This study aims to apply the evidence-based practice (EBP) process to determine the factors that influence patients' understanding of, participation in, and satisfaction with clinical trials, the informed consent process, and treatment decisions and to make recommendations for improving clinical trials education. Beginning with evidence retrieval, the authors identified key search terms and searched MEDLINE--Ovid, MEDLINE--PubMed, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to identify articles published between July 2001 and July 2006 that highlighted clinical trials education. The articles were reviewed for clinical trials patient education information, clinician methods of communicating clinical trial information to patients, and patient satisfaction with the clinical trials process, including the informed consent process. As a result, practice changes were recommended for the patient/family, staff/community, and institution. From the literature review, 81 articles were identified. Recurring themes included decision-making, patient education, staff education, and pediatrics. Most articles focused on methods and strategies aimed at improving education at the patient/family, staff/community, and institutional levels. The issues surrounding clinical trial education are complex due to multiple variables interfering with poor patient understanding of, participation in, and satisfaction with clinical trial treatment decisions. On the basis of our findings, we recommend that clinicians involved in educating patients, families, staff, and communities about clinical trials have an awareness of and understanding for very complex issues.

No abstract

The guide provides an excellent resource for patients, a standard for patient teaching, and is now the basis for future chemotherapy program planning.

PURPOSE: With little to no infrastructure or standardized methodology in place to actively engage patients in advance care planning (ACP), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center set out to identify needed resources, develop an intervention to improve ACP, and evaluate the intervention’s effects. METHODS: With the support of executive leadership, a multidisciplinary workgroup enlisted the support of ACP champions, performed a root-cause analysis, developed a detailed ACP process flow by provider role, developed patient and family education resources, and developed faculty and staff training materials. The workgroup also implemented two Plan-Do-Study-Act intervention cycles, which identified difficulty using the ACP note function in our electronic health record (EHR) as a barrier to ACP adoption. By educating patients, families, and providers and improving the EHR’s functionality, the workgroup aimed to increase the percentage of ambulatory patients with a diagnosis of advanced or metastatic cancer who had a documented ACP conversation with a provider by their third office visit. Our goal was to improve this percentage from 20% at baseline to 50% after the intervention. Data were obtained from our institution’s EHRs. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who had documented ACP conversations increased from 20% at baseline to 34% at the end of fiscal year 2017 and 54% at the end of fiscal year 2018. CONCLUSION: Owing to the dedicated efforts of many individuals across the institution, the postintervention goal was surpassed. Additional efforts to facilitate ACP conversations are ongoing.

Background Establishing care preferences and selecting a prepared medical decision-maker (MDM) are basic components of advance care planning (ACP) and integral to treatment planning. Systematic ACP in the cancer setting is uncommon. We evaluated a systematic social work (SW)-driven process for patient selection of a prepared MDM. Methods We used a pre/post design, centered on SW counseling incorporated into standard-of-care practice. New patients with gynecologic malignancies were eligible if they had an available family caregiver or an established Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA). Questionnaires were completed at baseline and 3 months to ascertain MPOA document (MPOAD) completion status (primary objective) and evaluate factors associated with MPOAD completion (secondary objectives). Results Three hundred and sixty patient/caregiver dyads consented to participate. One hundred and sixteen (32%) had MPOADs at baseline. Twenty (8%) of the remaining 244 dyads completed MPOADs by 3 months. Two hundred and thirty-six patients completed the values and goals survey at both baseline and follow-up: at follow-up, care preferences were stable in 127 patients (54%), changed toward more aggressive care in 60 (25%), and toward the focus on the quality of life in 49 (21%). Correlation between the patient’s values and goals and their caregiver’s/MPOA’s perception was very weak at baseline, improving to moderate at follow-up. Patients with MPOADs by study completion had statistically significant higher ACP Engagement scores than those without. Conclusion A systematic SW-driven intervention did not engage new patients with gynecologic cancers to select and prepare MDMs. Change in care preferences was common, with caregivers’ knowledge of patients’ treatment preferences moderate at best.