Poster Presentation 2025 Joint Meeting of the COSA ASM and IPOS Congress

Perceptions of Shared Information in ACP for Patients with Cancer: A Comparison by Profession and Facility Type in Japan (125976)

Hiroko Sakuma 1 , Hideaki Hasuo 1 , Haruko Kumagai 2 , Akemi Kinoshita 3 , Etsuko Miyagi 4 , Mayuko Kakumen 5 , Risa Ohashi 6 , Yukari Inoue 7 , Rika Shimamura 1
  1. Kansai Medical University Hospital, Osaka, Japan
  2. Hirakata City Hospital, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan
  3. Sato Hospital, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan
  4. Otokoyama Hospital, Yahata, Kyoto, Japan
  5. Matsushita Memorial Hospital, Moriguchi, Osaka, Japan
  6. Kansai Medical University General Medical Center, Moriguchi, Osaka, Japan
  7. As One Home-Visit Nursing Station, Neyagawa, Osaka, Japan

【Objective】 Transitioning from active treatment to palliative care involves choosing care settings aligned with patients’ wishes． This study analyzed the differences in perceptions of essential information to be shared during Advance Care Planning (ACP) among healthcare professionals, categorized by profession and facility type.

【Sample and setting】 An online survey was conducted among healthcare professionals involved in ACP for patients with cancer in a Japanese metropolitan area.

【Procedures】 Based on the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, 15 items were identified as potentially crucial in ACP. Respondents were grouped by profession (medical doctors, nurses, medical social workers [MSWs]) and by facility type—information-sending (designated cancer hospitals) vs. information-receiving (home-visit nursing stations, clinics, and palliative care wards). Chi-square tests were used to analyze differences between groups.

【Results】 A total of 436 professionals participated (medical doctors: 86; nurses: 328; MSWs: 22; sending: 283; receiving: 153). The most valued information varied by profession: medical doctors prioritized “clinician’s view of illness trajectory” (16.4%), nurses emphasized “what matters most to the patient” (16.9%), and MSWs highlighted “content of explanations provided to patients” (16.9%). Significant differences were found in “family’s understanding of care options” (p=0.001) and “what matters most to the patient” (p=0.034). Across facility types, shared priorities included “what matters most to the patient” (15.5%) and “patient’s understanding of care options” (13.9% sending; 14.8% receiving). However, “content of explanations provided to patients” was significantly more emphasized by sending facilities (p=0.023).

【Conclusion and clinical implications】 Perceptions of essential ACP information differ by professional role and facility function. These differences reflect diverse clinical perspectives and highlight the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and structured, role-sensitive information-sharing systems to ensure continuity and quality of care.