IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i21-22p4158-4167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Operating in the dark”: Nurses’ attempts to help patients and families manage the transition from oncology to comfort care

Author

Listed:
  • Mollie Rose Canzona
  • Deborah Love
  • Rolland Barrett
  • Joanne Henley
  • Sara Bridges
  • Adam Koontz
  • Sharon Nelson
  • Serena Daya

Abstract

Aims and objectives To investigate challenges nurses face when providing care for oncology patients transitioning from curative to palliative care and to identify educational and support opportunities for nurses. Background Communicating with oncology patients/families transitioning from curative treatments to care focused on comfort can be problematic for a variety of reasons. Research suggests discrepancies exist between physicians’ and patients’ perceptions of probable length of life. These disconnects can deepen suffering. Oncology and palliative care nurses are well positioned to facilitate this transition. However, they receive little formal instruction regarding these complex scenarios beyond what occurs through on‐the‐job training. Methods Twenty‐eight nurses working in oncology (n = 14) and palliative care (n = 14) settings participated. The constant comparative method was used to analyse the data. Results Four themes emerged that characterise oncology and palliative care nurses’ experiences: (a) coping with interprofessional communication errors during the transition, (b) responding to patient/family reactions to miscommunication about the goals of care, (c) navigating emotional connection to patients, and (d) adapting to sociocultural factors that influence information exchange. Conclusions This study supports previous research regarding challenges related to patient reactions, family relationships and emotional burden during end‐of‐life care. However, it adds to the literature by a providing a more in‐depth explication of interprofessional and patient–physician communication barriers that negatively impact care. Relevance to clinical practice Misunderstandings between patients, physicians and nurses have the potential to distress complicate nurses’ efforts to support patients and families. Nurses reported a problematic power dynamic that impedes their ability to facilitate communication between patient and physician or to offer insights that could enhance patient care. Medical education and continuing education initiatives are needed to build understanding across professional roles and specialties and to improve comfort discussing worsening prognosis and end‐of‐life issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Mollie Rose Canzona & Deborah Love & Rolland Barrett & Joanne Henley & Sara Bridges & Adam Koontz & Sharon Nelson & Serena Daya, 2018. "“Operating in the dark”: Nurses’ attempts to help patients and families manage the transition from oncology to comfort care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(21-22), pages 4158-4167, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:21-22:p:4158-4167
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14603
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14603?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sheryl Reimer‐Kirkham & Richard Sawatzky & Della Roberts & Marie Cochrane & Kelli Stajduhar, 2016. "‘Close to’ a palliative approach: nurses' and care aides' descriptions of caring for people with advancing chronic life‐limiting conditions," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2189-2199, August.
    2. Gattellari, Melina & Butow, Phyllis N. & Tattersall, Martin H. N., 2001. "Sharing decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1878, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    2. Semra Ozdemir & Yubing Tian & Chetna Malhotra & Richard Harding & Gerald Choon Huat Koh & Nesaretnam Barr Kumarakulasinghe & Lai Heng Lee & Ssu Wynn Mon & Eric Finkelstein, 2021. "Discordance Between Advanced Cancer Patients’ Perceived and Preferred Roles in Decision Making and its Association with Psychological Distress and Perceived Quality of Care," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 581-589, September.
    3. Albada, Akke & Ausems, Margreet G.E.M. & van Dulmen, Sandra, 2014. "Counselee participation in follow-up breast cancer genetic counselling visits and associations with achievement of the preferred role, cognitive outcomes, risk perception alignment and perceived perso," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 178-186.
    4. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    5. Coleman-Brueckheimer, Kate & Spitzer, Joseph & Koffman, Jonathan, 2009. "Involvement of Rabbinic and communal authorities in decision-making by haredi Jews in the UK with breast cancer: An interpretative phenomenological analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 323-333, January.
    6. Gaston, Christine M. & Mitchell, Geoffrey, 2005. "Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2252-2264, November.
    7. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    8. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    9. Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz & Jagienka Rześny-Cieplińska & Andrzej Jezierski, 2020. "Assessing Resources Management for Sharing Economy in Urban Logistics," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-30, September.
    10. Marla L. Clayman & Carma L. Bylund & Betty Chewning & Gregory Makoul, 2016. "The Impact of Patient Participation in Health Decisions Within Medical Encounters," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 427-452, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:21-22:p:4158-4167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.