The Team-Based Serious Illness Care Program, A Qualitative Evaluation of Implementation and Teaming

Geriatric End-of-Life Screening Tool Prediction of 6-Month Mortality in Older Patients

Importance

Emergency department (ED) visits by older adults with life-limiting illnesses are a critical opportunity to establish patient care end-of-life preferences, but little is known about the optimal screening criteria for resource-constrained EDs.

Objectives

To externally validate the Geriatric End-of-Life Screening Tool (GEST) in an independent population and compare it with commonly used serious illness diagnostic criteria.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prognostic study assessed a cohort of patients aged 65 years and older who were treated in a tertiary care ED in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2017 to 2021. Patients arriving in cardiac arrest or who died within 1 day of ED arrival were excluded. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2023, to March 27, 2024.

Exposure

GEST, a logistic regression algorithm that uses commonly available electronic health record (EHR) datapoints and was developed and validated across 9 EDs, was compared with serious illness diagnoses as documented in the EHR. Serious illnesses included stroke/transient ischemic attack, liver disease, cancer, lung disease, and age greater than 80 years, among others.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 6-month mortality following an ED encounter. Statistical analyses included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration analyses, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and decision curves.

Results

This external validation included 82 371 ED encounters by 40 505 unique individuals (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [8.4] years; 54.3% women, 13.8% 6-month mortality rate). GEST had an external validation area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.78-0.79) that was stable across years and demographic subgroups. Of included encounters, 53.4% had a serious illness, with a sensitivity of 77.4% (95% CI, 76.6%-78.2%) and specificity of 50.5% (95% CI, 50.1%-50.8%). Varying GEST cutoffs from 5% to 30% increased specificity (5%: 49.1% [95% CI, 48.7%-49.5%]; 30%: 92.2% [95% CI, 92.0%-92.4%]) at the cost of sensitivity (5%: 89.3% [95% CI, 88.8-89.9]; 30%: 36.2% [95% CI, 35.3-37.1]). In a decision curve analysis, GEST outperformed serious illness criteria across all tested thresholds. When comparing patients referred to intervention by GEST with serious illness criteria, GEST reclassified 45.1% of patients with serious illness as having low risk of mortality with an observed mortality rate 8.1% and 2.6% of patients without serious illness as having high mortality risk with an observed mortality rate of 34.3% for a total reclassification rate of 25.3%.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that both serious illness criteria and GEST identified older ED patients at risk for 6-month mortality, but GEST offered more useful screening characteristics. Future trials of serious illness interventions for high mortality risk in older adults may consider transitioning from diagnosis code criteria to GEST, an automatable EHR-based algorithm.

Core elements of serious illness conversations: an integrative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), inclusive of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), has been adapted for use in a variety of settings and among diverse population groups. Explicating the core elements of serious illness conversations could support the inclusion or exclusion of certain components in future iterations of the programme and the guide.

AIM

This integrative systematic review aimed to identify and describe core elements of serious illness conversations in relation to the SICP and/or SICG.

DESIGN

Literature published between 1 January 2014 and 20 March 2023 was searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed. All articles were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines. Data were analysed with thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 64 articles met the inclusion criteria. Three themes were revealed: (1) serious illness conversations serve different functions that are reflected in how they are conveyed; (2) serious illness conversations endeavour to discover what matters to patients and (3) serious illness conversations seek to align what patients want in their life and care.

CONCLUSIONS

Core elements of serious illness conversations included explicating the intention, framing, expectations and directions for the conversation. This encompassed discussing current and possible trajectories with a view towards uncovering matters of importance to the patient as a person. Preferences and priorities could be used to inform future preparation and recommendations. Serious illness conversation elements could be adapted and altered depending on the intended purpose of the conversation.

Lessons Learned from a Multi-Site, Team-Based Serious Illness Care Program Implementation at an Academic Medical Center

Background: Patients with serious illness benefit from conversations to share prognosis and explore goals and values. To address this, we implemented Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) at Stanford Health Care. Objective: Improve quantity, timing, and quality of serious illness conversations. Methods: Initial implementation followed Ariadne Labs' SICP framework. We later incorporated a team-based approach that included nonphysician care team members. Outcomes included number of patients with documented conversations according to clinician role and practice location. Machine learning algorithms were used in some settings to identify eligible patients. Results: Ambulatory oncology and hospital medicine were our largest implementation sites, engaging 4707 and 642 unique patients in conversations, respectively. Clinicians across eight disciplines engaged in these conversations. Identified barriers that included leadership engagement, complex workflows, and patient identification. Conclusion: Several factors contributed to successful SICP implementation across clinical sites: innovative clinical workflows, machine learning based predictive algorithms, and nonphysician care team member engagement.

Physicians' perceptions of the implementation of the serious illness care program: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Conversations about goals, values and priorities with patients that are seriously ill are associated with improved palliative healthcare. The Serious Illness Care Program is a multi-component program that can facilitate more, better, and earlier conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients. For successful and sustainable implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program, it is important to consider how stakeholders perceive it. The aim of our study was to explore physicians' perceptions and experiences of implementing the Serious Illness Care Program.

METHODS

Data were collected through four focus group discussions with physicians (n = 14) working at a hospital where the Serious Illness Care program was in the process of being implemented. Data were analyzed with inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Physicians' perceptions of the implementation encompassed three thematic areas: hovering between preparedness and unpreparedness, being impacted and being impactful, and picking pieces or embracing it at all.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key aspects related to the individual physician, the care team, the impact on the patient, and the organizational support that were perceived to influence the implementation and sustainable integration of the Serious Illness Care Program. Describing these aspects provides insight into how the Serious Illness Care Program is implemented in practice and indicates areas for future training and development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Improving serious illness communication: a qualitative study of clinical culture

OBJECTIVE

Communication about patients' values, goals, and prognosis in serious illness (serious illness communication) is a cornerstone of person-centered care yet difficult to implement in practice. As part of Serious Illness Care Program implementation in five health systems, we studied the clinical culture-related factors that supported or impeded improvement in serious illness conversations.

METHODS

Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews of clinical leaders, implementation teams, and frontline champions.

RESULTS

We completed 30 interviews across palliative care, oncology, primary care, and hospital medicine. Participants identified four culture-related domains that influenced serious illness communication improvement: (1) clinical paradigms; (2) interprofessional empowerment; (3) perceived conversation impact; (4) practice norms. Changes in clinicians' beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in these domains supported values and goals conversations, including: shifting paradigms about serious illness communication from 'end-of-life planning' to 'knowing and honoring what matters most to patients;' improvements in psychological safety that empowered advanced practice clinicians, nurses and social workers to take expanded roles; experiencing benefits of earlier values and goals conversations; shifting from avoidant norms to integration norms in which earlier serious illness discussions became part of routine processes. Culture-related inhibitors included: beliefs that conversations are about dying or withdrawing care; attitudes that serious illness communication is the physician's job; discomfort managing emotions; lack of reliable processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspects of clinical culture, such as paradigms about serious illness communication and inter-professional empowerment, are linked to successful adoption of serious illness communication. Further research is warranted to identify effective strategies to enhance clinical culture and drive clinician practice change.