Patient Perspectives on Serious Illness Conversations in Primary Care

Mid-Atlantic primary care providers' perception of barriers and facilitators to end-of-life conversation

Background

Among the chronically ill, end-of-life conversations are often delayed until emergently necessary and the quality of those conversations and subsequent decision-making become compromised by critical illness, uncertainty, and anxiety. Many patients receive treatment that they would have declined if they had a better understanding of benefits and risks. Primary care providers are ideal people to facilitate end-of-life conversations, but these conversations rarely occur in the out-patient setting.

Objective

To investigate the self-reported experiences of physicians and advanced practice nurses with conversational barriers and facilitators while leading end-of-life discussions in the primary care setting.

Design

A qualitative descriptive study.

Methods

Six physicians and eight advanced practice nurses participated in singular semi-structured interviews. Results were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive design and content analysis approach to coding.

Results

Reported barriers in descending order included resistance from patients and families, insufficient time, and insufficient understanding of prognosis and associated expectations. Reported facilitators in descending order included established trusting relationship with provider, physical and/or cognitive decline and poor prognosis; and discussion standardization per Medicare guidelines.

Conclusion

Recommendations for improving the end-of-life conversational process in the primary care setting include further research regarding end-of-life conversational facilitators within families, the improvement of patient/family education about hospice/palliative care resources and examining the feasibility of longer appointment allotment.1.

Perils and payoffs for patients in serious illness conversations as described by physicians: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The Serious Illness Care Programme was developed to promote more, better and earlier serious illness conversations. Conversations about goals and values are associated with improved experiences and outcomes for seriously ill patients. Clinicians' attitudes and beliefs are thought to influence the uptake and performance of serious illness conversations, yet little is known about how clinicians perceive the impact of these conversations on patients. This study aimed to explore physicians' perceptions regarding the impact of serious illness conversations for patients.

METHODS

The Serious Illness Care Programme was implemented as a quality improvement project in two hospitals in Southern Sweden. Focus group evaluation discussions were conducted with 14 physicians and inductive thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

The results revealed that physicians considered potential perils and optimised potential payoffs for patients when engaging in serious illness conversations. Potential perils encompassed inappropriate timing, damaging emotions and shattering hopes. Potential payoffs included reflection time, secure space, and united understandings.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians depicted a balance in evaluating the perils and payoffs of serious illness conversations for patients and recognised the interrelation of these possibilities through continual assessment and adjustment.

Core Competencies for Serious Illness Conversations: An Integrative Systematic Review

Objective: The Serious Illness Care Program was developed to support goals and values discussions between seriously ill patients and their clinicians. The core competencies, that is, the essential clinical conversation skills that are described as requisite for effective serious illness conversations (SICs) in practice, have not yet been explicated. This integrative systematic review aimed to identify core competencies for SICs in the context of the Serious Illness Care Program. Methods: Articles published between January 2014 and March 2023 were identified in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed databases. In total, 313 records underwent title and abstract screening, and 96 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The articles were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines, and data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results: In total, 53 articles were included. Clinicians' core competencies for SICs were described in 3 themes: conversation resources, intrapersonal capabilities, and interpersonal capabilities. Conversation resources included using the conversation guide as a tool, together with applying appropriate communication skills to support better communication. Intrapersonal capabilities included calibrating one's own attitudes and mindset as well as confidence and self-assurance to engage in SICs. Interpersonal capabilities focused on the clinician's ability to interact with patients and family members to foster a mutually trusting relationship, including empathetic communication with attention and adherence to patient and family members views, goals, needs, and preferences. Conclusions: Clinicians need to efficiently combine conversation resources with intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to successfully conduct and interact in SICs.

How family physicians introduce palliative care to patients with chronic illnesses

OBJECTIVE

Increasing numbers of Canadians living with complex, life-limiting conditions demand high-quality palliative care. Timely access to palliative care can help to reduce stress, improve quality of life, and provide relief for patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of family physicians (FPs) regarding the decision and process of introducing palliative care to patients with chronic diseases.

METHODS

Interpretive description methodology was used to guide the investigation of the research question. Thirteen Calgary Zone FPs participated in individual interviews. Data was collected iteratively and analyzed using constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis of interviews identified the overarching themes of dignity and empowerment, which describe the experience of FPs introducing palliative care to chronically ill patients. Four subthemes were woven throughout, including the art of conversation, therapeutic relationships, timing, and preparation of the patient and family.

DISCUSSION

While the benefits of palliative conversations are widely accepted, a deeper understanding of how FPs can be supported in developing this aspect of their practice is needed. Understanding their experience provides knowledge that can serve as a framework for future education, mentorship, and competency development.

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.

Characterizing end-of-life communication in families

Background

The chronic disease course can be uncertain, contributing to delayed end-of-life discussion within families resulting in missed opportunity to articulate wishes, increased decisional uncertainty, and delayed hospice care. Consistent with the Family Communication Patterns Theory (FCPT), family communication patterns may affect the quality and timing of end-of-life discussion, hospice utilization, and the experience of 'a good death.'

Objective

To assess how families' conversation and conformity orientation (spontaneity of conversation and hierarchical rigidity) form four family communication patterns (consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire) and may be associated with the number and timing of end-of-life discussions.

Design

A cross-sectional study.

Methods

Family members of loved ones who died from chronic illnesses while in hospice (n = 56) completed online surveys including a modified Revised Family Communication Pattern instrument (RFCP) and the Chronic Illness Rating Scale (CIRS). Additional survey questions assessed the number and timing of end-of-life discussions and timing of hospice enrollment. IBM SPSS version 26 was used for descriptive analysis.

Results

Most families (42.9%) were pluralistic, reporting communication styles with high conversation and low conformity orientation; (39.29%) were protective, reporting low conversation and high conformity orientation. Pluralistic families had more end-of-life conversations than did protective families.

Conclusion

Study findings suggest that there may be a relationship between family communication pattern type and inclination toward end-of-life discussion. This first step supports future research regarding whether the FCPT can be used to predict which families may be at increased risk for ineffective or delayed end-of-life discussion. Additional variables to consider include the timing of hospice enrollment and the quality of the dying experience. Clinicians may ultimately use findings to facilitate earlier identification of and intervention for families who are at risk for poor end-of-life communication and outcomes.