Differences in goals of care discussion outcomes among healthcare professionals: an observational cross-sectional study

Background: Goals of care discussions ensure patients receive the care that they want. Recent studies have recognized the opportunity for allied health professionals, such as nurses, in facilitating goals of care discussions. However, the outcomes of such interventions are not well studied. Aim: To compare the outcomes of goals of care discussions led by physicians and nurses. Design: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to an Internal Medicine unit from January 2018 to August 2019. A comprehensive chart review was performed on a random sample of patients. Patient’s decision to accept or refuse cardiopulmonary resuscitation was recorded and analyzed. Analysis was stratified by patients’ comorbidity burden and illness severity. Setting/Participants: The study took place at a tertiary care center and included 200 patients. Patients aged ⩾ 18 were included. Patients who have had pre-existing goals of care documentation were excluded. Results: About 52% of the goals of care discussions were completed by nurses and 48% by physicians. Patients were more likely to accept cardiopulmonary resuscitation in nurse-led discussions compared to physician-led ones (80.8% vs 61.4%, p = 0.003). Multiple regression showed that patients with higher comorbidity burden (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62–0.82), more severe illness (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.88–0.99), and physician-led goals of care discussions (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15–0.62) were less likely to accept cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusions: There was a significant difference between the outcomes of goals of care discussions led by nurses and physicians. Patients were more likely to accept aggressive resuscitative measures in nurse-led goals of care discussions. Further research efforts are needed to identify the factors contributing to this discrepancy, and to devise ways of improving goals of care discussion delivery.

The Healthcare Journey of Women With Advanced Gynecological Cancer From Diagnosis Through Terminal Illness: Qualitative Analysis of Progress Note Data

Objective To examine women’s journeys with gynecologic cancer from before diagnosis through death and identify elements of their healthcare experience that warrant improvement. Methods This exploratory study used longitudinal progress notes data from a multispecialty practice in Northern California. The sample included women with stage IV gynecological cancer diagnosed after 2011 and who died before 2018. Available progress notes from prior to diagnosis to death were qualitatively analyzed. Results We identified 32 women, (median age 61 years) with mostly uterine (n=17) and ovarian (n=9) cancers and median survival of 9.2 months (min:2.9 and max:47.5). Sixteen (50%) received outpatient palliative care and 18 (56%) received hospice care. The analysis found wide variation in documentation about communication about diagnosis, prognosis, goals of care, stopping treatment, and starting hospice care. Challenges included escalating/severe symptoms, repeated urgent care/emergency department/hospital encounters, and lack of or late access to palliative and hospice care. Notes also illustrated how patient background and goals influenced care trajectory and communication. Documentation styles varied substantially, with palliative care notes more consistently documenting conversations about goals of care and psychosocial needs. Conclusion This analysis of longitudinal illness experience of women with advanced gynecological cancer suggests that clinicians may want to (1) prioritize earlier discussion about goals of care; (2) provide supplemental support to patients with higher needs, possibly through palliative care or navigation; and (3) write notes to enhance patient understanding now that patients may access all notes.

The Hardest Weeks of My Life: A Qualitative Study of Experiences, Practice Changes, and Emotional Burden of New York City Oncology Physicians During the COVID-19 Surge in 2020

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic surge in New York City in Spring 2020 resulted in an unprecedented constraint on health care resources. This study aimed to explore the experiences of doctors providing care to oncology patients during this time. METHODS: Hospitalists and medical oncologists from two large inpatient services at a dedicated cancer center participated in virtual in-depth interviews exploring how the pandemic affected their practice and to what extent it may have affected decisions for urgent evaluation or hospital admission, interventions, or goals-of-care discussions. Interviews also explored how the pandemic affected each individual physician's psychologic well-being. Transcripts were analyzed by three independent coders in Atlas.ti v. 7.5, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Eighteen physicians were interviewed (n = 6 GI medical oncologists, n = 6 gynecologic medical oncologists, and n = 6 hospitalists). Analysis identified five major themes related to fear and distress: (1) perceived patient fears of the hospital during COVID-19, leading to avoidance and delay of acute care needs before admission, (2) physicians' fear and distress delivering oncology care during COVID-19, (3) physician distress resulting from ambiguity in decision making, (4) distress and anxiety balancing the need for patient contact with the need to minimize infection risk, and (5) distress regarding impact of uncertainty and acuity of COVID-19 on goals-of-care discussions. CONCLUSION: Insight into the experiences of physicians providing cancer care during a COVID-19 surge underscores the need for strategies mitigate short-term distress and long-term psychologic impacts. Findings can also inform practitioner training and preparedness for future pandemics in the oncology setting.

OP456 Encouraging Shared Decision-Making Of Goals Of Care Discussions In Lung Cancer Patients Using A Smartphone Application

IntroductionAn important reason for receiving non-beneficial treatment at end-of life is the lack of timely discussions on goals of care and end-of-life preferences. A recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated that patients primed with a questionnaire on their end-of-life preferences were more likely to initiate such conversations with their doctors. Our objective is to integrate the questionnaire into a smartphone application to facilitate early goals of care discussions. To achieve this goal, we first plan to undertake a feasibility study to understand stakeholder preferences.MethodsAs part of a quality improvement initiative at our Canadian quaternary-care hospital, we conducted focus groups with oncology and palliative care physicians and patients to understand barriers to early conversations on end-of-life preferences, and to assess feasibility of using smartphone technology in facilitating these conversations. The app would integrate a questionnaire to patients and send prompts to physicians on patient readiness and timing of conversations.ResultsWe conducted separate focus groups with lung cancer patients (n = 6) and clinicians in oncology (n = 6) and palliative care (n = 6). Clinical teams expressed enthusiasm about early conversations but raised several barriers including system (lack of electronic documentation and access to data; multiple physicians), clinician (lack of time) and patient (stigma associated with end-of-life) barriers. Clinicians agreed that an app could overcome some of these barriers such as access to patient and electronic data by making patients the repository of all their data and empowering them to initiate discussions. However, they raised concerns about universal accessibility of such technology, especially among the elderly. Patient focus groups will take place in March 2021 and inform us on feasibility in this population.ConclusionsThere is a consensus among physicians at our hospital that early end-of-life conversations have the potential to mitigate adverse events and that use of a smart phone app could facilitate such conversations.