Discussions about goals of care in the emergency department: a qualitative study of emergency physicians' opinions using the normalization process theory.
Fannie Péloquin, Émile Marmen, Véronique Gélinas, Ariane Plaisance, Maude Linteau, Audrey Nolet, Nathalie Germain, Patrick M Archambault
{"title":"Discussions about goals of care in the emergency department: a qualitative study of emergency physicians' opinions using the normalization process theory.","authors":"Fannie Péloquin, Émile Marmen, Véronique Gélinas, Ariane Plaisance, Maude Linteau, Audrey Nolet, Nathalie Germain, Patrick M Archambault","doi":"10.1007/s43678-025-00911-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explored emergency department (ED) physicians' opinions about leading goals of care discussions in their daily practice. We contextualized our findings within the current landscape of ED goals of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study was based on the Normalization Process Theory. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of ten emergency physicians from one academic ED (Lévis, Canada) and aimed to reach data saturation. Using a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis, we codified the interviews under the four Normalization Process Theory constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 10 emergency physicians. Fourteen themes were identified as factors influencing the feasibility of implementing goals of care discussions in the ED: (1) interpersonal communication, (2) efficiency of care, (3) anxiety generated by the discussion, (4) meeting between clinicians, patients and family, (5) importance of goals of care during handover, (6) deterioration catalyzing the goals of care discussions, (7) lack of training, (8) availability of protocols, (9) heterogeneous prioritization of goals of care discussions, (10) take action before the ED, (11) need for education, (12) legislation, (13) adapt the ED environment, and (14) requirement to lead goals of care discussions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Goals of care discussions are possible and essential with selected ED patients. Physicians identified outstanding needs to normalize goals of care discussions in their practice: education for both themselves and patients on the concept of goals of care discussions, legislative action for the systematization of goals of care discussions for patients, and proactive documentation of patients' preferences pre-ED. Patient, clinician and system-level policy-making efforts remain necessary to address these needs and ensure the normalization of goals of care discussions in emergency physicians' daily practice as suggested by clinical guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00911-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: We explored emergency department (ED) physicians' opinions about leading goals of care discussions in their daily practice. We contextualized our findings within the current landscape of ED goals of care.
Methods: This qualitative study was based on the Normalization Process Theory. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of ten emergency physicians from one academic ED (Lévis, Canada) and aimed to reach data saturation. Using a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis, we codified the interviews under the four Normalization Process Theory constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring.
Results: We interviewed 10 emergency physicians. Fourteen themes were identified as factors influencing the feasibility of implementing goals of care discussions in the ED: (1) interpersonal communication, (2) efficiency of care, (3) anxiety generated by the discussion, (4) meeting between clinicians, patients and family, (5) importance of goals of care during handover, (6) deterioration catalyzing the goals of care discussions, (7) lack of training, (8) availability of protocols, (9) heterogeneous prioritization of goals of care discussions, (10) take action before the ED, (11) need for education, (12) legislation, (13) adapt the ED environment, and (14) requirement to lead goals of care discussions.
Conclusion: Goals of care discussions are possible and essential with selected ED patients. Physicians identified outstanding needs to normalize goals of care discussions in their practice: education for both themselves and patients on the concept of goals of care discussions, legislative action for the systematization of goals of care discussions for patients, and proactive documentation of patients' preferences pre-ED. Patient, clinician and system-level policy-making efforts remain necessary to address these needs and ensure the normalization of goals of care discussions in emergency physicians' daily practice as suggested by clinical guidelines.