Trained facilitators' experiences with structured advance care planning conversations in oncology: an international focus group study within the ACTION trial.
Advance care planning
Cancer
Experiences
Facilitator
Respecting choices
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2019
31 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
30
11
2018
accepted:
20
09
2019
entrez:
2
11
2019
pubmed:
2
11
2019
medline:
9
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In oncology, Health Care Professionals often experience conducting Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations as difficult and are hesitant to start them. A structured approach could help to overcome this. In the ACTION trial, a Phase III multi-center cluster-randomized clinical trial in six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom), patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer are invited to have one or two structured ACP conversations with a trained facilitator. It is unclear how trained facilitators experience conducting structured ACP conversations. This study aims to understand how facilitators experience delivering the ACTION Respecting Choices (RC) ACP conversation. A qualitative study involving focus groups with RC facilitators. Focus group interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, translated into English, and thematically analysed, supported by NVivo 11. The international research team was involved in data analysis from initial coding and discussion towards final themes. Seven focus groups were conducted, involving 28 of in total 39 trained facilitators, with different professional backgrounds from all participating countries. Alongside some cultural differences, six themes were identified. These reflect that most facilitators welcomed the opportunity to participate in the ACTION trial, seeing it as a means of learning new skills in an important area. The RC script was seen as supportive to ask questions, including those perceived as difficult to ask, but was also experienced as a barrier to a spontaneous conversation. Facilitators noticed that most patients were positive about their ACTION RC ACP conversation, which had prompted them to become aware of their wishes and to share these with others. The facilitators observed that it took patients substantial effort to have these conversations. In response, facilitators took responsibility for enabling patients to experience a conversation from which they could benefit. Facilitators emphasized the need for training, support and advanced communication skills to be able to work with the script. Facilitators experienced benefits and challenges in conducting scripted ACP conversations. They mentioned the importance of being skilled and experienced in carrying out ACP conversations in order to be able to explore the patients' preferences while staying attuned to patients' needs. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry 63110516 ( ISRCTN63110516 ) per 10/3/2014.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In oncology, Health Care Professionals often experience conducting Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations as difficult and are hesitant to start them. A structured approach could help to overcome this. In the ACTION trial, a Phase III multi-center cluster-randomized clinical trial in six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom), patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer are invited to have one or two structured ACP conversations with a trained facilitator. It is unclear how trained facilitators experience conducting structured ACP conversations. This study aims to understand how facilitators experience delivering the ACTION Respecting Choices (RC) ACP conversation.
METHODS
METHODS
A qualitative study involving focus groups with RC facilitators. Focus group interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, translated into English, and thematically analysed, supported by NVivo 11. The international research team was involved in data analysis from initial coding and discussion towards final themes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seven focus groups were conducted, involving 28 of in total 39 trained facilitators, with different professional backgrounds from all participating countries. Alongside some cultural differences, six themes were identified. These reflect that most facilitators welcomed the opportunity to participate in the ACTION trial, seeing it as a means of learning new skills in an important area. The RC script was seen as supportive to ask questions, including those perceived as difficult to ask, but was also experienced as a barrier to a spontaneous conversation. Facilitators noticed that most patients were positive about their ACTION RC ACP conversation, which had prompted them to become aware of their wishes and to share these with others. The facilitators observed that it took patients substantial effort to have these conversations. In response, facilitators took responsibility for enabling patients to experience a conversation from which they could benefit. Facilitators emphasized the need for training, support and advanced communication skills to be able to work with the script.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Facilitators experienced benefits and challenges in conducting scripted ACP conversations. They mentioned the importance of being skilled and experienced in carrying out ACP conversations in order to be able to explore the patients' preferences while staying attuned to patients' needs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry 63110516 ( ISRCTN63110516 ) per 10/3/2014.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31672145
doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6170-7
pii: 10.1186/s12885-019-6170-7
pmc: PMC6822448
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1026Subventions
Organisme : 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
ID : 602541-2
Investigateurs
A van der Heide
(A)
I J Korfage
(IJ)
J A C Rietjens
(JAC)
L J Jabbarian
(LJ)
S Polinder
(S)
P F A Billekens
(PFA)
J J M van Delden
(JJM)
M C Kars
(MC)
M Zwakman
(M)
L Deliens
(L)
M Verkissen
(M)
K Eecloo
(K)
K Faes
(K)
K Pollock
(K)
J Seymour
(J)
G Caswell
(G)
A Wilcock
(A)
L Bramley
(L)
S Payne
(S)
N Preston
(N)
L Dunleavy
(L)
E Sowerby
(E)
G Miccinesi
(G)
F Bulli
(F)
F Ingravallo
(F)
G Carreras
(G)
A Toccafondi
(A)
G Gorini
(G)
U Lunder
(U)
B Červ
(B)
A Simonič
(A)
A Mimić
(A)
H Kodba Čeh
(HK)
P Ozbič
(P)
M Groenvold
(M)
C Møller Arnfeldt
(CM)
A Thit Johnsen
(AT)
Références
Perspect Public Health. 2019 Mar;139(2):97-105
pubmed: 30010486
Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Mar;49(3):360-71
pubmed: 21996649
J Palliat Med. 2004 Apr;7(2):341-9
pubmed: 15130215
Psychooncology. 2016 Apr;25(4):362-86
pubmed: 26387480
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):e543-e551
pubmed: 28884703
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2013 Dec;31(4):215-26
pubmed: 24299046
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Jul;15(7):477-489
pubmed: 24598477
J Prof Nurs. 2004 Jan-Feb;20(1):47-58
pubmed: 15011193
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Jul;58(7):1249-55
pubmed: 20649688
Palliat Med. 2014 Sep;28(8):1000-25
pubmed: 24651708
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
BMC Palliat Care. 2018 Dec 5;17(1):127
pubmed: 30518345
BMJ. 2013 Oct 21;347:f6064
pubmed: 24144870
Palliat Med. 2015 May;29(5):443-50
pubmed: 25527527
BMC Cancer. 2016 Apr 08;16:264
pubmed: 27059593
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018 Jun;35(6):897-907
pubmed: 29254357
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014 Sep;4(3):313-21
pubmed: 24844586
Palliat Med. 2009 Oct;23(7):642-8
pubmed: 19648222
J Clin Nurs. 2015 Aug;24(15-16):2057-73
pubmed: 25940451
Thorax. 2018 Mar;73(3):222-230
pubmed: 29109233
J Palliat Med. 2014 Mar;17(3):282-7
pubmed: 24325558
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Jul;58(7):1233-40
pubmed: 20649686
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):1994-2003
pubmed: 25330167