Journal of palliative medicine
-
Background: Although access to advance care planning (ACP), palliative care, and hospice has increased, public attitudes may still be barriers to their optimal use. Purpose: To synthesize empirical research from disparate sources that describes public perceptions of ACP, palliative care, and hospice in ways that could inform public messaging. Data Sources: Searches of PubMed and other databases were made from January 2011 to January 2020. Study Selection: Studies reporting survey or interview data with the public that asked specifically about awareness and attitudes toward ACP, palliative care, or hospice were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently screened citations, read full texts, and performed data abstraction. Twelve studies met inclusion criteria and included >9800 participants. For ACP, 80% to 90% of participants reported awareness, and a similar proportion considered it important, but only 10% to 41% reported having named a proxy or completed a written document. ⋯ However, after being prompted with a tested definition, 95% rated palliative care favorably. For hospice, 86% of participants reported awareness and 70% to 91% rated it favorably, although 37% held significant misconceptions. Limitations: A limited number of studies met inclusion criteria, and some were published in nonpeer reviewed sources. The studies reflect public perceptions pre-COVID-19. Conclusion: Consumer perceptions of ACP, palliative care, and hospice each have a distinct profile of awareness, perceptions of importance, and reports of action taking, and these profiles represent three different challenges for public messaging.
-
Abstract Background: Traumatic events are sudden, unexpected, and often devastating. The delivery of difficult news to patients and families in the trauma setting has unique challenges that necessitate communication skills that may differ from those used in other clinical environments. Objective: Design and implement a novel curriculum to teach, assess, and provide feedback to trauma residents on the communication skills necessary for delivering difficult news to patients and families in the trauma setting. Methods: This communication curriculum was delivered in three separate phases: (1) didactics using a video education e-module, (2) simulated practice of trauma resuscitation with a high-fidelity mannequin followed by role play of delivering difficult news, (3) an observed skills assessment using standardized patients (SPs). Each phase focused on delivery of difficult news of death and of uncertain/poor prognosis after a resuscitation in the trauma bay. ⋯ Outcomes include resident comfort, knowledge, and confidence in delivering difficult news in the trauma setting. Results: Thirty-nine trauma residents participated in the three-phase curriculum. There was an increase in the mean scores of resident-reported comfort, knowledge, and confidence in delivering difficult news for the seriously injured. SPs rated 78% of residents as competent to perform delivery of difficult news in the trauma bay independently. Conclusions: A curriculum to teach and assess trauma residents in the skills necessary to deliver difficult news in the trauma setting is both feasible and effective.