Disparities in length of goals of care conversations between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Parker Gonsky ◽  
Natalia Egorova ◽  
...  

19 Background: Studies show minority patients have inadequate discussions about treatment, prognosis, and goals of care (GoC) which translate into substandard treatment, worse quality of life, and poorer survival than whites. However, there is a paucity of data on the quality of communication among minority patients with advanced cancer. We studied factors impacting the oncologists’ time spent during GoC discussion visits with their minority and non-minority patients. Methods: At community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals, we recruited and randomized solid tumor oncologists and their newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients with <2-year prognosis to participate in a RCT, testing a coaching model of communication skills training. Patients were surveyed after post-imaging visits. These visits were audiotaped and median encounter time recorded. We define GoC discussions as patients report that their doctor talked about preferences for cancer treatment and clarified things most important to them given their illness. Comparisons were made using non-parametric tests. We used mix-effect models for risk adjustment. Results: For 22 randomized oncologists in the study,142 post-imaging encounters were audiotaped. Of these, 38% were non-Hispanic White, 32% non-Hispanic Black and 19% Hispanic. The median face to face time oncologists spent during a GoC encounter with an advanced cancer minority patient was 12 minutes compared to 17 minutes for non-minorities (p=0.002). Median encounter times varied between the four sites, ranging from 10 minutes to 18 minutes, p=0.009. For visits that took place after progression of disease, duration of visit was 18 minutes versus 13 minutes if there were no progression, p=0.007. After controlling for clustering of the patients within the hospitals and progression of disease, time spent with minority patients remained less than with non-minority patients (15 min vs. 18 min, p=0.02). Conclusions: Oncologists' time spent conducting GoC conversations with minority cancer patients is significantly less than with non-minority patients. Evaluating factors that contribute to this disparity is critically important to ensure minority patients receive high-quality cancer care. Clinical trial information: NCT02374255.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6586-6586
Author(s):  
Nina A. Bickell ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Parker Gonsky ◽  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Benjamin Philip Levy ◽  
...  

6586 Background: Advanced cancer patients often have a poor understanding of their cancer prognosis. Goals of Care (GoC) discussions provide information about the cancer, its treatment & prognosis and elicit patient values. Little is known about the best ways to enhance patient understanding, clarify values and move GoC discussions earlier in the disease process. We report the effect of coaching oncologists on GoC discussions. Methods: We recruited oncologists & their advanced cancer patients with < 2 year prognosis to a RCT testing a coaching model communication skills training. Patients were surveyed after their post-imaging visit. We define GoC discussions as patient report that their doctor talked about their cancer prognosis and clarified things most important to them given their disease. Outcome variables assess the impact of GoC on patients’ knowledge on what to expect and clarity of values. Results: We enrolled 22/25 (88%) oncologists and 70% of eligible patients of whom 96 (55%) completed a survey. On average, doctors were 44 yrs old (32-66) and in practice 14.5 yrs (5-40). Patients’ mean age was 62 yrs (20-95), 40% females, 58% white, 24% Latino & 22 % black. Overall, 2/3 of patients reported their treatment’s goal was to cure their cancer; 14% reported cure to be unlikely. Patients felt more knowledgeable (79% vs 21%; p = 0.02) when their doctors discussed treatments, side effects & quality of life. When patients were asked about things important to them, they report being a bit clearer about their values (65% vs 35%; p = 0.16). Compared to controls, intervention patients felt more knowledgeable (78% v 63%; p = 0.17) but did not feel clearer about their values (60% v 54%; p = 0.59). Multivariate modeling found that poor health literacy (OR = 0.2; 95%CI: 0.07-0.82), having a GoC discussion (OR = 10.2; 1.7-63.1) and being in the intervention group (OR = 8.8; 1.4-55.2) significantly affected knowledge (model c = 0.88; p < 0.01). However, discussing what’s important to patients did not help patients feel clearer about their values (OR = 2.7; 0.6-12.2; model c = 0.82; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Using a coaching model to teach oncologists communication skills may improve patients’ understanding of what to expect with their cancer but does not impact their clarity of values. Clinical trial information: NCT02374255.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21675-e21675
Author(s):  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Parker Gonsky ◽  
Natalia Egorova ◽  
...  

e21675 Background: Oncologists are pressed to care for higher volumes of advanced cancer patients. Interviews with oncologists revealed their concern that goals of care (GoC) discussions take time. We studied the impact of oncologists’ productivity on their conduct of meaningful GOC discussions with patients. Methods: At academic, municipal and rural hospitals, we recruited & randomized solid tumor oncologists & their newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients with <2 year prognosis to participate in a RCT testing a coaching model of communication skills training. All oncologists were encouraged to have GoC discussions at the visit after imaging to restage. Patients are surveyed after that post-imaging visit. We define GoC discussions as patient report that their doctor talked about preferences for cancer treatment and clarified things most important to them given their illness. We measure quality of GoC discussions by patients’ rating. Productivity was measured by work revenue value units (wRVUs) per hour for the day each oncologist saw the study patient post-imaging. Results: We enrolled 22/25 oncologists (88%); to date 77 patients completed surveys. Productivity did not vary significantly by hospital though oncologists generated greater wRVUs at the municipal hospital (p=0.2203). Overall, 36% of patients report having a high quality GoC discussion. There was no significant relationship between level of productivity and conduct of high quality GoC discussion. Multivariate model controlling for hospital and intervention found no relationship between productivity and conduct of high quality GoC discussion. Conclusions: Despite concerns about the time required to conduct GoC discussions, we found that productivity did not affect oncologists’ ability to conduct high quality GoC discussions nor did conduct of a GoC reduce productivity. The prevalence of high quality GoC discussions was low. [Table: see text]


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6597-6597
Author(s):  
Nina A. Bickell ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Parker Gonsky ◽  
Jenny J. Lin ◽  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Cramarossa ◽  
Liang Zeng ◽  
Liying Zhang ◽  
Ling-Ming Tseng ◽  
Ming-Feng Hou ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donemico Fuoco ◽  
Jonathan di Tomasso ◽  
Caroline Boulos ◽  
Robert D Kilgour ◽  
Jose A Morais ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Sommer ◽  
Christopher Chung ◽  
Dagmar M. Haller ◽  
Sophie Pautex

Abstract Background: Patients suffering from advanced cancer often loose contact with their primary care physician (PCP) during oncologic treatment and palliative care is introduced very late.The aim of this pilot study was to test the feasibility and procedures for a randomized trial of an intervention to teach PCPs a palliative care approach and communication skills to improve advanced cancer patients’ quality of life. Methods: Observational pilot study in 5 steps. 1) Recruitment of PCPs. 2) Intervention: training on palliative care competencies and communication skills addressing end-of-life issues.3) Recruitment of advanced cancer patients by PCPs. 4) Patients follow-up by PCPs, and assessment of their quality of life by a research assistant 5) Feedback from PCPs using a semi-structured focus group and three individual interviews with qualitative deductive theme analysis.Results: 8 PCPs were trained. PCPs failed to recruit patients for fear of imposing additional loads on their patients. PCPs changed their approach of advanced cancer patients. They became more conscious of their role and responsibility during oncologic treatments and felt empowered to take a more active role picking up patient’s cues and addressing advance directives. They developed interprofessional collaborations for advance care planning. Overall, they discovered the role to help patients to make decisions for a better end-of-life.Conclusions: PCPs failed to recruit advanced cancer patients, but reported a change in paradigm about palliative care. They moved from a focus on helping patients to die better, to a new role helping patients to define the conditions for a better end-of-life.Trial registration : The ethics committee of the canton of Geneva approved the study (2018-00077 Pilot Study) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki


2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 817-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geok Ling Lee ◽  
Mandy Yen Ling Ow ◽  
Ramaswamy Akhileswaran ◽  
Grace Su Yin Pang ◽  
Gilbert Kam Tong Fan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document