Prognosis conversations are complex phenomena of substantial importance to palliative care (PC), yet these remain poorly understood. This study empirically identifies and describes major types of prognosis conversations that occur in the natural setting of PC consultation.
Methods:
We audio-recorded and coded 71 inpatient “goals of care” PC consultations at a large academic medical center in the northeastern United States. We used quantitative Latent Class Analyses for identifying discrete prognosis conversation types and qualitative Dimensional Analyses for more fully describing the process and content of the latent classes.
Results and Conclusions:
We observed three discrete types of prognosis conversations, each placing different communication demands upon all participants for achieving goal-concordant care: Navigating Options & Goals (56% of consultations), Facilitating New Goals (23%) and Preparing for End-of-Life (21%). This study provides the first step for developing educational and clinical prognosis communication interventions that are tailored to common decision-making contexts facing seriously ill patients, their families, and PC clinicians.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GramlingR, NortonSA, LadwigSet al.Direct observation of prognosis communication in palliative care: a descriptive study. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2013; 45:202–212.
2.
TemelJS, GreerJA, AdmaneSet al.Longitudinal perceptions of prognosis and goals of therapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a randomized study of early palliative care. J Clin Oncol, 2011; 29:2319–2326.
3.
MackJW, WeeksJC, WrightAA, BlockSD, PrigersonHG. End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: Predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. J Clin Oncol, 2010; 28:1203–1208.
4.
StreetRLJr, GordonH, HaidetP. Physicians' communication and perceptions of patients: Is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor?Soc Sci Med, 2007; 65:586–598.
5.
EpsteinRM, StreetRL. Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2007.
6.
GramlingR, CarrollT, EpsteinR. Prognostication in advanced illness. GoldsteinN, MorrisonS. Evidence-Based Practice of Palliative Medicine, 1st. Elsevier Press, 2013.
7.
HagenaarsJA, McCutcheonAL. Applied Latent Class Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
8.
AlexanderSC, PollakKI, MorganPAet al.How do non-physician clinicians respond to advanced cancer patients' negative expressions of emotions?Support Care Cancer, 2011; 19:155–159.
9.
PollakKI, ArnoldRM, JeffreysASet al.Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2007; 25:5748–5752.
10.
TulskyJA, ArnoldRM, AlexanderSCet al.Enhancing communication between oncologists and patients with a computer-based training program: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med, 2011; 155:593–601.
11.
AlexanderS, KeitzS, SloaneR, TulskyJ. A controlled trial of a short course to improve medical house staff communication with patients at the end of life. Acad Med, 2006; 81:1008–1012.
12.
BackAL, ArnoldRM, BaileWFet al.Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. Arch Intern Med, 2007; 167:453–460.
13.
BrownR, BylundCL, EddingtonJ, GueguenJA, KissaneDW. Discussing prognosis in an oncology setting: Initial evaluation of a communication skills training module. Psycho-Oncology, 2010; 19:408–414.
14.
BylundCL, BrownRF, di CicconeBLet al.Training faculty to facilitate communication skills training: Development and evaluation of a workshop. Patient Educ Couns, 2008; 70:430–436.
15.
KenniferS, AlexanderS, PollakKet al.Negative emotions in cancer care: Do oncologists' responses depend on severity and type of emotion?Patient Educ Couns, 2009; 76:51–56.
16.
PollakK, ArnoldR, JeffreysA, AlexanderSC, OlsenM, AbernethyAP, SkinnerCS, RodriguezKL, TulskyJA. Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with advanced cancer patients. J Clin Oncol, 2007; 25:48–52.
17.
RobinsonT, AlexanderS, HaysMet al.Patient-oncologist communication in advanced cancer: Predictors of patient perception of prognosis. Support Care Cancer, 2008; 16:803–811.
18.
LandisJR, KochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977; 33:159–174.
19.
LanzaST, CollinsLM, LemmonDR, SchaferJL. PROC LCA: A SAS procedure for latent class analysis. Struct Equ Modeling, 2007; 14:671–694.
20.
PROC LCA & PROC LTA [computer program]Version 1.2.7State College, PA: Penn State University, 2011. http://methodology.psu.edu
21.
Rabe-HeskethS, SkrondalA. Understanding variability in multilevel models for categorical responses. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, April2012.
22.
ShatzmanL. Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative to the grounding of theory in qualitative research. MainesDR. Social Organization and Social Process. New York, 1991; 303–314.
23.
AyresL, KavanaughK, KnaflKA. Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qual Health Res, 2003; 13:871–883.
24.
EvansJS. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol, 2008; 59:255–278.
25.
KahnemanD. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol, 2003; 58:697–720.
26.
QuillTE, HollowayR. Time-limited trials near the end of life. JAMA, 2011; 306:1483–1484.
27.
EpsteinRM, GramlingRE. What is shared in shared decision making? Complex Decisions when the evidence is unclear. Med Care Res Rev, 2013; 70,1 Suppl:94S–112S.
28.
BackAL, ArnoldRM, QuillTE. Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. Ann Intern Med, 2003; 138:439–443.
