Optimizing of a question prompt list to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory in patients, families, and health care professionals

Development and initial evaluation of the usefulness of a question prompt list to promote patients' level of information about work-related medical rehabilitation: a pilot study

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to develop a question prompt list (QPL) to support patients undergoing work-related medical rehabilitation in obtaining relevant information and to explore how patients and physicians rate the QPL regarding its usefulness, practicability, and perceived (additional) effort.

Methods

An initial item pool was assessed by rehabilitation patients (N = 3) in cognitive interviews, rated by physicians and other health professionals (N = 11), and then further modified. The final QPL version (16 items) was used by patients (N = 36) in medical admission interviews in an inpatient medical rehabilitation facility and then evaluated. Physicians evaluated the QPL after each interview with a study participant (N = 6; k = 39 interviews).

Results

The QPL was used by 50% of patients who rated its usefulness and comprehensibility positively. Neither the need for information nor satisfaction with the information received was correlated with QPL use. The physicians' assessment showed a positive evaluation regarding the provision of information and structuring of the conversation, but also a higher perceived time expenditure.

Discussion

While initial testing of the QPL in work-related medical rehabilitation as a tool to support patient-provider communication generally showed a favorable evaluation by patients using it and physicians, future research should address its validity and effectiveness.

Palliative Care in Heart Failure: An Integrative Review of Nurse Practice

Introduction: Because it is a chronic disease of progressive evolution, heart failure requires nursing attitudes and practices that are articulated with palliative care, implemented in an interdisciplinary team along with patients and their families. Objective: Identifying nurses' attitudes and practices in palliative care in cardiology. Method: Integrative literature review. The searches were carried out in the following bases: Google Scholar, Virtual Health Library, LILACS, SciELO, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus; through the terms Palliative Care AND Cardiology AND Nursing. Results: We identified 1298 studies published in the last five years, 14 of which have been selected for the scope of this review. Nurse attitudes and practices were characterized as: approach to symptom control; promotion of comfort and well-being; integrality of care and family orientation; effective communication among patients, family members and nursing team; timely evaluation for palliative care. Most of the studies included in this review have evidence level 2C (n = 7) and 2B (n = 4). Therefore, the results can be interpreted as reliable. Conclusions: This study makes important contributions to the practice of nurses in palliative care for heart failure. Based on the evidence collected, nurses can develop actions with the nursing team and with the interdisciplinary team related to direct patient and family care, as well as professional training. However, the field lacks studies showing the practices and actions implemented by the nursing team.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Communication about Prognosis and End-of-Life in Heart Failure Care and Experiences Using a Heart Failure Question Prompt List

BACKGROUND

To further advance the use of a heart-failure-specific question prompt list (HF-QPL) for communication about prognosis and end-of-life care, knowledge about such communication and the perceptions and experiences of professionals is needed.

OBJECTIVES

1. to describe health care professionals' perceptions of communication about prognosis and end-of-life in heart failure (HF) care, and 2. to describe their experiences of using a HF-QPL.

DESIGN

A qualitative design that analyzed material from written assignments of nurses and physicians who were using a HF-QPL while participating in a communication course.

METHODS

Fifteen health care professionals from different regions in the south of Sweden were included. The data were collected from course assignments on 1. their reflection on the suitable timepoint for talking about prognosis for the first time, 2. their reflection on the HF-QPL, and 3. their experiences of using the HF-QPL in clinical practice. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five overarching themes were identified. The first theme was awareness of professional role responsibilities that described the recognition of different responsibilities in these conversations within the HF team. The second theme described the importance of being optimally prepared, and the third that confidence and skills are required to use the HF-QPL. The fourth theme described the HF-QPL as a bridge in the communication between professionals, patients, and family members. The fifth theme identified challenges using the HF-QPL in HF care.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a HF-QPL in HF care has the potential to start conversation and facilitate discussion about the HF trajectory.

What to consider when implementing a tool for timely recognition of palliative care needs in heart failure: a context-based qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Needs assessment tools can facilitate healthcare professionals in timely recognition of palliative care needs. Despite the increased attention for implementation of such tools, most studies provide little or no attention to the context of implementation. The aim of this study was to explore factors that contribute positively and negatively to timely screening of palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure.

METHODS

Qualitative study using individual interviews and focus groups with healthcare professionals. The data were analysed using a deductive approach. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to conceptualise the contextual factors.

RESULTS

Twenty nine healthcare professionals with different backgrounds and working in heart failure care in the Southern and Eastern parts of the Netherlands participated. Several factors were perceived to play a role, such as perception and knowledge about palliative care, awareness of palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure, perceived difficulty when and how to start palliative care, limited acceptance to treatment boundaries in cardiology, limited communication and collaboration between healthcare professionals, and need for education and increased attention for palliative care in advanced chronic heart failure guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This study clarified critical factors targeting patients, healthcare professionals, organisations to implement a needs assessment tool for timely recognition of palliative care needs in the context of advanced chronic heart failure. A multifaceted implementation strategy is needed which has attention for education, patient empowerment, interdisciplinary collaboration, identification of local champions, chronic heart failure specific guidelines and culture.

Examining Information Needs of Heart Failure Patients and Family Companions Using a Previsit Question Prompt List and Audiotaped Data: Findings From a Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Question prompt lists (QPLs) are an effective tool for improving communication during medical visits. However, no studies have attempted to correlate intentions related to question asking and actual questions asked during visits. Moreover, few studies have used QPLs with patients with heart failure (HF) or family companions who accompany them to visits. We examined the use of a previsit QPL for patients with HF and their family companions intended to enhance engagement in HF care. The aim of this research was to assess which questions from the QPL patients and companions selected most frequently to ask and compare this item with which questions were actually asked during the medical visit.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This secondary analysis of QOLs and audiotaped visit data from a pilot study enrolled and consented patients with HF, family companions, and HF clinicians. A single group of 30 patients with HF and 23 family companions received the QPL to complete in the waiting room immediately before their cardiology visit. To meet our aims, we calculated the frequencies for each question selected and asked from the QPL, using data derived from completed prompt lists and audiotaped medical visits. A follow-up survey was administered 2 days after the appointment to assess differences in how participants filled out and used the prompt list. Patients and companions primarily selected and asked questions from the QPL regarding the management and treatment of the disease, general questions about HF, and questions about prognosis. Participants rarely asked questions about support for family and friends or health care team roles and responsibilities. Patients and companions did not ask many of the questions they reported wanting to ask.

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt lists may empower patients and companions to communicate with their clinician by identifying important questions to help overcome patients' and companions' knowledge gaps. More research is needed to understand the true impact of prompt lists on patient-family-clinician communication and subsequent HF outcomes, and how best to implement them in clinical workflows to increase their potential usefulness.