Implementing Serious Illness Communication Processes in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study

Clinicians' experiences implementing an advance care planning pathway in two Canadian provinces: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process which enables patients to communicate wishes, values, fears, and preferences for future medical care. Despite patient interest in ACP, the frequency of discussions remains low. Barriers to ACP may be mitigated by involving non-physician clinic staff, preparing patients ahead of visits, and using tools to structure visits. An ACP care pathway incorporating these principles was implemented in longitudinal generalist outpatient care, including primary care/family medicine and general internal medicine, in two Canadian provinces. This study aims to understand clinician experiences implementing the pathway.

METHODS

The pathway was implemented in one family practice in Alberta, two family practices in British Columbia (BC), and one BC internal medicine outpatient clinic. Physicians and allied health professionals delivered structured pathway visits based on the Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Twelve physicians and one social worker participated in interviews or focus groups at the end of the study period. Qualitative data were coded inductively using an iterative approach, with regular meetings between coders.

RESULTS

Clinicians described experiences with the ACP care pathway, impact at the clinician level, and impact at the patient level. Within each domain, clinicians described barriers and facilitators experienced during implementation. Clinicians also reflected candidly about potential for future implementation and the sustainability of the pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

While the pathway was implemented slightly differently between provinces, core experiences were that implementation of the pathway, and integration with current practice, were feasible. Across settings, similar themes recurred regarding usefulness of the pathway structure and its tools, impact on clinician confidence and interactions with patients, teamwork and task delegation, compatibility with existing workflow, and patient preparation and readiness. Clinicians were supportive of ACP and of the pathway.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03508557). Registered April 25, 2018. https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT03508557 .

Looking Beyond Mortality Prediction: Primary Care Physician Views of Patients' Palliative Care Needs Predicted by a Machine Learning Tool

OBJECTIVES

 To assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) perception of the need for serious illness conversations (SIC) or other palliative care interventions in patients flagged by a machine learning tool for high 1-year mortality risk.

METHODS

 We surveyed PCPs from four Brigham and Women's Hospital primary care practice sites. Multiple mortality prediction algorithms were ensembled to assess adult patients of these PCPs who were either enrolled in the hospital's integrated care management program or had one of several chronic conditions. The patients were classified as high or low risk of 1-year mortality. A blinded survey had PCPs evaluate these patients for palliative care needs. We measured PCP and machine learning tool agreement regarding patients' need for an SIC/elevated risk of mortality.

RESULTS

 Of 66 PCPs, 20 (30.3%) participated in the survey. Out of 312 patients evaluated, 60.6% were female, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 69.3 (17.5) years, and a mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.80 (2.89). The machine learning tool identified 162 (51.9%) patients as high risk. Excluding deceased or unfamiliar patients, PCPs felt that an SIC was appropriate for 179 patients; the machine learning tool flagged 123 of these patients as high risk (68.7% concordance). For 105 patients whom PCPs deemed SIC unnecessary, the tool classified 83 as low risk (79.1% concordance). There was substantial agreement between PCPs and the tool (Gwet's agreement coefficient of 0.640).

CONCLUSIONS

 A machine learning mortality prediction tool offers promise as a clinical decision aid, helping clinicians pinpoint patients needing palliative care interventions.

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.

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.

The Impact of Advance Care Planning on Healthcare Professionals' Well-being: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Advance care planning (ACP) improves care for patients with chronic illnesses and reduces family stress. However, the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature evaluating the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being.

METHODS

We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic reviews and registered the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022346354). We included primary studies in all languages that assessed the well-being of healthcare professionals in ACP interventions. We excluded any studies on ACP in psychiatric care and in palliative care that did not address goals of care. Searches were conducted on April 4, 2022, and March 6, 2023 in Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality analysis. We present results as a narrative synthesis because of their heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We included 21 articles published in English between 1997 and 2021 with 17 published after 2019. All were conducted in high-income countries, and they involved a total of 1278 participants. Three reported an interprofessional intervention and two included patient partners. Studies had significant methodological flaws but most reported that ACP had a possible positive impact on healthcare professionals' well-being.

CONCLUSION

This review is the first to explore the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being. ACP interventions appear to have a positive impact, but high-quality studies are scarce. Further research is needed, particularly using more rigorous and systematic methods to implement interventions and report results.

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.

Barriers and facilitators that hospital clinicians perceive to discuss the personal values, wishes, and needs of patients in palliative care: a mixed-methods systematic review

Background

The exploration and monitoring of the personal values, wishes, and needs (VWN) of patients in the palliative phase by hospital clinicians is essential for guiding appropriate palliative care.

Objective

To explore the barriers and facilitators concerning communication with patients in the palliative phase about their VWN as perceived by hospital clinicians.

Design

A mixed-methods systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for mixed-method systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021216693).

Data sources and methods

Eight databases, including PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL, were searched without time restrictions. The search string was built using the search Palliative cAre Literature rEview iTeraTive mEthod (PALETTE) framework. Eligible studies focused on (1) hospital clinicians and (2) perceived barriers and facilitators regarding the exploration and monitoring of the VWN of adult patients in the palliative phase. Two researchers independently selected articles and evaluated the quality. Findings were synthesized using a convergent integrated approach.

Results

In total, 29 studies were included: 14 quantitative, 13 qualitative, and 2 mixed methods. Five synthesized findings were identified: (1) the clinician's professional manners, (2) the image formed of the patient and loved ones, (3) the human aspect of being a clinician, (4) the multidisciplinary collaboration, and (5) the contextual preconditions. Most studies seemed focused on communication about treatment decision making.

Conclusion

A patient-centered approach seems lacking when clinicians discuss the patient's VWN, since most studies focused on treatment decision making rather than on the exploration and monitoring of the multidimensional well-being of patients. This review emphasizes the need for the development and integration of a systematic approach to explore and monitor the patients' VWN to improve appropriate palliative care in hospitals.

Experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward the serious illness conversation guide: protocol for a qualitative meta-synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Exploring the experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward serious illness conversations based on the Serious Illness Care Program is vital for improving communication with patients who are seriously ill, as has been shown in previous studies. However, few studies have carried out a systematic review to examine common themes, strengthen conclusions and identify gaps in the literature, the findings of which could help steer further research, policies and practice to improve more timely and person-centred conversations about the values and priorities of patients with serious illnesses. The objective of this qualitative meta-synthesis is to explore how healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers described their own experiences of the processes of serious illness communication through a secondary analysis of published qualitative data.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Meta-aggregation will be used to conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies. We conducted an initial search on 10 October 2023; papers published in English will be searched using electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, Ovid and CINAHL. Studies that satisfy the eligibility criteria will be evaluated for methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. The meta-aggregative review will consist of the following: (1) extraction of findings of all included studies; (2) categorisation of the findings, with at least two findings per category; and (3) synthesis of one or more findings from at least two categories. Study eligibility screening, data extraction, analysis and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research assessments will be undertaken independently by two authors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Secondary data analysis of published literature does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented in conference papers and elsewhere.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022330859.

Lessons Learned About System-Level Improvement in Serious Illness Communication: A Qualitative Study of Serious Illness Care Program Implementation in Five Health Systems

BACKGROUND

Serious illness communication is a key element of high-quality care, but it is difficult to implement in practice. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted intervention that contributes to more, earlier, and better serious illness conversations and improved patient outcomes. This qualitative study examined the organizational and implementation factors that influenced improvement in real-world contexts.

METHODS

The authors performed semistructured interviews of 30 health professionals at five health systems that adopted SICP as quality improvement initiatives to investigate the organizational and implementation factors that appeared to influence improvement.

RESULTS

After SICP implementation across the organizations studied, approximately 4,661 clinicians have been trained in serious illness communication and 56,712 patients had had an electronic health record (EHR)-documented serious illness conversation. Facilitators included (1) visible support from leaders, who financially invested in an implementation team and champions, expressed the importance of serious illness communication as an institutional priority, and created incentives for training and documenting serious illness conversations; (2) EHR and data infrastructure to foster performance improvement and accountability, including an accessible documentation template, a reporting system, and customized data feedback for clinicians; and (3) communication skills training and sustained support for clinicians to problem-solve communication challenges, reflect on communication experiences, and adapt the intervention. Inhibitors included leadership inaction, competing priorities and incentives, variable clinician acceptance of EHR and data tools, and inadequate support for clinicians after training.

CONCLUSION

Successful implementation appeared to rely on multilevel organizational strategies to prioritize, reward, and reinforce serious illness communication. The insights derived from this research may function as an organizational road map to guide implementation of SICP or related quality initiatives.

Development and Evaluation of Serious Illness Conversation Training for Interprofessional Primary Care Teams

Background: Early advance care planning (ACP) conversations are essential to deliver patient-centered care. While primary care is an ideal setting to initiate ACP, such as Serious Illness Conversations (SICs), many barriers exist to implement such conversations in routine practice. An interprofessional team approach holds promises to address barriers. Objective: To develop and evaluate SIC training for interprofessional primary care teams (IP-SIC). Design: An existing SIC training was adapted for IP-SIC and then implemented and evaluated for acceptability and effectiveness. Setting/Context: Interprofessional teams in 15 primary care clinics in five US states. Measures: Acceptability of the IP-SIC training and participants' self-reported likelihood to engage in ACP after the training. Results: The 156 participants were a mix of physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) (44%), nurses and social workers (31%), and others (25%). More than 90% of all participants rated the IP-SIC training positively. While nurse/social worker and other groups were less likely than physician and APP group to engage in ACP before training (4.4, 3.7, and 6.4 on a 1-10 scale, respectively), all groups showed significant increase in likelihood to engage in ACP after the IP-SIC training (8.5, 7.7, and 9.2, respectively). Both physician/APP and nurse/social worker groups showed significant increase in likelihood to use the SIC Guide after the IP-SIC training, whereas an increase in likelihood to use SIC Guide among other groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The new IP-SIC training was well accepted by interprofessional team members and effective to improve their likelihood to engage in ACP. Further research exploring how to facilitate collaboration among interprofessional team members to maximize opportunities for more and better ACP is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03577002.

Resident-led research: a quality improvement project to improve serious illness conversations

Skilled conversations regarding end-of-life (EOL) care reduce emotional suffering and increase goal-concordant care. The Ariadne Labs Serious Illness Conversation (SIC) framework is an effective tool for improving EOL communication, but research is lacking on use with resident physicians. This study led by internal medicine residents tested the feasibility and acceptability of training peers in SIC. In 2021, three resident project leaders recruited first and second year internal medicine residents at a single tertiary academic center to receive extracurricular training on the Ariadne Labs SIC Guide. Baseline and post-training surveys were conducted to determine attitudes, barriers, and confidence related to EOL discussions. Initial recruitment efforts were unsuccessful but participation increased from zero to seven after residency administrators approved protected time for SIC training. Six residents (85.7%) completed baseline and post-training surveys. Residents identified lack of time as the key barrier to initiating SIC. Self-reported comfort discussing EOL care and documenting the conversations improved after training. Both resident researchers and participants reported SIC training was valuable and successful. Institutional support with dedicated buy-in, strong faculty mentorship, and committed resident leaders all contribute to successfully implementing a resident-led project.

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.

Health care professionals' perceptions of factors influencing the process of identifying patients for serious illness conversations: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The Serious Illness Care Programme enables patients to receive care that is in accordance with their priorities. However, despite clarity about palliative care needs, many barriers to and difficulties in identifying patients for serious illness conversations remain.

AIM

To explore healthcare professionals' perceptions about factors influencing the process of identifying patients for serious illness conversations.

DESIGN

Qualitative design. A thematic analysis of observations and semi-structured interviews was used.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Twelve observations at team meetings in which physicians and nurses discussed the process of identifying the patients for serious illness conversations were conducted at eight different clinics in two hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three physicians and two nurses from five clinics.

RESULTS

Identifying the right patient and doing so at the right time were key to identifying patients for serious illness conversations. The continuity of relations and continuity over time could facilitate the identification process, while attitudes towards death and its relation to hope could hinder the process.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of identifying patients for serious illness conversations is complex and may not be captured only by generic tools such as the surprise question. It is crucial to address existential and ethical obstacles that can hinder the identification of patients for serious illness conversations.

Organizational readiness to implement the Serious Illness Care Program in hospital settings in Sweden

Background

The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a model developed for structured communication, identifying patients, and training physicians to use a structured guide for conversations with patients and family members. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the sustainable implementation of this conversation model. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers during the implementation of the SICP in hospital settings.

Methods

The SICP was implemented at 20 units in two hospitals in Sweden. During the implementation process, seven individual interviews and two group interviews were conducted with seven facilitators (five physicians, one behavioral therapist, and one administrator). Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, first inductively, and then deductively using the organizational readiness for change as a theoretical framework.

Result

The analysis resulted in three factors acting as enablers and eight factors acting as enablers and/or barriers during the implementation of the SICP. The three factors considered as enablers were preliminaries, identifying patients, and facilitator’s role. The eight factors considered as enablers and/or barriers were broad implementation, leadership, time, confidence, building foundation, motivation to work change, motivation for training in serious illness conversations, and attitudes.

Conclusion

This study indicates limited readiness to implement the SICP in hospital settings due to considerable variation in organizational contextual factors, change efficacy, and change commitment. The identified enablers and barriers for implementation of the SICP could guide and support future implementations to be sustainable over time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07923-5.

Patient Identification for Serious Illness Conversations: A Scoping Review

Serious illness conversations aim to align medical care and treatment with patients’ values, goals, priorities, and preferences. Timely and accurate identification of patients for serious illness conversations is essential; however, existent methods for patient identification in different settings and population groups have not been compared and contrasted. This study aimed to examine the current literature regarding patient identification for serious illness conversations within the context of the Serious Illness Care Program and/or the Serious Illness Conversation Guide. A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A comprehensive search was undertaken in four databases for literature published between January 2014 and September 2021. In total, 39 articles met the criteria for inclusion. This review found that patients were primarily identified for serious illness conversations using clinical/diagnostic triggers, the ’surprise question’, or a combination of methods. A diverse assortment of clinicians and non-clinical resources were described in the identification process, including physicians, nurses, allied health staff, administrative staff, and automated algorithms. Facilitators and barriers to patient identification are elucidated. Future research should test the efficacy of adapted identification methods and explore how clinicians inform judgements surrounding patient identification.

The Serious Illness Care Program in Oncology: Evidence, Real-World Implementation and Ongoing Barriers

The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), designed by Ariadne Labs, is a multicomponent intervention to improve conversations about values and goals for patients with a life-limiting illness. In oncology, implementation of the SICP achieved more, earlier, and better-quality conversations and reduced anxiety and depression among patients with advanced cancer. In this commentary, we describe the SICP, including results from the cluster-randomized trial, provide examples of real-world implementation of this program, and highlight ongoing challenges and barriers that are preventing widespread adoption of this intervention into routine practice. For the SICP to be successfully embedded into routine patient care, it will require significant effort, including ongoing leadership support and training opportunities, champions from all sectors of the interdisciplinary team, and adaptation of the program to a wider range of patients. Future research should also investigate how early conversations can be translated into personalized care plans for patients.

Clinicians' Perspectives After Implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program: A Qualitative Study

IMPORTANCE

Discussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations.

OBJECTIVE

To explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020.

EXPOSURES

The SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP.

RESULTS

Among 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.

The Surprise Question and Serious Illness Conversations: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Serious Illness Conversations aim to discuss patient goals. However, on acute medicine units, seriously ill patients may undergo distressing interventions until death.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility of using the Surprise Question, "Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?" to identify patients who would benefit from early Serious Illness Conversations and study any changes in the interdisciplinary team's beliefs, confidence, and engagement as a result of asking the Surprise Question.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort pilot study with two Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles.

PARTICIPANTS/CONTEXT

Fifty-eight healthcare professionals working on Acute Medicine Units participated in pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. The intervention involved asking participants the Surprise Question for each patient. Patient charts were reviewed for Serious Illness Conversation documentation.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical approval was granted by the institutions involved.

FINDINGS

Equivocal overall changes in the beliefs, confidence, and engagement of healthcare professionals were observed. Six out of 23 patients were indicated as needing a Serious Illness Conversation; chart review provided some evidence that these patients had more Serious Illness Conversation documentation compared with the 17 patients not flagged for a Serious Illness Conversation. Issues were identified in equating the Surprise Question to a Serious Illness Conversation.

DISCUSSION

Appropriate support for seriously ill patients is both a nursing professional and ethical duty. Flagging patients for conversations may act as a filtering process, allowing healthcare professionals to focus on conversations with patients who need them most. There are ethical and practical issues as to what constitutes a "serious illness" and if answering "no" to the Surprise Question always equates to a conversation.

CONCLUSION

The barriers of time constraints and lack of training call for institutional change in order to prioritise the moral obligation of Serious Illness Conversations.