also included. The study findings show that no matter what the older person’s illness was, their cultural customs and protocols helped to fortify them and kept them spiritually safe at end-of-life. Hospitals and hospices helped families to action their customs by providing rooms large enough to host gatherings of thirty or more people; prayers, songs, speechmaking and communal sharing of food took place. However, incidences of racism, a lack of space, and a lack of support for indigenous plant medicines prevented the use of ancient traditional end-of-life care customs for older people. The findings suggest that health and palliative care services can help older indigenous people maintain their spiritual strength by providing them with culturally supportive care and environments equipped to host the dying and their families.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document