Difference between revisions of "Pino-Parry2016"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Marco Pino; Ruth Parry; Victoria Land; Christina Faull; Luke Feathers; Jane Seymour
 
|Author(s)=Marco Pino; Ruth Parry; Victoria Land; Christina Faull; Luke Feathers; Jane Seymour
 
|Title=Engaging Terminally Ill Patients in End of Life Talk: How Experienced Palliative Medicine Doctors Navigate the Dilemma of Promoting Discussions about Dying
 
|Title=Engaging Terminally Ill Patients in End of Life Talk: How Experienced Palliative Medicine Doctors Navigate the Dilemma of Promoting Discussions about Dying
|Tag(s)=Medical; EMCA;
+
|Tag(s)=Medical; EMCA; Medical EMCA
 
|Key=Pino-Parry2016
 
|Key=Pino-Parry2016
 
|Year=2016
 
|Year=2016

Revision as of 11:52, 6 September 2018

Pino-Parry2016
BibType ARTICLE
Key Pino-Parry2016
Author(s) Marco Pino, Ruth Parry, Victoria Land, Christina Faull, Luke Feathers, Jane Seymour
Title Engaging Terminally Ill Patients in End of Life Talk: How Experienced Palliative Medicine Doctors Navigate the Dilemma of Promoting Discussions about Dying
Editor(s)
Tag(s) Medical, EMCA, Medical EMCA
Publisher
Year 2016
Language
City
Month
Journal PLoS ONE
Volume 11
Number 5
Pages e0156174
URL Link
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0156174
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Objective To examine how palliative medicine doctors engage patients in end-of-life (hereon, EoL) talk. To examine whether the practice of “eliciting and responding to cues”, which has been widely advocated in the EoL care literature, promotes EoL talk. Design Conversation analysis of video- and audio-recorded consultations. Participants Unselected terminally ill patients and their companions in consultation with experienced pal- liative medicine doctors. Setting Outpatient clinic, day therapy clinic, and inpatient unit of a single English hospice. Results Doctors most commonly promoted EoL talk through open elaboration solicitations; these created opportunities for patients to introduce–then later further articulate–EoL consider- ations in such a way that doctors did not overtly ask about EoL matters. Importantly, the wording of elaboration solicitations avoided assuming that patients had EoL concerns. If a patient responded to open elaboration solicitations without introducing EoL considerations, doctors sometimes pursued EoL talk by switching to a less participatory and more presump- tive type of solicitation, which suggested the patient might have EoL concerns. These more overt solicitations were used only later in consultations, which indicates that doctors give precedence to patients volunteering EoL considerations, and offer them opportunities to take the lead in initiating EoL talk. There is evidence that doctors treat elaboration of patients’ talk as a resource for engaging them in EoL conversations. However, there are lim- itations associated with labelling that talk as “cues” as is common in EoL communication contexts. We examine these limitations and propose “possible EoL considerations” as a descriptively more accurate term. Conclusions Through communicating–via open elaboration solicitations–in ways that create opportuni- ties for patients to volunteer EoL considerations, doctors navigate a core dilemma in pro- moting EoL talk: giving patients opportunities to choose whether to engage in conversations about EoL whilst being sensitive to their communication needs, preferences and state of readiness for such dialogue.

Notes