Social and structural conditions for the avoidance of advance care planning in neuro-oncology: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Primary brain tumours newly affect >260 000 people each year worldwide. In the UK, every year >10 000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour while >5000 die annually from the disease. Prognoses are poor, cognitive deterioration common and patients have prolonged palliative needs. Advance care planning (ACP) may enable early discussion of future care decisions. Although a core commitment in the UK healthcare strategy, and the shared responsibility of clinical teams, ACP appears uncommon in practice. Evidence around ACP practice in neuro-oncology is limited. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to elicit key social and structural conditions contributing to the avoidance of ACP in neuro-oncology. DESIGN: A cross-sectional qualitative study design was used. SETTING: One tertiary care hospital in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen healthcare professionals working in neuro-oncology participated in this study, including neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, clinical nurse specialists, allied healthcare professionals and a neurologist. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants to explore their assumptions and experiences of ACP. Data were analysed thematically using the well-established framework method. RESULTS: Participants recognised the importance of ACP but few had ever completed formal ACP documentation. We identified eight key factors, which we suggest comprise three main conditions for avoidance: (1) difficulties being a highly emotive, time-intensive practice requiring the right 'window of opportunity' and (2) presence and availability of others; (3) ambiguities in ACP definition, purpose and practice. Combined, these created a 'culture of shared avoidance'. CONCLUSION: In busy clinical environments, 'shared responsibility' is interpreted as 'others' responsibility' laying the basis for a culture of avoidance. To address this, we suggest a 'generalists and specialists' model of ACP, wherein healthcare professionals undertake particular responsibilities. Healthcare professionals are already adopting this model informally, but without formalised structure it is likely to fail given a tendency for people to assume a generalist role

Clinical and Nutritional Care Pathways of Patients with Malignant Bowel Obstruction: A Retrospective Analysis in a Tertiary UK Center

We describe a retrospective cohort study of patients with malignant bowel obstruction to examine their nutritional care pathways between 1.1.16 and 31.12.16 with readmissions until 31.12.17. Data were analyzed by comparing patients who were referred (R) and not referred (NR) for PN. We identified 72 patients with 117 MBO admissions (mean ± SD age:63.1 ± 13.1yrs, 79% female). 24/72 patients were in R group. Predominant primary malignancies were gynaecological and lower-gastrointestinal cancers (76%). 83% patients had metastases (61% sub-diaphragmatically). All patients were at high-risk of malnutrition and baseline mean weight loss was 7%. Discussion of PN at multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) (22% vs.5%, P = 0.02) and dietetic contact (94% vs. 41%, P < 0.0001) were more likely to occur in the R group. In 13/69 MBO admissions in NR group, reasons for non-referral were unclear. Median baseline and follow-up weight was similar (55–55.8 kg). Overall survival was 4.7 (1.4–15.2)months, with no differences by referral groups. We compared a sub-sample of patients who ‘may have’ required PN (n = 10) vs. those discharged on home PN (n = 10) and found greater survival in the HPN group (323vs.91 day, P < 0.01). Our findings highlight disparity in care pathways suggesting that nutritional care should be integrated into clinical management discussion(s) at MDT to ensure equal access to nutritional services