Developing a care pathway for hospital-based advance care planning for cancer patients: A modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to develop a care pathway for a hospital-based advance care planning service for cancer patients. METHODS: A web-based modified Delphi study consulted an expert panel consisting of a convenience sample of stakeholders including professionals with a special interest in advance care planning as well as a 'public and patient involvement group'. After generating ideas for core elements of a care pathway in the first round, numerical ratings and rankings informed the multi-professional research steering group's decision process eventually resulting in a final pathway. RESULTS: The 41 participants in the Delphi study identified 177 potential core elements of the pathway in the first round. In two further rounds, consensus was reached on a final version of the pathway with 148 elements covering the 10 domains: prerequisites, organisation and coordination, identification and referral, provision of information, information sources, family involvement, advance care planning discussion, documentation, update and quality assurance. CONCLUSION: We propose a care pathway for advance care planning for hospital patients with cancer based on the results of a Delphi study that reached consensus on an implementation strategy. Our study pioneers the standardisation of the process and provides input for further policy and research with the aim of aligning cancer patients' care with their preferences and values.

Questionnaires About the End of Life for Cancer Patients - Is the Response Burden Acceptable?

CONTEXT: Research about the end of life with the help of patient-reported outcomes in vulnerable populations such as cancer patients is needed but is potentially burdensome and can therefore raise concerns. OBJECTIVES: To assess the response burden due to questionnaires about the end of life in cancer patients and to explore associations with individual variables. METHODS: In a cross-sectional design response burden was assessed using a six-item instrument after completion of a survey that concerned the end of life. Associations with age, gender, type of care (curative/palliative), years since diagnosis, distress, depression, anxiety, death anxiety, readiness for end-of-life conversations, and readiness for advance care planning were explored via correlational analyses and multiple regressions. Burden due to the topic of end-of-life and completing questionnaires in general was compared. RESULTS: A total of 269 cancer patients (mean age 61.4 (SD =12.3); 59.5% male; 58.4% in palliative care) completed the survey in a German hospital. The majority did not report response burden; 29.7% reported at least some burden due to study participation. The multiple regression (F [10,26] = 9.97, p < 0.001) indicated that stable predictors of response burden were higher death anxiety (ß = 0.4), lower readiness to talk about one's end of life (ß = -0.34) and higher age (ß = 0.23). No additional subjective burden due to the topic of end-of-life was reported. CONCLUSION: The reported response burden seems acceptable since it was generally low. However, a subgroup did report some burden. Minimising burden and enhancing participants' benefits without compromising the research quality should further influence study designs in this field.

Difficulties of Cancer Patients' Relatives in End-of-Life Discussions: Validation of a Questionnaire.

CONTEXT: Despite the potential benefits and the desire for end-of-life communication, it rarely occurs in the familial context. Relatives play a significant role in the communication process; thus, it is crucial to understand the difficulties that they face. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate the relatives' version of the Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI-r) regarding its factor structure, reliability and validity. METHODS: Relatives of patients with advanced cancer were recruited in a German hospital. The factor structure of the questionnaire was explored. Construct validity was examined through correlations between the DEOLD-FI-r and measures of avoidance of cancer communication, quality of life, distress, and experienced difficulty during end-of-life discussions. Additionally, we examined the group difference between those who had and had not engaged in the conversation. RESULTS: About 111 relatives completed the survey (mean age 55.5 years, 52% female). The final version of the DEOLD-FI-r contained 23 items (α = .92). The exploratory factor analysis resulted in three factors explaining 74% of the variance. Each factor described another dimension of potential communication barriers in end-of-life discussions: 1) Own emotional burden, 2) Relational and patient-related difficulties, 3) Negative attitudes. Construct validity was supported by correlations consistent with our hypotheses and less reported communication difficulty by those who had already talked about the end-of-life with their relative (t(106) = 5.38, P < .001, d = 0.8). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the DEOLD-FI-r is a valid and reliable instrument for the systematic assessment of difficulties in family end-of-life communication. By focusing on relatives, it complements the already validated patient-version.

The Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI): Development and Initial Validation of a Self-Report Questionnaire in a Sample of Terminal Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT: Open end-of-life communication is especially important within the patient-family unit of care and can positively affect their medical, psychological, and relational outcomes. Nevertheless, end-of-life discussions are often perceived as difficult and avoided. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate the Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI) to allow a systematic assessment of reasons why people shy away from end-of-life discussions. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited and completed the DEOLD-FI and measures of avoidance of cancer communication, quality of life and distress, and the experienced difficulty as well as the occurrence of end-of-life discussions. Standard item analyses and an exploratory factor analysis were conducted. Construct validity was analysed through associations between the DEOLD-FI and the aforementioned measures. RESULTS: Questionnaires were obtained from 112 participants (53% response rate; male 54%, mean age 64.9 years [range 33-94]). In the final 23-item version two factors were extracted: 'emotional burden due to end-of-life discussions' (α = 0.90) and "negative attitudes towards end-of-life discussions" (α = 0.91) explaining 69% of the variance (total scale α = 0.93). Construct validity was supported by its significant correlations with the reported difficulty in end-of-life discussions (r = 0.42) and avoidance of cancer communication (r = 0.40 to r = 0.46) and insignificant correlations with quality of life (r = -0.11), distress (r = 0.16), and physical well-being (r = 0.02). Those who had already engaged in end-of-life discussions showed significantly fewer communication barriers. CONCLUSION: Results provide evidence that the DEOLD-FI is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of difficulties in end-of-life discussions. Benefits for clinical practice and research are discussed.