'Talk to me': a mixed methods study on preferred physician behaviours during end-of-life communication from the patient perspective

Background
Despite the recognized importance of end-of-life (EOL) communication between patients and physicians, the extent and quality of such communication is lacking.

Objective
We sought to understand patient perspectives on physician behaviours during EOL communication.

Design
In this mixed methods study, we conducted quantitative and qualitative strands and then merged data sets during a mixed methods analysis phase. In the quantitative strand, we used the quality of communication tool (QOC) to measure physician behaviours that predict global rating of satisfaction in EOL communication skills, while in the qualitative strand we conducted semi-structured interviews. During the mixed methods analysis, we compared and contrasted qualitative and quantitative data.

Setting and Participants
Seriously ill inpatients at three tertiary care hospitals in Canada.

Results
We found convergence between qualitative and quantitative strands: patients desire candid information from their physician and a sense of familiarity. The quantitative results (n = 132) suggest a paucity of certain EOL communication behaviours in this seriously ill population with a limited prognosis. The qualitative findings (n = 16) suggest that at times, physicians did not engage in EOL communication despite patient readiness, while sometimes this may represent an appropriate deferral after assessment of a patient's lack of readiness.

Conclusions
Avoidance of certain EOL topics may not always be a failure if it is a result of an assessment of lack of patient readiness. This has implications for future tool development: a measure could be built in to assess whether physician behaviours align with patient readiness.

Sector analysis provides additional spatial information on the permanent prostate brachytherapy learning curve

PURPOSE: To evaluate the permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) learning curve using postimplant multisector dosimetric analysis and to assess the correlation between sector -specific dosimetry and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS AND METHODS: First 200 patients treated with (125)I PPB monotherapy (145 Gy) at a single institution were assessed. Postimplant dosimetry (PID) using CT was evaluated for whole prostate (global) and 12 sectors, assessing minimum dose to 90% of prostate (D90) and dose to 0.1 cm(3) of rectum (D0.1cc). Global and sector PID results were evaluated to investigate changes in D90 with case number. Urinary and bowel PROMs were assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire. The correlation between global and individual sector PID and urinary/bowel PROMs was also evaluated.

RESULTS: Linear regression confirmed a significant improvement in global D90 with case number (r(2) = 0.20; p = 0.001) at a rate of 0.11 Gy/case. Postimplant D90 of base sectors increased at a rate of 0.11-0.15 Gy/case (p = 0.0001) and matched global improvement. The regression lines of midgland and apex sectors were significantly different from global D90 (p = 0.01). Posterior midgland sectors showed a significant reduction in D90 with case number at a rate of 0.13-0.19 Gy/case (p = 0.01). Dose to posterior midgland sectors correlated with rectal D0.1cc dose but not bowel PROMs. Dose to posterior midgland sectors correlated with urinary International Prostate Symptom Score change, which was not apparent when global D90 alone was considered.

CONCLUSIONS: Sector analysis provided increased spatial information regarding the PPB learning curve. Furthermore, sector analysis correlated with urinary PROMs and rectal dose.

Developing an information booklet to meet the needs of intensive care patients and relatives

Changes in the economic climate and the delivery of health care require that pre-operative information programmes are effective and efficiently implemented. In order to be effective the pre-operative programme must meet the information needs of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and their relatives. Efficiency can be achieved through a structured pre-operative programme which provides a framework for teaching. The need to develop an ICU information booklet in a large teaching hospital in Northern Ireland has become essential to provide relevant information and improve the quality of service for patients and relatives, as set out in the White Paper, ‘Working for Patients’, (DoH, 1989). The first step in establishing a patient education programme was to ascertain patients' and relatives' informational needs. A ‘needs assessment’ identified the pre-operative information needs of ICU patients and their relatives (McGaughey, 1994) and the findings were used to plan and publish an information booklet. The ICU booklet provides a structure for pre-operative visits to ensure that patients and relatives information needs are met.

Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.

The influence of genotype information on psychiatrists' treatment recommendations: more experienced clinicians know better what to ignore

Objectives: To assess if psychiatrists were influenced by a patient’s genetic information, even when the patient’s response to treatment was already known to them. Methods: Sixty-seven psychiatrists were presented with patients' pre and post-treatment scores on the PANSS for two hypothetical treatments for schizophrenia. Psychiatrists were also informed whether the patient possessed a genotype linked to hyper-responsiveness to one of the treatments, and were asked to recommend one of these two treatments. Attribute non-attendance assessed whether the information on genotype influenced psychiatrists' treatment recommendations. Results: Years of experience predicted whether psychiatrists were influenced by the genetic information. Psychiatrists with one year or less of experience had a 46% probability of considering genetic information, while psychiatrists with at least 15 years of experience had a lower probability (7%). Conclusions: Psychiatrists and other clinicians should be cautious about allowing a patient's genetic information to carry unnecessary weight in their clinical decision making.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).