Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 8;13(e3):e1038-e1047.
doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003116.

Hospital care for the dying patient with cancer: does an advance care planning invitation influence bereaved relatives' experiences? A two country survey

Collaborators, Affiliations

Hospital care for the dying patient with cancer: does an advance care planning invitation influence bereaved relatives' experiences? A two country survey

Nina Elisabeth Hjorth et al. BMJ Support Palliat Care. .

Abstract

Objectives: Advance care planning (ACP) is not systematically performed in Argentina or Norway. We used the post-bereavement survey of the ERANet-LAC International Care Of the Dying Evaluation (CODE) project (2017-2020) to examine the proportion of relatives who were offered an ACP conversation, the proportion of those not offered it who would have wanted it and whether the outcomes differed between those offered a conversation and those not.

Methods: Relatives after cancer deaths in hospitals answered the CODE questionnaire 6-8 weeks post bereavement, by post (Norway) or interview (Argentina). Two additional questions asked if the relative and patient had been invited to a conversation about wishes for the patient's remaining lifetime, and, if not invited, whether they would have wanted such a conversation. The data were analysed using mixed-effects ordinal regression models.

Results: 276 participants (Argentina 98 and Norway 178) responded (56% spouses, 31% children, 68% women, age 18-80+). Fifty-six per cent had been invited, and they had significantly more positive perceptions about care and support than those not invited. Sixty-eight per cent of the participants not invited would have wanted an invitation, and they had less favourable perceptions about the care, especially concerning emotional and spiritual support.

Conclusions: Relatives who had been invited to a conversation about wishes for the patient's remaining lifetime had more positive perceptions about patient care and support for the relatives in the patient's final days of life. A majority of the relatives who had not been invited to an ACP conversation would have wanted it.

Keywords: bereavement; cancer; communication; end of life care; hospital care; terminal care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart showing participants and responses. *Based on the number of eligible cases identified and screened. ACP, advance care planning; i-CODE, international version of the validated Care Of the Dying Evaluation questionnaire.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Association between having been invited to an advance care planning conversation and the participants’ perception of how much of the time the patient was treated with respect and dignity (n=274).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Association between having wanted to have an advance care planning conversation (but not offered one) and the participants’ perception of how much of the time the patient was treated with respect and dignity (n=115).

References

    1. Lawler M, Banks I, Law K, et al. The European cancer patient's bill of rights, update and implementation 2016. ESMO Open 2017;1:e000127. 10.1136/esmoopen-2016-000127 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shaw T, York S, White K, et al. Defining success factors to describe coordinated care in cancer. Transl Behav Med 2018;8:357–65. 10.1093/tbm/iby022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44:681–92. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780–1. 10.1056/NEJMp1109283 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Austin CA, Mohottige D, Sudore RL, et al. Tools to promote shared decision making in serious illness: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1213–21. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1679 - DOI - PMC - PubMed