Dena Schulman-Green

Abstract

Background: While clinical pathways have been widely adopted to decrease variation in cancer treatment patterns, they do not always incorporate patient and family caregiver perspectives. We identified shared patient and family caregiver considerations influencing treatment preferences/decision making to inform development of a shared decision pathway. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with women who completed initial definitive treatment for stage I–III breast cancer and their family caregivers. As part of a broader interview, we asked participants what they considered when choosing a treatment option for themselves/their loved one. We coded transcribed interviews, analyzed patient and family caregiver datasets separately, and compared findings. Findings Patients’ (n = 22) mean age was 55.7 years, whereas family caregivers’ (n = 20) mean age was 59.5 years, with most (65%) being patients’ spouses/partners. Considerations reported by both groups included cancer status, treatment issues, physical/psychosocial/family consequences, and provider/health care system issues. Data revealed three key tensions that arise during treatment decision making: (1) having enough information to set expectations but not so much as to be overwhelming; (2) balancing the highest likelihood of cure with potential physical/emotional/social/financial consequences of the chosen treatment; and (3) wanting to make data-driven decisions while having a personalized treatment plan. Discussion: Patients and family caregivers identified several considerations of shared relevance reflecting different perspectives. Efforts to balance considerations can produce tensions that may contribute to decision regret if unaddressed. Conclusion: Clinical pathways can increase exposure to decision regret if treatment options are selected without consideration of patients’ priorities. A shared decision pathway that incorporates patient-centeredness could facilitate satisfactory decision making.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: To describe the design, procedures, and cohort for the Better ASsessment of ILlness -(BASIL) study, which is conducted to develop and test new delirium severity measures, compare them with existing measures, and examine related clinical outcomes. Methods: Prospective cohort study with 1 year follow-up of study participants at a large teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. After brief cognitive testing and the Delirium Symptom Interview, delirium and delirium severity were rated daily in the hospital using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and CAM-Severity score, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). Other key study variables included comorbidity, physical function (basic and instrumental activities of daily living [ADL]), ratings of subjective health and well-being, and clinical outcomes (length of stay, 30 day rehospitalization, nursing home admission, healthcare utilization). Follow-up interviews occurred at 1- and 12-month with patients and families. In 42 patient interviews, inter-rater reliability for key variables was assessed. Results: Of 768 eligible patients approached, 469 were screened and 352 enrolled, yielding an overall study response rate of 67% for potentially eligible participants. The mean participant was 80.3 years old (SD 6.8) and 203 (58%) were female. The majority of patients were medically complex with Charlson Comorbidity Scores ≥2 (192 patients, 55%), and 102 (29%) met criteria for dementia. Inter-rater reliability assessments (n = 42 pairs) were high for overall ratings of presence or absence of delirium by CAM (κ = 1.0), delirium severity by DRS-R-98 and MDAS (weighted kappa, κ = 1.0 for each) and for ADL impairment (κ = 1.0). For eligible participants at each time point, 278 out of 308 (90%) completed the 1-month follow-up and 132 out of 256 (53%) have completed the 12-month follow-up to date, which is still in progress. Among those who completed interviews, there was only 1-3% missing data on most major outcomes (delirium, basic ADL, and readmission). Conclusion: The BASIL study presents an innovative effort to advance the conceptualization and measurement of delirium severity. Unique strengths include the diverse cohort with complete high quality data and longitudinal follow-up, along with detailed collection of multiple delirium measures daily during hospitalization.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Delirium creates distinct emotional distress in patients and family caregivers, yet there are limited tools to assess the experience. Our objective was to develop separate patient and family caregiver delirium burden instruments and to test their content and construct validity.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-seven patients and 213 family caregivers were selected from an ongoing prospective cohort of medical-surgical admissions aged ≥70 years old. New patient and family caregiver delirium burden instruments were developed and used to measure the subjective experiences of in-hospital delirium. Delirium and delirium severity were measured by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and CAM-Severity (long form).RESULTS: Both Delirium Burden (DEL-B) instruments consist of eight questions and are measured on a 0 - 40 point scale. Final questions had good clarity and relevancy, as rated by the expert panel, and good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .82-.86). In the cohort validation, Patient DEL-B (DEL-B-P) was 5.1 points higher and Family Caregiver DEL-B (DEL-B-C) was 5.8 points higher, on average, for patients who developed delirium compared to those who did not (p < .001). Test-retest reliability of DEL-B-C at baseline and 1 month was strong (correlation = .73). Delirium severity was mildly-moderately correlated with DEL-B-P (correlation = .34) and DEL-B-C (correlation = .26), suggesting contribution of other factors.DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We created instruments to reliably measure and evaluate the burden of delirium for patients and their family caregivers. Although additional validation is indicated, these instruments provide a key first step toward measuring and improving the subjective experience of delirium for patients and their families.

Abstract

Background We created the Measurement of Transitions in Cancer Scale to assess patients' perceptions of the extent of change they experience with cancer-related transitions and how well they feel they are managing these transitions. For some transitions, we found that the more change that was reported, the worse management was reported; however, the benchmark by which patients assess how well they have managed may vary with the extent of change. Objectives The aim of the study was to identify approaches to combine reports of extent and management of change. Methods Among women with breast cancer, we explored relationships of composite measures (arithmetic and geometric means, subtractive and proportional need for improvement) with other indicators of well-being (symptoms, anxiety, depression, uncertainty, self-efficacy, knowledge of care options, medical communication competence). We examined statistical significance using false rate discovery for multiple tests on correlations with clinical outcomes. Results Greater extent and less management were significantly associated with higher total symptoms, anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and less self-efficacy in Personal Transitions, but not in Care Transitions. The arithmetic and geometric means had weak correlations with clinical outcomes, whereas the subtractive and proportional need for improvement had significant correlations with most clinical outcomes both in Personal and Care Transitions. The combined proportional need for improvement in Personal Transitions was significantly associated with total symptoms, anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and self-efficacy. The Care Transitions score was also significantly associated with total symptoms, anxiety, uncertainty, and self-efficacy. Discussion These approaches can be applied to other aspects of self-management that require assessment of the extent and management of an experience. The four approaches yield different results. We recommend the need for improvement composites to capture correlations with the clinical outcomes.

Abstract

Unexpected cognitive lucidity and communication in patients with severe dementias, especially around the time of death, have been observed and reported anecdotally. Here, we review what is known about this phenomenon, related phenomena that provide insight into potential mechanisms, ethical implications, and methodologic considerations for systematic investigation. We conclude that paradoxical lucidity, if systematically confirmed, challenges current assumptions and highlights the possibility of network-level return of cognitive function in cases of severe dementias, which can provide insight into both underlying neurobiology and future therapeutic possibilities.

Abstract

Background and Objectives While there are qualitative studies examining the delirium-related experiences of patients, family caregivers, and nurses separately, little is known about common aspects of delirium burden among all three groups. We describe common delirium burdens from the perspectives of patients, family caregivers, and nurses. Research Design and Methods We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews about delirium burden with 18 patients who had recently experienced a delirium episode, with 16 family caregivers, and with 15 nurses who routinely cared for patients with delirium. We recruited participants from a large, urban teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. We used interpretive description as the approach to data analysis. Results We identified three common burden themes of the delirium experience: Symptom Burden (Disorientation, Hallucinations/Delusions, Impaired Communication, Memory Problems, Personality Changes, Sleep Disturbances); Emotional Burden (Anger/Frustration, Emotional Distress, Fear, Guilt, Helplessness); and Situational Burden (Loss of Control, Lack of Attention, Lack of Knowledge, Lack of Resources, Safety Concerns, Unpredictability, Unpreparedness). These burdens arise from different sources among patients, family caregivers, and nurses, with markedly differing perspectives on the burden experience. Discussion and Implications Our findings advance the understanding of common burdens of the delirium experience for all groups and offer structure for instrument development and distinct interventions to address the burden of delirium as an individual or group experience. Our work reinforces that no one group experiences delirium in isolation. Delirium is a shared experience that will respond best to systemwide approaches to reduce associated burden.

Abstract

Psychological distress is prevalent among cancer patients, who may be vulnerable to distress at times of transition, such as a change in symptom experience, employment, or goal of treatment. Independently, both psychological distress and transitions impair patients’ quality of life, and together their adverse impact may be intensified. Self-management allows patients to engage in tasks that influence the disease experience and can include strategies to help mitigate distress associated with transitions. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine research on the relationship between self-management interventions and distress in adult cancer patients receiving active tumor-directed therapy. From a search of seven electronic databases, 5,156 articles were identified; however, nine studies met inclusion criteria. Our review suggested that self-management interventions may help address psychological distress in patients receiving cancer treatment but that the current evidence is not robust enough to support a definitive conclusion.

Abstract

Purpose: Our purpose was to create a content domain framework for delirium severity to inform item development for a new instrument to measure delirium severity. Methods: We used an established, multi-stage instrument development process during which expert panelists discussed best approaches to measure delirium severity and identified related content domains. We conducted this work as part of the Better ASsessment of ILlness (BASIL) study, a prospective, observational study aimed at developing and testing measures of delirium severity. Our interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of twelve national delirium experts and four expert members of the core research group. Over a one-month period, experts participated in two rounds of review. Results: Experts recommended that the construct of delirium severity should reflect both the phenomena and the impact of delirium to create an accurate, patient-centered instrument useful to interdisciplinary clinicians and family caregivers. Final content domains were Cognitive, Level of consciousness, Inattention, Psychiatric-Behavioral, Emotional dysregulation, Psychomotor features, and Functional. Themes debated by experts included reconciling clinical geriatrics and psychiatric content, mapping symptoms to one specific domain, and accurate capture of unclear clinical presentations. Conclusions: We believe this work represents the first application of instrument development science to delirium. The identified content domains are inclusive of various, wide-ranging domains of delirium severity and are reflective of a consistent framework that relates delirium severity to potential clinical outcomes. Our content domain framework provides a foundation for development of delirium severity instruments that can help improve care and quality of life for patients with delirium.