Implementation of the milestones communication approach for patients with limited prognosis: evaluation of intervention fidelity.
Advances care planning
Communication
Lung cancer
Patient preferences
Prognostic awareness
Journal
BMC palliative care
ISSN: 1472-684X
Titre abrégé: BMC Palliat Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2020
18 Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
05
06
2019
accepted:
14
02
2020
entrez:
20
2
2020
pubmed:
20
2
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite improvements in diagnostics and therapy, the majority of lung tumours are diagnosed at advanced stage IV with a poor prognosis. Due to the nature of an incurable disease, patients need to engage in shared decision making on advance care planning. To implement this in clinical practice, effective communication between patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals is essential. The Heidelberg Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) is delivered by a specifically trained interprofessional tandem and consists of four milestone conversations (MCs) at pivotal times in the disease trajectory. MC 1 (Diagnosis): i.e. prognosis; MC 2 (Stable disease): i.e. prognostic awareness; MC 3 (Progression): i.e. reassessment; MC 4 (Best supportive care): i.e. end of treatment. In between MCs, follow-up calls are carried out to sustain communication. This study aimed to assess to what extent the MCA was implemented as planned and consolidated in specialized oncology practice. A prospective observational process evaluation study was conducted, which focused on the implementation fidelity of the MCA. All MCs during two assessment periods were included. We analysed all written records of the conversations, which are part of the routine documentation during MCs and follow-up calls. Adherence to key aspects of the manual was documented on structured checklists at the beginning of the implementation of the MCA and after 6 months. The analysis was descriptive. Differences between the two assessment periods are analysed with chi-square tests. A total of 133 MCs and 54 follow-up-calls (t1) and of 172 MCs and 92 follow-up calls (t2) were analysed. MC 2 were the most frequently completed conversations (n = 51 and n = 47). Advance care planning was discussed in 26 and 13% of MC 2 in the respective assessment periods; in 31 and 47% of MC 2, prognostic awareness was recorded. The most frequently documented topic in the follow-up calls was the physical condition in patients (82 and 83%). The implementation of a trajectory-specific communication concept was largely successful. Additional studies are needed to understand how fidelity could be further improved. DRKS00013469 / Date of registration: 22.12.2017.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite improvements in diagnostics and therapy, the majority of lung tumours are diagnosed at advanced stage IV with a poor prognosis. Due to the nature of an incurable disease, patients need to engage in shared decision making on advance care planning. To implement this in clinical practice, effective communication between patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals is essential. The Heidelberg Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) is delivered by a specifically trained interprofessional tandem and consists of four milestone conversations (MCs) at pivotal times in the disease trajectory. MC 1 (Diagnosis): i.e. prognosis; MC 2 (Stable disease): i.e. prognostic awareness; MC 3 (Progression): i.e. reassessment; MC 4 (Best supportive care): i.e. end of treatment. In between MCs, follow-up calls are carried out to sustain communication. This study aimed to assess to what extent the MCA was implemented as planned and consolidated in specialized oncology practice.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospective observational process evaluation study was conducted, which focused on the implementation fidelity of the MCA. All MCs during two assessment periods were included. We analysed all written records of the conversations, which are part of the routine documentation during MCs and follow-up calls. Adherence to key aspects of the manual was documented on structured checklists at the beginning of the implementation of the MCA and after 6 months. The analysis was descriptive. Differences between the two assessment periods are analysed with chi-square tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 133 MCs and 54 follow-up-calls (t1) and of 172 MCs and 92 follow-up calls (t2) were analysed. MC 2 were the most frequently completed conversations (n = 51 and n = 47). Advance care planning was discussed in 26 and 13% of MC 2 in the respective assessment periods; in 31 and 47% of MC 2, prognostic awareness was recorded. The most frequently documented topic in the follow-up calls was the physical condition in patients (82 and 83%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of a trajectory-specific communication concept was largely successful. Additional studies are needed to understand how fidelity could be further improved.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
DRKS00013469 / Date of registration: 22.12.2017.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32070311
doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-0527-1
pii: 10.1186/s12904-020-0527-1
pmc: PMC7029500
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Gesundheit
ID : 1504-54401
Références
Lung Cancer. 2015 Feb;87(2):186-92
pubmed: 25498829
Palliat Med. 2018 Sep;32(8):1305-1321
pubmed: 29956558
Health Promot Pract. 2017 Mar;18(2):275-282
pubmed: 27770019
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Jul;24(7):2937-44
pubmed: 26847449
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
Ann Oncol. 2011 May;22(5):1030-40
pubmed: 20974653
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Aug;46(12):2225-34
pubmed: 20471248
Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-30
pubmed: 14568747
Palliat Med. 2014 Dec;28(10):1222-30
pubmed: 24965755
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2398-403
pubmed: 27217454
Lung Cancer. 2015 Dec;90(3):528-33
pubmed: 26480866
Psychooncology. 2011 Jul;20(7):677-80
pubmed: 21710503
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 24;7:CD003751
pubmed: 30039853
Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Jun;40(3):550-565
pubmed: 29556930
Lung Cancer. 2015 Nov;90(2):135-8
pubmed: 26341958
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):e543-e551
pubmed: 28884703
Curr Opin Oncol. 2005 Jul;17(4):331-5
pubmed: 15933462
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018 Mar 15;10:57-61
pubmed: 29696159
J Health Psychol. 2014 Sep;19(9):1103-19
pubmed: 24157936
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Apr 10;30(11):1235-41
pubmed: 22412138
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018 Mar;27(2):e12794
pubmed: 29168594
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 Nov;26(6):
pubmed: 28266089
Trials. 2018 Aug 14;19(1):438
pubmed: 30107809
Nurs Res. 2004 Jan-Feb;53(1):63-6
pubmed: 14726779
Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302-11
pubmed: 10964998
Implement Sci. 2015 Sep 07;10:129
pubmed: 26345357
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 03;5:67
pubmed: 20815872
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb 20;29(6):755-60
pubmed: 21263086
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Oct;11(10):1653-71
pubmed: 27364315
Health Educ Res. 2014 Dec;29(6):918-32
pubmed: 25214513