Advanced cancer patients’ reported priorities regarding wishes at the end of life: A randomized controlled study.

44 Background: Conversations about wishes around the end-of-life(EOL) are challenging for clinicians. There is limited literature about the type and stability of patient’s reported EOL planning priorities. We compared a set of 36 cards (“Go-wish-Game”: GWG) v. a paper list of statements (LOS) to assist patients in establishing priorities. Methods: Randomized controlled study. Pts. were randomized to the GWG or to 36 LOS and were asked to categorize them as very, somewhat, or not important; Group A received LOS followed by LOS 4-24 hours later; group B: GWG-GWG; group C: GWG-LOS, and group D: LOS-GWG. The State-Trait Anxiety inventory for Adults(STAI) was done after the first set of questionnaires. Results: 100 pts. Median age (IQR): 56 (27-83) years. 60% female. 68% White, 17% Hispanic, and 9% African-American. 62% married. Age, marital status, religion, education and cancer diagnosis were not significant different among groups. All pts. were able to complete the GWG. 43/50 (88%) agreed that instructions of GWG were clear. 45/50 (92%) agreed that GWG was easy to understand. 31/50 (64%) patients exposed to both tools, preferred GWG. 39/50 (79%) expressed that GWG did not increased their anxiety. 31/50 (63%) expressed that having conversations about priorities near EOL is beneficial to them (p=NS). STAI median (IQR) score after GWG was 48 (39-59) v. 47 (27-63) for LOS, p=0.2952. The 10 most common “Very important” wishes expressed by pts. the first and second time they received the test (%; Spearman, p-value) were: to be at peace with God(74% v. 71%; r=0.73, p<0.0001), to pray(62% v. 61%, r=0.53, p<0.0001), to have my family with me(57% v. 61%; r=0.23, p=0.02), to be free from pain(54% v. 60%, r=0.31, p=0.001), not being a burden to my family(48% v. 49%, r=0.23, p=0.02), to trust my doctor(44% v. 45%; r=0.49, p<0.0001), to keep my sense of humor(41% v. 45%; r=0.53, p<0.0001), to say goodbye to important people in my life(41% v. 37%; r=0.46, p<0.0001); to have my family prepared for my death(40% v. 49%; r=0.48, p<0.0001). Conclusions: EOL wishes were similar and persistent using both GWG and LOS. Completing both GWG and LOS did not increase anxiety. All patients were able to complete and most preferred GWG.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Prompt List to Help Advanced Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers to Ask Questions About Prognosis and End-of-Life Care

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2006.06.7827 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 25 (6) ◽

pp. 715-723 ◽

Cited By ~ 222

Author(s):

Josephine M. Clayton ◽

Phyllis N. Butow ◽

Martin H.N. Tattersall ◽

Rhonda J. Devine ◽

Judy M. Simpson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

End Of Life ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

End Of Life Care ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Life Care ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Life Issues ◽

End Of Life Issues

Purpose To determine whether provision of a question prompt list (QPL) influences advanced cancer patients’/caregivers’ questions and discussion of topics relevant to end-of-life care during consultations with a palliative care (PC) physician. Patients and Methods This randomized controlled trial included patients randomly assigned to standard consultation or provision of QPL before consultation, with endorsement of the QPL by the physician during the consultation. Consecutive eligible patients with advanced cancer referred to 15 PC physicians from nine Australian PC services were invited to participate. Consultations were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed by blinded coders; patients completed questionnaires before, within 24 hours, and 3 weeks after the consultation. Results A total of 174 patients participated (92 QPL, 82 control). Compared with controls, QPL patients and caregivers asked twice as many questions (for patients, ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.2; P < .0001), and patients discussed 23% more issues covered by the QPL (95% CI, 11% to 37%; P < .0001). QPL patients asked more prognostic questions (ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.0; P = .004) and discussed more prognostic (ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8, P = .003) and end-of-life issues (30% v 10%; P = .001). Fewer QPL patients had unmet information needs about the future (χ21 = 4.14; P = .04), which was the area of greatest unmet information need. QPL consultations (average, 38 minutes) were longer (P = .002) than controls (average, 31 minutes). No differences between groups were observed in anxiety or patient/physician satisfaction. Conclusion Providing a QPL and physician endorsement of its use assists terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions and promotes discussion about prognosis and end-of-life issues, without creating patient anxiety or impairing satisfaction.

Download Full-text