Conducting Goals Of Care Discussions Research Articles

Medical students' experiences with goals of care discussions and their impact on professional identity formation.

Goals of care (GoC) discussions occur amongst patients, family members and clinicians in order to establish plans of care and are invaluable aspects of end-of-life care. In previous research, medical learners have reported insufficient training and emotional distress about end-of-life decision making, but most studies have focused on postgraduate trainees and have been quantitative or have evaluated specific educational interventions. None have qualitatively explored medical students' experiences with GoC discussions, their perceptions of associated hidden curricula, and the impacts of these on professional identity formation (PIF), the individualised developmental processes by which laypersons evolve to think, act and feel like, and ultimately become, medical professionals. Using purposive sampling at one Canadian medical school, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 medical students to explore their experiences with GoC discussions during their core internal medicine clerkship. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and anonymised. Concurrently with data collection, transcripts were analysed iteratively and inductively using interpretative phenomenological analysis, a qualitative research approach that allows the rich exploration of subjective experiences. Participants reported minimal support and supervision in conducting GoC discussions, which were experienced as ethically challenging, emotionally powerful encounters exemplifying tensions between formal and hidden curricula. Role modelling and institutional culture were key mechanisms through which hidden curricula were transmitted, subverting formal curricula in doing so and contributing to participants' emotional distress. Participants' coping responses were generally negative and included symptoms of burnout, the pursuit of standardisation, rationalisation, compartmentalisation and the adaptation of previously held, more idealised professional identities. GoC discussions in this study were often led by inexperienced medical students and impacted negatively on their PIF. Through complex emotional processes, they struggled to reconcile earlier concepts of physician identities with newly developing ones and often reluctantly adopted suboptimal professional behaviours and attitudes. Improved education about GoC discussions is necessary for patient care and may represent concrete and specific opportunities to influence students' PIF positively.

Trauma Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals-of-Care Delineation for Injured Geriatric Patients.

The value of defining goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients is well known to the palliative care community but is a newer concept for many trauma surgeons. Palliative care specialists and trauma surgeons were surveyed to elicit the specialties' attitudes regarding (1) importance of GoC conversations for injured seniors; (2) confidence in their own specialty's ability to conduct these conversations; and (3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter, palliative care-focused consortium and beta-tested by trauma surgeons and palliative care specialists unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Respondents included 118 trauma surgeons (8.8%) and 244 palliative care specialists (5.7%). Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more likely to report high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to trauma surgeons. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so and favored their own specialty leading team discussions. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for injured seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on the optimal leadership of these discussions.

Burn Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals of Care Delineation for Burned Geriatric Patients.

Palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) were surveyed regarding: 1) importance of goals of care (GoC) conversations for burned seniors; 2) confidence in their own specialty's ability to conduct these conversations; and 3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter consortium dedicated to palliative care in the injured geriatric patient and beta-tested by BS and PCS unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Burn Association and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Forty-five BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%) responded. Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to BS. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so. BS favored leading team discussions, whereas palliative specialists preferred jointly led discussions. Both groups agreed that discussions should occur within 72 hours of admission. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions for the optimal leadership of these discussions.

209 Attitudes Among Burn Surgeons and Palliative Care Physicians Regarding Goals of Care for Geriatric Burn Patients

The significance of delineating goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients has been well known to the palliative care community but is a relatively new concept to burn surgeons. We surveyed palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) to elicit their attitudes regarding: 1) the importance of goal setting for burned seniors; 2) each specialty’s confidence in their own ability to conduct GoC conversations; and 3) their confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multi-center consortium dedicated to palliative care in the burned geriatric patient. The instrument draft was sent to burn and palliative care providers unaffiliated with the consortium for beta-testing. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to all active physician members of the American Burn Association (ABA) and the American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM). Surveys underwent review and approval by the research committees of each organization. Responses were received from 45 subjects categorized as BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%). PCS rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a GoC discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high quality training in performing GoC conversations, believed more palliative care physicians were needed in ICUs, and had more interest in conducting GoC conversations relative to BS. Interestingly, both sets of physicians believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than their peers perceived them to do so. In regard to perceptions of the best model for conducting GoC discussions, BS favored leading team discussions, where PCS endorsed both PCS and BS led discussions. Both also generally agreed that GoC discussions should occur with 72 hours of admission. PCS were more likely to have reported training in determining GoC in fellowship and on-the-job training, have fewer years of experience in their specialty, and less frequently deliver care to burned seniors relative to BS. Regarding work setting, BS reported working predominantly in academic private centers and academic safety net hospitals, and PCS representing a wider array of contexts. Both BS and PCS believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions on the optimal leadership of these discussions. A dichotomy of views regarding the roles and responsibilities of BS and PCS in the conduct of GoC discussions for burned seniors highlights the need for future work to inform best practices.

Does oncologist productivity impact goals of care discussions?

e21675 Background: Oncologists are pressed to care for higher volumes of advanced cancer patients. Interviews with oncologists revealed their concern that goals of care (GoC) discussions take time. We studied the impact of oncologists’ productivity on their conduct of meaningful GOC discussions with patients. Methods: At academic, municipal and rural hospitals, we recruited & randomized solid tumor oncologists & their newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients with <2 year prognosis to participate in a RCT testing a coaching model of communication skills training. All oncologists were encouraged to have GoC discussions at the visit after imaging to restage. Patients are surveyed after that post-imaging visit. We define GoC discussions as patient report that their doctor talked about preferences for cancer treatment and clarified things most important to them given their illness. We measure quality of GoC discussions by patients’ rating. Productivity was measured by work revenue value units (wRVUs) per hour for the day each oncologist saw the study patient post-imaging. Results: We enrolled 22/25 oncologists (88%); to date 77 patients completed surveys. Productivity did not vary significantly by hospital though oncologists generated greater wRVUs at the municipal hospital (p=0.2203). Overall, 36% of patients report having a high quality GoC discussion. There was no significant relationship between level of productivity and conduct of high quality GoC discussion. Multivariate model controlling for hospital and intervention found no relationship between productivity and conduct of high quality GoC discussion. Conclusions: Despite concerns about the time required to conduct GoC discussions, we found that productivity did not affect oncologists’ ability to conduct high quality GoC discussions nor did conduct of a GoC reduce productivity. The prevalence of high quality GoC discussions was low. [Table: see text]

P011: Discerning perceived barriers and facilitators to goals of care discussion in the emergency department: A survey of emergency physicians and residents

Introduction: Patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) may require clarification of their goals of care (GOC) to ensure they receive treatments aligned with their values. However, these discussions can be difficult to conduct for multiple reasons, including lack of time in a busy ED, competing priorities and a limited relationship with the patient. Few studies have examined the perceived challenges faced by Emergency Physicians in conducting GOC discussions. This study sought to contextualize and discern the barriers and facilitators to having these conversations as reported by Emergency physicians. Methods: An interdisciplinary team of Emergency Medicine, Palliative Care and Internal Medicine providers developed an online survey comprised of multiple choice, Likert-scale and open-ended questions to explore four domains of GOC discussions: training; communication; environment; and personal beliefs. Invitations and scheduled reminders were sent to 275 ED physicians at six academic sites in a Canadian urban centre, including 49 EM residents. Results: 105 (46%) staff physicians and 23 (47%) residents responded with similar representation from all sites. Differences were reported in the frequency of GOC discussions: 59% of staff physicians conduct several per month whereas 65% of residents conduct less than one per month. Most agreed that GOC discussions are within their scope of practice (92%), they feel comfortable (96%), and are adequately trained (73%) to have them; however, 66% reported difficulty initiating GOC discussions. 73% believed that admitting services should conduct GOC discussions, yet acuity was noted in the comments as a major determinant with initiating GOC discussions by ED physicians. Main barriers identified were lack of time, chaotic environment, lack of advanced directives and the inability to reach substitute decision makers. 54% of respondents indicated that the availability of 24-hour Palliative Care consults would facilitate GOC discussions in the ED. Conclusion: Emergency physicians are prepared to conduct goals of care discussions, but often believe they should instead be conducted by the patient’s admitting service. Multiple perceived barriers to goals of care discussion in the ED were identified, and a majority of respondents felt that the availability of Palliative Care in the ED may facilitate these discussions.