Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2024 · 11 citations · 27 references
NursingCardiologyCommunication In Serious IllnessHealth CommunicationPalliative CareCommunication With Healthcare ProvidersCommunication With PatientsHeart FailurePrognosis CommunicationPrognostic AssessmentPrognostic CommunicationCommunication Barriers In PrognosisEnd-stage Heart Failure CareMedian AgePatient Preferences CommunicationShared Prognostic UnderstandingTertiary Care Organization
BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) overestimate survival compared with model-predicted estimates, but the reasons for this discrepancy are poorly understood. We characterized how patients with end-stage HF and their care partners understand prognosis and elicited their preferences around prognosis communication. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with patients with end-stage HF and their care partners between 2021 and 2022 at a tertiary care center in Michigan. Participants were asked to describe barriers they faced to understanding prognosis. All interviews were coded and analyzed using an iterative content analysis approach. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with end-stage HF and 15 care partners participated, including 7 dyads. The median patient age was 66.5 years (range, 31-80) and included 9 of 15 (60%) White participants and 9 of 15 (60%) were males. Care partners included 10 of 15 (67%) White participants and 6 of 15 (40%) were males. Care partners were partners (n=7, 47%), siblings (n=4, 27%), parents (n=2, 13%), and children (n=2, 13%). Most patients demonstrated a poor understanding of their prognosis. In contrast, care partners commonly identified the patient's rapidly declining trajectory. Patients and care partners described ineffective prognosis communication with clinicians, common barriers to understanding prognosis, and similar suggestions on improving prognosis communication. Barriers to understanding prognosis included (1) conversation avoidance by physicians, (2) information inconsistency across different physicians, (3) distractions during prognosis communication due to emphasis on other conditions, and (4) confusion related to the use of medical jargon. Most patients and care partners wanted discussions around prognosis to begin early in the course of the disease, repeated routinely using layperson's terms, incorporating both quality of life and survival assessments, and involving care partners. Both patients and care partners did not expect precise survival estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with end-stage HF demonstrate a poor understanding of their prognosis compared with their care partners. Patients and care partners are open to discussing prognosis early, using direct and patient-centered language.
27
The qualitative content analysis process
Satu Elo, Helvi Kyngäs · Journal of Advanced Nursing · 2008 · 22.3K citations · Full text
Nursing, Advanced Practice Nursing, Evidence-based Practice +8
Qualitative evaluation and research methods
David Ellis · International Journal of Information Management · 1990 · 18.2K citations
Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization
Benjamin Saunders, Julius Sim, Tom Kingstone et al. · Quality & Quantity · 2017 · 11.6K citations · Full text