Background: Compassion is considered an essential element in quality patient care. One of the conceptual challenges in healthcare literature is that compassion is often confused with sympathy and empathy. Studies comparing and contrasting patients’ perspectives of sympathy, empathy, and compassion are largely absent. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate advanced cancer patients’ understandings, experiences, and preferences of “sympathy,” “empathy,” and “compassion” in order to develop conceptual clarity for future research and to inform clinical practice. Design: Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and then independently analyzed by the research team using the three stages and principles of Straussian grounded theory. Setting/participants: Data were collected from 53 advanced cancer inpatients in a large urban hospital. Results: Constructs of sympathy, empathy, and compassion contain distinct themes and sub-themes. Sympathy was described as an unwanted, pity-based response to a distressing situation, characterized by a lack of understanding and self-preservation of the observer. Empathy was experienced as an affective response that acknowledges and attempts to understand individual’s suffering through emotional resonance. Compassion enhanced the key facets of empathy while adding distinct features of being motivated by love, the altruistic role of the responder, action, and small, supererogatory acts of kindness. Patients reported that unlike sympathy, empathy and compassion were beneficial, with compassion being the most preferred and impactful. Conclusion: Although sympathy, empathy, and compassion are used interchangeably and frequently conflated in healthcare literature, patients distinguish and experience them uniquely. Understanding patients’ perspectives is important and can guide practice, policy reform, and future research.

Recent concerns about suboptimal patient care and a lack of compassion have prompted policymakers to question the preparedness of clinicians for the challenging environment in which they practice. Compassionate care is expected by patients and is a professional obligation of clinicians; however, little is known about the state of research on clinical compassion. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the literature on compassion in clinical healthcare. Searches of eight electronic databases and the grey literature were conducted to identify empirical studies published over the last 25 years. Eligible studies explored perceptions or interventions of compassionate care in clinical populations, healthcare professionals, and healthcare students. Following the title and abstract review, two reviewers independently screened full-texts articles, and extracted study data. A narrative approach to synthesizing and mapping the literature was used. Of 36,637 records, 648 studies were retrieved and 44 studies were included in the review. Less than one third of studies included patients. Six themes emerged from studies that explored perceptions of compassionate care: nature of compassion, development of compassion, interpersonal factors related to compassion, action and practical compassion, barriers and enablers of compassion, and outcomes of compassion. Intervention studies included two compassionate care trials with patients and eight educational programs that aimed to improve compassionate care in clinicians and students. This review identifies the limited empirical understanding of compassion in healthcare, highlighting the lack of patient and family voices in compassion research. A deeper understanding of the key behaviors and attitudes that lead to improved patient-reported outcomes through compassionate care is necessary.

Compassion is frequently referenced as a hallmark of quality care by patients, health care providers, health care administrators, and policy makers. Despite its putative centrality, including its institution in recent health care reform, an empirical understanding based on the perspectives of patients, the recipients of compassion, is lacking-making compassion one of the most referenced yet poorly understood elements of quality care. The objective of this study was to investigate palliative cancer patients' understanding and experiences of compassion to provide a critical perspective on the nature and importance of compassion. This grounded theory study used semi-structured interviews to investigate how patients understand and experience compassion in clinical care. Using convenience and theoretical sampling, 53 advanced cancer inpatients were recruited over a seven-month period from a specialized palliative care unit and hospital-wide palliative care service within a Canadian urban setting. Data were analyzed by four members of the research team through the three stages of Straussian grounded theory. Qualitative analysis yielded seven categories, each containing distinct themes and subthemes. Together, they constitute components of the compassion model-the first empirically based clinical model of compassion. The model defines compassion as a virtuous response that seeks to address the suffering and needs of a person through relational understanding and action. The components of the compassion model provide insight into how patients understand and experience compassion, providing the necessary empirical foundation to develop future research, measures, training, and clinical care based on this vital feature of quality care.

Background: A previous review on compassion in healthcare (1988-2014) identified several empirical studies and their limitations. Given the large influx and the disparate nature of the topic within the healthcare literature over the past 5 years, the objective of this study was to provide an update to our original scoping review to provide a current and comprehensive map of the literature to guide future research and to identify gaps and limitations that remain unaddressed. Methods: Eight electronic databases along with the grey literature were searched to identify empirical studies published between 2015 and 2020. Of focus were studies that aimed to explore compassion within the clinical setting, or interventions or educational programs for improving compassion, sampling clinicians and/or patient populations. Following title and abstract review, two reviewers independently screened full-text articles, and performed data extraction. Utilizing a narrative synthesis approach, data were mapped onto the categories, themes, and subthemes that were identified in the original review. Newly identified categories were discussed among the team until consensus was achieved. Results: Of the 14,166 number of records identified, 5263 remained after removal of duplicates, and 50 articles were included in the final review. Studies were predominantly conducted in the UK and were qualitative in design. In contrast to the original review, a larger number of studies sampled solely patients (n = 12), and the remainder focused on clinicians (n = 27) or a mix of clinicians and other (e.g. patients and/or family members) (n = 11). Forty-six studies explored perspectives on the nature of compassion or compassionate behaviours, traversing six themes: nature of compassion, development of compassion, interpersonal factors related to compassion, action and practical compassion, barriers and enablers of compassion, and outcomes of compassion. Four studies reported on the category of educational or clinical interventions, a notable decrease compared to the 10 studies identified in the original review. Conclusions: Since the original scoping review on compassion in healthcare, while a greater number of studies incorporated patient perspectives, clinical or educational interventions appeared to be limited. More efficacious and evidence-based interventions or training programs tailored towards improving compassion for patients in healthcare is required.

Purpose: To investigate the current state and quality of compassion education interventions offered to health care providers during training or practice, determine how the components of each education intervention map onto the domains of an empirically based clinical model of compassion, and identify the most common approaches to compassion education. Method: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, ERIC, and Education Research Complete databases were searched from inception to March 2020 in this systematic review. Studies that evaluated a compassion education intervention for health care providers or those in training to enhance compassion toward patients and/or families were included. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was performed. The components of each intervention were mapped onto the domains of compassion described in the Patient Compassion Model. Results: One hundred eight peer-reviewed publications describing 103 interventions were included. Modalities ranged from establishing curricula and interventions in clinical settings to programs that used humanities-based reflective practices, clinical simulation, role modeling, and contemplative practices, with many education interventions adopting a multimodal approach. Most interventions mapped to the virtuous response domain of the Patient Compassion Model; very few mapped to the other domains of this model. Conclusions: Most interventions were limited as they focused on a single domain of compassion; did not adequately define compassion; were assessed exclusively by self-report; were devoid of a comparator/control group; and did not evaluate retention, sustainability, and translation to clinical practice over time. The authors suggest that compassion education interventions be grounded in an empirically based definition of compassion; use a competency-based approach; employ multimodal teaching methods that address the requisite attitudes, skills, behaviors, and knowledge within the multiple domains of compassion; evaluate learning over time; and incorporate patient, preceptor, and peer evaluations.