Pub Date : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.1017/s1478951521001760
A. Applebaum
ed and indexed in the following: CINAHL database; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Liteature; MEDLINE Change of address: Allow six weeks for all changes to become effective. All communication should include both old and new addresses (with postal codes) and should be accompanied by a mailing label from a recent issue. Editorial Office: William Breitbart, Editor-in-Chief, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 641 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, USA. Telephone: (646) 888-0020. Fax: (212) 888-2356. E-mail: breitbaw@mskcc.org. Office of Publication: Cambridge University Press, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006, USA: Telephone: (212) 337-5000. Fax: (212) 337-5959. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Emeritus Lea Baider, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Israel Susan Block, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, USA Irene Higginson, King’s College London, UK Paul Jacobsen, Ph.D., National Cancer Institute, USA Professor Uwe Koch, University Hospital at Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany Neil MacDonald, McGill University, Canada Volume 19 October 2021 Number 5
{"title":"PAX volume 19 issue 5 Cover and Front matter","authors":"A. Applebaum","doi":"10.1017/s1478951521001760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1478951521001760","url":null,"abstract":"ed and indexed in the following: CINAHL database; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Liteature; MEDLINE Change of address: Allow six weeks for all changes to become effective. All communication should include both old and new addresses (with postal codes) and should be accompanied by a mailing label from a recent issue. Editorial Office: William Breitbart, Editor-in-Chief, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 641 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, USA. Telephone: (646) 888-0020. Fax: (212) 888-2356. E-mail: breitbaw@mskcc.org. Office of Publication: Cambridge University Press, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006, USA: Telephone: (212) 337-5000. Fax: (212) 337-5959. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Emeritus Lea Baider, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Israel Susan Block, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, USA Irene Higginson, King’s College London, UK Paul Jacobsen, Ph.D., National Cancer Institute, USA Professor Uwe Koch, University Hospital at Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany Neil MacDonald, McGill University, Canada Volume 19 October 2021 Number 5","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"107 1","pages":"f1 - f4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81567779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.1017/s1478951521001528
D. H. Xiang
{"title":"Q & A @ End-of-life","authors":"D. H. Xiang","doi":"10.1017/s1478951521001528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1478951521001528","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"16 1","pages":"298 - 298"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81946504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.1017/S1478951521001565
Ken Kurisu, S. Inada, Isseki Maeda, A. Ogawa, S. Iwase, T. Akechi, T. Morita, S. Oyamada, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Kengo Imai, Rika Nakahara, Keisuke Kaneishi, N. Nakajima, M. Sumitani, K. Yoshiuchi
Abstract Objective There is no widely used prognostic model for delirium in patients with advanced cancer. The present study aimed to develop a decision tree prediction model for a short-term outcome. Method This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter and prospective observational study conducted at 9 psycho-oncology consultation services and 14 inpatient palliative care units in Japan. We used records of patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions with a baseline Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS-R98) severity score of ≥10. A DRS-R98 severity score of <10 on day 3 was defined as the study outcome. The dataset was randomly split into the training and test dataset. A decision tree model was developed using the training dataset and potential predictors. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve was measured both in 5-fold cross-validation and in the independent test dataset. Finally, the model was visualized using the whole dataset. Results Altogether, 668 records were included, of which 141 had a DRS-R98 severity score of <10 on day 3. The model achieved an average AUC of 0.698 in 5-fold cross-validation and 0.718 (95% confidence interval, 0.627–0.810) in the test dataset. The baseline DRS-R98 severity score (cutoff of 15), hypoxia, and dehydration were the important predictors, in this order. Significance of results We developed an easy-to-use prediction model for the short-term outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions. The baseline severity of delirium and precipitating factors of delirium were important for prediction.
{"title":"A decision tree prediction model for a short-term outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions: A secondary analysis of a multicenter and prospective observational study (Phase-R)","authors":"Ken Kurisu, S. Inada, Isseki Maeda, A. Ogawa, S. Iwase, T. Akechi, T. Morita, S. Oyamada, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Kengo Imai, Rika Nakahara, Keisuke Kaneishi, N. Nakajima, M. Sumitani, K. Yoshiuchi","doi":"10.1017/S1478951521001565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951521001565","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective There is no widely used prognostic model for delirium in patients with advanced cancer. The present study aimed to develop a decision tree prediction model for a short-term outcome. Method This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter and prospective observational study conducted at 9 psycho-oncology consultation services and 14 inpatient palliative care units in Japan. We used records of patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions with a baseline Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS-R98) severity score of ≥10. A DRS-R98 severity score of <10 on day 3 was defined as the study outcome. The dataset was randomly split into the training and test dataset. A decision tree model was developed using the training dataset and potential predictors. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve was measured both in 5-fold cross-validation and in the independent test dataset. Finally, the model was visualized using the whole dataset. Results Altogether, 668 records were included, of which 141 had a DRS-R98 severity score of <10 on day 3. The model achieved an average AUC of 0.698 in 5-fold cross-validation and 0.718 (95% confidence interval, 0.627–0.810) in the test dataset. The baseline DRS-R98 severity score (cutoff of 15), hypoxia, and dehydration were the important predictors, in this order. Significance of results We developed an easy-to-use prediction model for the short-term outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions. The baseline severity of delirium and precipitating factors of delirium were important for prediction.","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"86 1","pages":"153 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76813752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1017/S1478951521001401
Fumio Shaku, Madoka Tsutsumi, Asumi Nakamura, H. Takagi, Takahiro Otsuka, S. Maruoka
Abstract Objective Recently, end-of-life preference in palliative care has been gaining attention in Japan. The Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare established the Japanese basic policy in November 2018. Patients’ decision-making is recommended; however, patients with dementia or other disorders cannot make such decisions by themselves. Thus, healthcare providers may contact surrogates and consider their backgrounds for better decision-making. Hence, the preferences of home caregivers’ and geriatric health service facility (GHSF) residents’ families on patient life-sustaining treatment (LST) were investigated. Method This cross-sectional study involved home caregivers’ and GHSF residents’ families in Japan. We distributed 925 self-reported questionnaires comprising items, such as the number of people living together, care duration, comprehension of doctor's explanations, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 and Short Form (SF)-8, and families’ LST preference for patients. Results In all, 619 valid responses were obtained [242 men and 377 women (309 in the HOME Caregivers Group, response rate = 61.1%; 310 in the GHSF Group, response rate = 74.0%)]. LST preference was significantly associated with sex, the number of people living together, care duration, and comprehension of doctors’ explanations in the HOME Caregivers Group but was not significantly associated with the GHSF Group. Furthermore, PHQ-9/SF-8 scores were not significantly associated with LST preference. Significance of results There were many differences in opinions about LST preference between home caregivers’ and GHSF residents’ families. The results suggested that the burden of nursing care was greater and harder in home caregiver families, and these factors may be related to the LST preference for a patient.
{"title":"Factors associated with surrogate families’ life-sustaining treatment preferences for patients at home or in a geriatric health service facility: A cross-sectional study","authors":"Fumio Shaku, Madoka Tsutsumi, Asumi Nakamura, H. Takagi, Takahiro Otsuka, S. Maruoka","doi":"10.1017/S1478951521001401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951521001401","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective Recently, end-of-life preference in palliative care has been gaining attention in Japan. The Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare established the Japanese basic policy in November 2018. Patients’ decision-making is recommended; however, patients with dementia or other disorders cannot make such decisions by themselves. Thus, healthcare providers may contact surrogates and consider their backgrounds for better decision-making. Hence, the preferences of home caregivers’ and geriatric health service facility (GHSF) residents’ families on patient life-sustaining treatment (LST) were investigated. Method This cross-sectional study involved home caregivers’ and GHSF residents’ families in Japan. We distributed 925 self-reported questionnaires comprising items, such as the number of people living together, care duration, comprehension of doctor's explanations, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 and Short Form (SF)-8, and families’ LST preference for patients. Results In all, 619 valid responses were obtained [242 men and 377 women (309 in the HOME Caregivers Group, response rate = 61.1%; 310 in the GHSF Group, response rate = 74.0%)]. LST preference was significantly associated with sex, the number of people living together, care duration, and comprehension of doctors’ explanations in the HOME Caregivers Group but was not significantly associated with the GHSF Group. Furthermore, PHQ-9/SF-8 scores were not significantly associated with LST preference. Significance of results There were many differences in opinions about LST preference between home caregivers’ and GHSF residents’ families. The results suggested that the burden of nursing care was greater and harder in home caregiver families, and these factors may be related to the LST preference for a patient.","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"7 1","pages":"334 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83205428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1017/S1478951521001243
Elizabeth M. Miller, Joanne E. Porter, Michael S. Barbagallo
Abstract Objective Disclosing the truth when breaking bad news continues to be difficult for health professionals, yet it is essential for patients when making informed decisions about their treatment and end-of-life care. This literature review aimed to explore and examine how health professionals, patients, and families experience truth disclosure during the delivery of bad news in the inpatient/outpatient palliative care setting. Methods A systemized search for peer-reviewed, published papers between 2013 and 2020 was undertaken in September 2020 using the CINAHL, Medline, and PsycInfo databases. The keywords and MeSH terms (“truth disclosure”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) were used. The search was repeated using (“bad news”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) terms. A meta-synthesis was undertaken to synthesize the findings from the eight papers. Results Eight papers were included in the meta-synthesis and were represented by five Western countries. Following the synthesis process, two concepts were identified: “Enablers in breaking bad news” and “Truth avoidance/disclosure.” Several elements formed the concept of Enablers for breaking bad news, such as the therapeutic relationship, reading cues, acknowledgment, language/delivery, time/place, and qualities. A conceptual model was developed to illustrate the findings of the synthesis. Significance of results The conceptual model demonstrates a unique way to look at communication dynamics around truth disclosure and avoidance when breaking bad news. Informed decision-making requires an understanding of the whole truth, and therefore truth disclosure is an essential part of breaking bad news.
{"title":"The experiences of health professionals, patients, and families with truth disclosure when breaking bad news in palliative care: A qualitative meta-synthesis","authors":"Elizabeth M. Miller, Joanne E. Porter, Michael S. Barbagallo","doi":"10.1017/S1478951521001243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951521001243","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective Disclosing the truth when breaking bad news continues to be difficult for health professionals, yet it is essential for patients when making informed decisions about their treatment and end-of-life care. This literature review aimed to explore and examine how health professionals, patients, and families experience truth disclosure during the delivery of bad news in the inpatient/outpatient palliative care setting. Methods A systemized search for peer-reviewed, published papers between 2013 and 2020 was undertaken in September 2020 using the CINAHL, Medline, and PsycInfo databases. The keywords and MeSH terms (“truth disclosure”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) were used. The search was repeated using (“bad news”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) terms. A meta-synthesis was undertaken to synthesize the findings from the eight papers. Results Eight papers were included in the meta-synthesis and were represented by five Western countries. Following the synthesis process, two concepts were identified: “Enablers in breaking bad news” and “Truth avoidance/disclosure.” Several elements formed the concept of Enablers for breaking bad news, such as the therapeutic relationship, reading cues, acknowledgment, language/delivery, time/place, and qualities. A conceptual model was developed to illustrate the findings of the synthesis. Significance of results The conceptual model demonstrates a unique way to look at communication dynamics around truth disclosure and avoidance when breaking bad news. Informed decision-making requires an understanding of the whole truth, and therefore truth disclosure is an essential part of breaking bad news.","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"106 1","pages":"433 - 444"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75645974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-24DOI: 10.1017/S1478951521001127
Maxxine Rattner
Abstract Objective Nonphysical suffering is emotional, psychological, existential, spiritual, and/or social in nature. While palliative care is a discipline dedicated to the prevention and relief of suffering — both physical and nonphysical — little is known about existing research specific to nonphysical suffering within the context of palliative care. This scoping review helps to fill this gap. Method Three hundred and twenty-eight unique records were identified through a systematic search of three databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). The following keywords were used: (suffering) AND (palliative OR “end of life” OR “end-of-life” OR hospice OR dying OR terminal* ill*). Thirty studies published between 1998 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria. Results Losses, worries, and fears comprise patients’ primary sources of nonphysical suffering. Patients face numerous barriers in expressing their nonphysical suffering to healthcare providers. The idea that patients can choose how they perceive their circumstances, thereby minimizing their nonphysical suffering, is pervasive in the research. The nature of nonphysical suffering experienced by family caregivers and palliative care clinicians is revealed in the review. The unique and sensitive interplay between nonphysical suffering and both palliative sedation and requests for hastened death is also evident. Overall, seven themes can be identified: (i) patients’ experiences of nonphysical suffering; (ii) patient coping mechanisms; (iii) efforts to measure nonphysical suffering; (iv) palliative sedation; (v) requests for hastened death; (vi) family suffering; and (vii) clinician suffering. Significance of results This is the first scoping review to map palliative care's research specific to suffering that is social, emotional, spiritual, psychological, and/or existential in nature. Its findings expand our understanding of the nature of nonphysical suffering experienced by patients, families, and palliative care clinicians. The review's findings have significant implications for front-line practice and future research.
{"title":"Increasing our understanding of nonphysical suffering within palliative care: A scoping review","authors":"Maxxine Rattner","doi":"10.1017/S1478951521001127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951521001127","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective Nonphysical suffering is emotional, psychological, existential, spiritual, and/or social in nature. While palliative care is a discipline dedicated to the prevention and relief of suffering — both physical and nonphysical — little is known about existing research specific to nonphysical suffering within the context of palliative care. This scoping review helps to fill this gap. Method Three hundred and twenty-eight unique records were identified through a systematic search of three databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). The following keywords were used: (suffering) AND (palliative OR “end of life” OR “end-of-life” OR hospice OR dying OR terminal* ill*). Thirty studies published between 1998 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria. Results Losses, worries, and fears comprise patients’ primary sources of nonphysical suffering. Patients face numerous barriers in expressing their nonphysical suffering to healthcare providers. The idea that patients can choose how they perceive their circumstances, thereby minimizing their nonphysical suffering, is pervasive in the research. The nature of nonphysical suffering experienced by family caregivers and palliative care clinicians is revealed in the review. The unique and sensitive interplay between nonphysical suffering and both palliative sedation and requests for hastened death is also evident. Overall, seven themes can be identified: (i) patients’ experiences of nonphysical suffering; (ii) patient coping mechanisms; (iii) efforts to measure nonphysical suffering; (iv) palliative sedation; (v) requests for hastened death; (vi) family suffering; and (vii) clinician suffering. Significance of results This is the first scoping review to map palliative care's research specific to suffering that is social, emotional, spiritual, psychological, and/or existential in nature. Its findings expand our understanding of the nature of nonphysical suffering experienced by patients, families, and palliative care clinicians. The review's findings have significant implications for front-line practice and future research.","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"44 1","pages":"417 - 432"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85836024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-20DOI: 10.1017/s1478951521001309
W. Chan, P. Ho, K. Yuen
{"title":"Impacts of social distancing on cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Hong Kong experience – RETRACTION","authors":"W. Chan, P. Ho, K. Yuen","doi":"10.1017/s1478951521001309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1478951521001309","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"9 1","pages":"641 - 641"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88142446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-11DOI: 10.1017/S1478951521000729
S. Dumont, V. Turcotte, M. Aubin, Lynn Casimiro, Mireille Lavoie, Louise Picard
Abstract Objective Inadequate deliberation processes about ethical problems occurring in palliative care settings may negatively impact both patients and healthcare professionals. Better knowledge of the palliative care professionals’ practices regarding such processes could help identify specific education needs to improve the quality of palliative care in the context of complex ethical situations. Therefore, this descriptive study aimed to (1) examine ethical deliberation processes in interprofessional teams in five palliative care settings; (2) identify organizational factors that constrain such processes; and (3) based on this knowledge, identify priority education needs for future and current palliative care professionals. Method The study involved three data collection activities: (1) direct observation of simulated interprofessional ethical deliberations in various palliative care settings; (2) individual semi-structured interviews; and (3) deliberative dialogues. Results Thirty-six healthcare professionals took part in the simulated ethical deliberations and in the deliberative dialogue activities, and 13 were met in an individual interview. The study results revealed suboptimal interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation competencies, particularly regarding awareness of the ethical issue under consideration, clarification of conflicting values, reasonable decision making, and implementation planning. Participants also reported facing serious organizational constraints that challenged ethical deliberation processes. Significance of results This study confirmed the need for professional education in interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation so that palliative care professionals can adequately face current and future ethical challenges. It also enabled the identification of educational priorities in this regard. Future research should focus on identifying promising educational activities, assessing their effectiveness, and measuring their impact on patient and family experience and the quality of palliative care.
{"title":"The challenges of ethical deliberation in palliative care settings: A descriptive study","authors":"S. Dumont, V. Turcotte, M. Aubin, Lynn Casimiro, Mireille Lavoie, Louise Picard","doi":"10.1017/S1478951521000729","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951521000729","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective Inadequate deliberation processes about ethical problems occurring in palliative care settings may negatively impact both patients and healthcare professionals. Better knowledge of the palliative care professionals’ practices regarding such processes could help identify specific education needs to improve the quality of palliative care in the context of complex ethical situations. Therefore, this descriptive study aimed to (1) examine ethical deliberation processes in interprofessional teams in five palliative care settings; (2) identify organizational factors that constrain such processes; and (3) based on this knowledge, identify priority education needs for future and current palliative care professionals. Method The study involved three data collection activities: (1) direct observation of simulated interprofessional ethical deliberations in various palliative care settings; (2) individual semi-structured interviews; and (3) deliberative dialogues. Results Thirty-six healthcare professionals took part in the simulated ethical deliberations and in the deliberative dialogue activities, and 13 were met in an individual interview. The study results revealed suboptimal interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation competencies, particularly regarding awareness of the ethical issue under consideration, clarification of conflicting values, reasonable decision making, and implementation planning. Participants also reported facing serious organizational constraints that challenged ethical deliberation processes. Significance of results This study confirmed the need for professional education in interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation so that palliative care professionals can adequately face current and future ethical challenges. It also enabled the identification of educational priorities in this regard. Future research should focus on identifying promising educational activities, assessing their effectiveness, and measuring their impact on patient and family experience and the quality of palliative care.","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"78 1","pages":"212 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83485462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-11DOI: 10.1017/s1478951521001310
Haley Buller, B. Ferrell, J. Paice, M. Glajchen, Trace Haythorn
{"title":"Advancing interprofessional education in communication – ADDENDUM","authors":"Haley Buller, B. Ferrell, J. Paice, M. Glajchen, Trace Haythorn","doi":"10.1017/s1478951521001310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1478951521001310","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"107 1","pages":"782 - 782"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81746714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：