Humeniuk, Katherine M.

Background: The quality of perimortem care received by patients who died at our hospitals was unknown. Objective: To describe the quality of hospital care experienced in the last week of life, as perceived by decedents’ families. Design: Telephone survey that included established measures and investigator-developed content. Setting: Large, tertiary care center known for high-quality, cost-effective care. Participants: Family members of 104 patients who died in-hospital (10% of annual deaths) over the course of 1 year. Intervention: None. Measurements: Participant perceptions of the decedent’s care, including symptom management, personal care, communication, and care coordination. Results: Decedents were mostly male (64%), white (96%), married (73%), and Christian (91%). Most survey participants were spouses of the decedent (68%); they were predominately white (98%), female (70%), and Christian (90%) and had a median age of 70 years (range, 35-91 years). Overall satisfaction was high. Pain, dyspnea, and anxiety or sadness were highly prevalent among decedents (73%, 73%, and 55%, respectively) but largely well managed. Most participants believed that decedents were treated respectfully and kindly by staff (87%) and that sufficient help was available to assist with medications and dressing changes (97%). Opportunities for improvement included management of decedents’ anxiety or sadness (29%) and personal care (25%), emotional support of the family (57%), communication regarding decedents’ illness (29%), and receiving contradictory or confusing information (33%). Conclusion: Despite high satisfaction with care overall, we identified important unmet needs. Addressing these gaps will improve the care of dying patients.

AbstractBackgroundShared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self‐reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter.MethodsWe surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single‐item question, ‘Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?’ Answer options were ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners).ResultsPatients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance‐adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance.ConclusionsPatients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision‐making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

Objective To assess US physicians’ attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment. Design Cross-sectional mailed survey. Setting US medical practice. Participants 3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey. Main outcome measures Level of enthusiasm for “Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs”; degree of agreement with “Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice” and agreement with “should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs”. Results Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were ‘very enthusiastic’ about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs. Conclusions Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.

Background: Recent literature suggests that one in nine children in the United States uses some type of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Children with challenging neurological conditions such as headache, migraine, and seizures may seek CAM in their attempts at self-care. Our objective was to describe CAM use in children with these conditions. Methods: We compared use of CAM among children aged 3 to 17 years with and without common neurological conditions (headaches, migraines, seizures) where CAM might plausibly play a role in their self-management using the 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data. Results : Children with common neurological conditions reported significantly more CAM use compared to the children without these conditions (24.0% vs 12.6%, P< .0001). Compared to other pediatric CAM users, children with neurological conditions report similarly high use of biological therapies and significantly higher use of mind-body techniques (38.6% vs 20.5%, P<.007). Of the mind-body techniques, deep breathing (32.5%), meditation (15.1%), and progressive relaxation (10.1%) were used most frequently. Conclusions: About one in four children with common neurological conditions use CAM. The nature of CAM use in this population, as well as its risks and benefits in neurological disease, deserve further investigation.