Data gathering on www.selleckchem.com/products/Sunitinib-Malate-(Sutent).html information taken into account by carers in the argument for their therapeutic decision was based on the patient file and by questioning carers

in groups using the “card sorting” method. Medical staff and carers involved in the treatment discussion and/or the treatment decision were compelled to express which information they believed had been taken into account in the decision for each clinical case. This was done with the help of a game involving 36 cards. Each card represents a piece of information which they believed had been taken into account in the decision. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical One of the critical stages of the card sorting method consists in establishing the list of relevant headings to appear on the cards. We based an initial list of headings on information from the literature and a brainstorming http://www.selleckchem.com/products/pazopanib.html session in the palliative care team of the principal investigator (led by

a person who was independent of the department). Based on this initial work, a pilot feasibility study was conducted in three different departments for 6 patients. At the end of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical this pilot study, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical we were able to consolidate the procedure since all participants had understood the “rules of the game” and adhered to the method, and four large families of decisive factors and 36 titles (see figure ​figure1)1) were retained. Two “jokers” (blank cards) completed the game to replace information not necessarily initially foreseen in the game. Figure 1 Set of cards, each labelled with an item which could be an argument in decision-making. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical For each patient included in the study, collecting arguments took place

during a meeting of medical and care staff involved in the decision to withdraw or continue, introduce or withhold treatment. The time necessary for studying a patient’s situation Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical was compatible with the availability of participants (20 minutes on average). Each situation was examined during a meeting around a table, in 3 phases: Recall time, led by the study reference carer, of the clinical situation in which the question was raised as to whether or not to introduce, continue, withdraw or withhold a treatment. AV-951 The therapeutic decision (either implicit or explicit) was recalled. Then each participant received a “card game”, with each card representing a piece of information which could be an argument in decision-making. Each participant selected the information (maximum of ten cards) which he/she believed had been taken into account in the decision and ranked the cards according to the importance which he/she attached to it (with the most important on the top of the pile). The clinical research assistant collected each pile from the participants, and put it in such a way that the function of each participant could be identified (using the sundial positioning strategy in order to recognise the position of each participant around the table).