Barriers to Effective Communication about Advance Care Planning and Palliative Care: A Qualitative Study.

Hyosin Kim, Signe Peterson Flieger
{"title":"Barriers to Effective Communication about Advance Care Planning and Palliative Care: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Hyosin Kim,&nbsp;Signe Peterson Flieger","doi":"10.14475/jhpc.2023.26.2.42","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to effective conversations about advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care reported by health care and community-based service providers in Massachusetts, USA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative research analyzed open-ended responses to two survey questions, inquiring about perceived barriers to having conversations about ACP and palliative care with patients and consumers. Data were collected between November 2017 and June 2019 from nine organizations in Massachusetts, including health care provider organizations, health insurers, community-based organizations, and a nursing education institution. Two researchers reviewed and coded the responses and identified common themes inductively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 142 responses, primary barriers to ACP included hesitation and lack of understanding and knowledge, discomfort and resistance among service providers, lack of staff knowledge, difficulties with follow-up, and differences in ACP policies across regions. Common barriers to palliative care were misconceptions about palliative care and lack of knowledge, service providers' lack of preparedness, and limited policy support and availability. Challenges relevant to both ACP and palliative care were fear and discomfort around serious illness discussions, lack of knowledge and awareness, discussions that occur too late, and cultural and language barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Health care practitioners and community-based professionals reported consumer-, service provider-, and system-level barriers to facilitating conversations about ACP and palliative care with patients experiencing serious illness. There is a need for more tools and support to strengthen service providers' ACP and palliative care competencies and to promote a structured approach to health care planning conversations.</p>","PeriodicalId":73780,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospice and palliative care","volume":"26 2","pages":"42-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6f/da/jhpc-26-2-42.PMC10519725.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospice and palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14475/jhpc.2023.26.2.42","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to effective conversations about advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care reported by health care and community-based service providers in Massachusetts, USA.

Methods: This qualitative research analyzed open-ended responses to two survey questions, inquiring about perceived barriers to having conversations about ACP and palliative care with patients and consumers. Data were collected between November 2017 and June 2019 from nine organizations in Massachusetts, including health care provider organizations, health insurers, community-based organizations, and a nursing education institution. Two researchers reviewed and coded the responses and identified common themes inductively.

Results: Across 142 responses, primary barriers to ACP included hesitation and lack of understanding and knowledge, discomfort and resistance among service providers, lack of staff knowledge, difficulties with follow-up, and differences in ACP policies across regions. Common barriers to palliative care were misconceptions about palliative care and lack of knowledge, service providers' lack of preparedness, and limited policy support and availability. Challenges relevant to both ACP and palliative care were fear and discomfort around serious illness discussions, lack of knowledge and awareness, discussions that occur too late, and cultural and language barriers.

Conclusion: Health care practitioners and community-based professionals reported consumer-, service provider-, and system-level barriers to facilitating conversations about ACP and palliative care with patients experiencing serious illness. There is a need for more tools and support to strengthen service providers' ACP and palliative care competencies and to promote a structured approach to health care planning conversations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于预先护理计划和姑息治疗的有效沟通障碍:一项定性研究。
目的:本研究的目的是确定美国马萨诸塞州卫生保健和社区服务提供者报告的关于提前护理计划(ACP)和姑息治疗的有效对话的障碍。方法:本定性研究分析了对两个调查问题的开放式回答,询问与患者和消费者就ACP和姑息治疗进行对话的感知障碍。数据是在2017年11月至2019年6月期间从马萨诸塞州的九个组织收集的,包括医疗保健提供者组织、健康保险公司、社区组织和一家护理教育机构。两名研究人员对这些回答进行了回顾和编码,并归纳出了共同的主题。结果:在142份答复中,非加太的主要障碍包括犹豫和缺乏理解和知识、服务提供者的不适和抵制、工作人员缺乏知识、后续行动困难以及非加太政策在各地区的差异。姑息治疗的常见障碍是对姑息治疗的误解和缺乏知识,服务提供者缺乏准备,以及政策支持和可用性有限。与非加太和姑息治疗相关的挑战包括围绕严重疾病讨论的恐惧和不适、缺乏知识和意识、讨论太迟以及文化和语言障碍。结论:卫生保健从业者和社区专业人员报告称,消费者、服务提供者和系统层面的障碍阻碍了与患有严重疾病的患者就ACP和姑息治疗进行对话。需要更多的工具和支持,以加强服务提供者的ACP和姑息治疗能力,并促进对医疗保健规划对话采取结构化的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Phased Plan for the Expansion of Hospice and Palliative Care. Content Analysis of Online Resources Regarding Needs for Advance Care Planning. Ethical and Practical Issues with the Use of Antimicrobial Agents during the End of Life. An Evolutionary Concept Analysis of Pediatric Hospice and Palliative Care. Early Hospice Consultation Team Engagement for Cancer Pain Relief: A Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1