TY - JOUR
T1 - A national survey to systematically identify factors associated with oncologists’ attitudes toward end-of-life discussions
T2 - What determines timing of end-of-life discussions?
AU - Mori, Masanori
AU - Shimizu, Chikako
AU - Ogawa, Asao
AU - Okusaka, Takuji
AU - Yoshida, Saran
AU - Morita, Tatsuya
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© AlphaMed Press 2015.
PY - 2015/10/7
Y1 - 2015/10/7
N2 - Background. End-of-life discussions (EOLds) occur infrequently until cancer patients become terminally ill. Methods. To identify factors associated with the timing of EOLds, we conducted a nationwide survey of 864 medical oncologists. We surveyed the timing of EOLds held with advanced cancer patients regarding prognosis, hospice, site of death, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; and we surveyed physicians’ experience of EOLds, perceptions of a good death, and beliefs regarding these issues. Multivariate analyses identified determinants of early discussions. Results. Among 490 physicians (response rate: 57%), 165 (34%), 65 (14%), 47 (9.8%), and 20 (4.2%) would discuss prognosis, hospice, site of death, and DNR status, respectively, “now” (i.e., at diagnosis) with a hypothetical patient with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer. In multivariate analyses, determinants of discussing prognosis “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of autonomy in experiencing a good death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34; p = .014), less perceived difficulty estimating the prognosis (OR: 0.77; p = .012), and being a hematologist (OR: 1.68; p = .016). Determinants of discussing hospice “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.58; p5.018), less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.67; p5.002), and no responsibility as treating physician at end of life (OR: 1.94; p =.031). Determinants of discussing site of death “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.83; p = .008) and less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.74; p = .034). The determinant of discussing DNR status “now” was less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.49; p = .003). Conclusion. Reflection by oncologists on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death is helpful for oncologists to perform appropriate EOLds.
AB - Background. End-of-life discussions (EOLds) occur infrequently until cancer patients become terminally ill. Methods. To identify factors associated with the timing of EOLds, we conducted a nationwide survey of 864 medical oncologists. We surveyed the timing of EOLds held with advanced cancer patients regarding prognosis, hospice, site of death, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; and we surveyed physicians’ experience of EOLds, perceptions of a good death, and beliefs regarding these issues. Multivariate analyses identified determinants of early discussions. Results. Among 490 physicians (response rate: 57%), 165 (34%), 65 (14%), 47 (9.8%), and 20 (4.2%) would discuss prognosis, hospice, site of death, and DNR status, respectively, “now” (i.e., at diagnosis) with a hypothetical patient with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer. In multivariate analyses, determinants of discussing prognosis “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of autonomy in experiencing a good death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34; p = .014), less perceived difficulty estimating the prognosis (OR: 0.77; p = .012), and being a hematologist (OR: 1.68; p = .016). Determinants of discussing hospice “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.58; p5.018), less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.67; p5.002), and no responsibility as treating physician at end of life (OR: 1.94; p =.031). Determinants of discussing site of death “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.83; p = .008) and less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.74; p = .034). The determinant of discussing DNR status “now” was less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.49; p = .003). Conclusion. Reflection by oncologists on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death is helpful for oncologists to perform appropriate EOLds.
KW - Attitude
KW - Do-not-resuscitate
KW - End-of-life discussion
KW - Hospice
KW - Oncologist
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946548328&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946548328&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0147
DO - 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0147
M3 - Article
C2 - 26446232
AN - SCOPUS:84946548328
SN - 1083-7159
VL - 20
SP - 1304
EP - 1311
JO - Oncologist
JF - Oncologist
IS - 11
ER -