A systematic scoping review of patient and caregiver self-report measures of satisfaction with clinicians' communication

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic scoping review of self-report tools used to measure patient and/or caregiver satisfaction with clinician communication. Aims included identifying: 1) instruments that have been used to measure communication satisfaction, and 2) content of the communication items on measures.

METHODS

Two databases (PubMed and CINAHL) were searched for relevant studies. Eligibility included patient or caregiver self-report tools assessing satisfaction with clinicians' communication in a biomedical healthcare setting; and the stated purpose for using the measurement involved evaluating communication satisfaction and measures included more than one question about this. All data were charted in a form created by the authors.

RESULTS

Our search yielded a total of 4531 results screened as title and abstracts; 228 studies were screened in full text and 85 studies were included in the review. We found 53 different tools used to measure communication satisfaction among those 85 studies, including 29 previously used measures (e.g., FS-ICU-24, CAHPS), and 24 original measures developed by authors. Content of communication satisfaction items included satisfaction with content-specific communication, interpersonal communication skills of clinicians, communicating to set the right environment, and global communication satisfaction items.

CONCLUSION

There was high variability in the number of items and types of content on measures. Communication satisfaction should be better conceptualized to improve measurement, and more robust measures should be created to capture complex factors of communication satisfaction.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Creating a rigorous evaluation of satisfaction with clinician communication may help strengthen communication research and the assessment of communication interventions.

Predicting neurological outcome in adult patients with cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance

This work aims to assess the performance of two post-arrest (out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, OHCA, and cardiac arrest hospital prognosis, CAHP) and one pre-arrest (good outcome following attempted resuscitation, GO-FAR) prediction model for the prognostication of neurological outcome after cardiac arrest in a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science Core Collection from November 2006 to December 2021, and by forward citation tracking of key score publications. The search identified 1'021 records, of which 25 studies with a total of 124'168 patients were included in the review. A random-effects meta-analysis of C-statistics and overall calibration (total observed vs. expected [O:E] ratio) was conducted. Discriminatory performance was good for the OHCA (summary C-statistic: 0.83 [95% CI 0.81-0.85], 16 cohorts) and CAHP score (summary C-statistic: 0.84 [95% CI 0.82-0.87], 14 cohorts) and acceptable for the GO-FAR score (summary C-statistic: 0.78 [95% CI 0.72-0.84], five cohorts). Overall calibration was good for the OHCA (total O:E ratio: 0.78 [95% CI 0.67-0.92], nine cohorts) and the CAHP score (total O:E ratio: 0.78 [95% CI 0.72-0.84], nine cohorts) with an overestimation of poor outcome. Overall calibration of the GO-FAR score was poor with an underestimation of good outcome (total O:E ratio: 1.62 [95% CI 1.28-2.04], five cohorts). Two post-arrest scores showed good prognostic accuracy for predicting neurological outcome after cardiac arrest and may support early discussions about goals-of-care and therapeutic planning on the intensive care unit. A pre-arrest score showed acceptable prognostic accuracy and may support code status discussions.

Code status documentation at admission in COVID-19 patients: a descriptive cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific life-sustaining treatments are in place), both in the medical field and in public media. However, it is unknown whether the increased awareness changed the prevalence and content of code status documentation for COVID-19 patients. We aim to describe differences in code status documentation between infectious patients before the pandemic and COVID-19 patients.

SETTING

University Medical Centre of Utrecht, a tertiary care teaching academic hospital in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1715 patients were included, 129 in the COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of COVID-19 patients, admitted from March 2020 to June 2020) and 1586 in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of patients with (suspected) infections admitted between September 2016 to September 2018).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We described frequency of code status documentation, frequency of discussion of this code status with patient and/or family, and content of code status.

RESULTS

Frequencies of code status documentation (69.8% vs 72.7%, respectively) and discussion (75.6% vs 73.3%, respectively) were similar in both cohorts. More patients in the COVID-19 cohort than in the before COVID-19 cohort had any treatment limitation as opposed to full code (40% vs 25%). Within the treatment limitations, 'no intensive care admission' (81% vs 51%) and 'no intubation' (69% vs 40%) were more frequently documented in the COVID-19 cohort. A smaller difference was seen in 'other limitation' (17% vs 9%), while 'no resuscitation' (96% vs 92%) was comparable between both periods.

CONCLUSION

We observed no difference in the frequency of code status documentation or discussion in COVID-19 patients opposed to a pre-COVID-19 cohort. However, treatment limitations were more prevalent in patients with COVID-19, especially 'no intubation' and 'no intensive care admission'.

Processes of code status transitions in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Although hospitalized patients with advanced cancer have a low chance of surviving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the processes by which they change their code status from full code to do not resuscitate (DNR) are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study on a prospective cohort of hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Two physicians used a consensus-driven medical record review to characterize processes that led to code status order transitions from full code to DNR.

RESULTS

In total, 1047 hospitalizations were reviewed among 728 patients. Admitting clinicians did not address code status in 53% of hospitalizations, resulting in code status orders of "presumed full." In total, 275 patients (26.3%) transitioned from full code to DNR, and 48.7% (134 of 275 patients) of those had an order of "presumed full" at admission; however, upon further clarification, the patients expressed that they had wished to be DNR before the hospitalization. We identified 3 additional processes leading to order transition from full code to DNR acute clinical deterioration (15.3%), discontinuation of cancer-directed therapy (17.1%), and education about the potential harms/futility of CPR (15.3%). Compared with discontinuing therapy and education, transitions because of acute clinical deterioration were associated with less patient involvement (P = .002), a shorter time to death (P < .001), and a greater likelihood of inpatient death (P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

One-half of code status order changes among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer were because of full code orders in patients who had a preference for DNR before hospitalization. Transitions due of acute clinical deterioration were associated with less patient engagement and a higher likelihood of inpatient death. Cancer 2017;123:4895-902. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Medical Student Training on Code Status Discussions: How Far Have We Come?

OBJECTIVES

It is unclear to what extent the recently increased focus on patient-provider education and patient-centered care has affected education on communication at the undergraduate medical education (UME) level. This study aimed to investigate graduating students' exposure to and comfort with techniques surrounding the code status discussion, an important and ubiquitous component of patient-provider communication.

METHODS

We surveyed fourth-year medical students who had recently matched to our internal medicine residency program on their medical school experiences with code status discussions, self-confidence with these conversations, and desire for further education.

RESULTS

We obtained surveys from 56 students from 32 medical schools (89% response rate). Students had varying experience observing and conducting code status discussions, infrequently received guidance or feedback on these discussions, and did not know guidelines for best practices surrounding the conversations. Despite reporting moderate self-confidence with these conversations, most felt they required at least partial supervision conducting these discussions; all requested further formal instruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased attention on the importance of physicians' communication with patients, including surrounding end-of-life care, students at many top medical schools continue to feel underprepared and underconfident to engage in code status discussions with their patients upon the start of residency.

Mayo Registry for Telemetry Efficacy in Arrest (MR TEA) study: An analysis of code status change following cardiopulmonary arrest

INTRODUCTION

Code status discussions are important during a hospitalization, yet variation in its practice exists. No data have assessed the likelihood of patients to change code status following a cardiopulmonary arrest.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients that experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest between May 1, 2008 and June 30, 2014 at an academic medical center was performed. The proportion of code status modifications to do not resuscitate (DNR) from full code was assessed. Baseline clinical characteristics, resuscitation factors, and 24-h post-resuscitation, hospital, and overall survival rates were compared between the two subsets.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients survived the index event and were included. One hundred and fifteen (73.2%) patients did not have a change in code status following the index event, while 42 (26.8%) changed code status to DNR. Clinical characteristics were similar between subsets, although patients in the change to DNR subset were older (average age 67.7 years) compared to the full code subset (average age 59.2 years; p = 0.005). Patients in the DNR subset had longer overall resuscitation efforts with less attempts at defibrillation. Compared to the DNR subset, patients that remained full code demonstrated higher 24-h post-resuscitation (n = 108, 93.9% versus n = 32, 76.2%; p = 0.001) and hospital (n = 50, 43.5% versus n = 6, 14.3%; p = 0.001) survival rates. Patients in the DNR subset were more likely to have neurologic deficits on discharge and shorter overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient code status wishes do tend to change during critical periods within a hospitalization, adding emphasis for continued code status evaluation.

A video to improve patient and surrogate understanding of cardiopulmonary resuscitation choices in the ICU: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a video depicting cardiopulmonary resuscitation and resuscitation preference options would improve knowledge and decision making among patients and surrogates in the ICU.

DESIGN

Randomized, unblinded trial.

SETTING

Single medical ICU.

PATIENTS

Patients and surrogate decision makers in the ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

The usual care group received a standard pamphlet about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation preference options plus routine code status discussions with clinicians. The video group received usual care plus an 8-minute video that depicted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, showed a simulated hospital code, and explained resuscitation preference options.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred three patients and surrogates were randomized to usual care. One hundred five patients and surrogates were randomized to video plus usual care. Median total knowledge scores (0-15 points possible for correct answers) in the video group were 13 compared with 10 in the usual care group, p value of less than 0.0001. Video group participants had higher rates of understanding the purpose of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and resuscitation options and terminology and could correctly name components of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. No statistically significant differences in documented resuscitation preferences following the interventions were found between the two groups, although the trial was underpowered to detect such differences. A majority of participants felt that the video was helpful in cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision making (98%) and would recommend the video to others (99%).

CONCLUSIONS

A video depicting cardiopulmonary resuscitation and explaining resuscitation preference options was associated with improved knowledge of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation options and cardiopulmonary resuscitation terminology among patients and surrogate decision makers in the ICU, compared with receiving a pamphlet on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patients and surrogates found the video helpful in decision making and would recommend the video to others.

Use of a standardized code status explanation by residents among hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVES

There is wide variability in the discussion of code status by residents among hospitalized patients. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of a scripted code status explanation on patient understanding of choices pertaining to code status and end-of-life care.

METHODS

This was a single center, randomized trial in a teaching hospital. Patients were randomized to a control (questionnaire alone) or intervention arm (standardized explanation+ questionnaire). A composite score was generated based on patient responses to assess comprehension.

RESULTS

The composite score was 5.27 in the intervention compared to 4.93 in the control arm (p=0.066). The score was lower in older patients (p<0.001), patients with multiple comorbidities (p≤0.001), KATZ score <6 (p=0.008), and those living in an assisted living/nursing home (p=0.005). There were significant differences in patient understanding of the ability to receive chest compressions, intravenous fluids, and tube feeds by code status.

CONCLUSION

The scripted code status explanation did not significantly impact the composite score. Age, comorbidities, performance status, and type of residence demonstrated a significant association with patient understanding of code status choices.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Standardized discussion of code status and training in communication of end-of-life care merit further research.