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

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.

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.

Adaptation of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide to Singapore's Multicultural Setting for Patients With Heart Failure, Renal Failure, or Cancer

Background

The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) was developed by Ariadne Labs in the United States. However, there is a scarcity of literature on the cross-cultural adaptations of the SICG in Asian settings.

Objectives

We aimed to adapt the SICG for English-speaking patients with serious illnesses in Singapore.

Methods

We purposively recruited 28 patients with advanced stages of heart failure, renal failure, or cancer from a tertiary hospital. A designated research team member conducted semistructured interviews to obtain participants' feedback on the SICG. The interviews were transcribed by the designated study team member. Participants' response to each item on the SICG was coded quantitatively into categories to denote participant acceptance, partial acceptance, or nonacceptance. Transcripts were further analyzed using content analysis to understand participants' rationale regarding feedback of the specific SICG item. Modifications to the SICG were iteratively made over time to obtain its current version.

Results

Participants indicated a preference for direct language with shorter sentences and inclusive pronouns. It was considered important that clinicians keep the conversation hopeful, individualize the conversation content according to the patient's journey, and use prompts where necessary to support the patient's elaboration.

Conclusion

This study outlined a patient-centric approach to localizing the SICG in the English language to a new cultural context, marking the first such effort in an Asian setting. Further study is under way to evaluate the SICG in more disease populations and non-English languages used in Singapore.

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.

Translation, Adaptation, and Validation of the Swedish Serious Illness Conversation Guide

Objective: To translate and adapt the Serious Illness Conversation Guide for use within the Swedish healthcare setting and examine the validity and acceptability of the Swedish Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Methods: Three rounds of cognitive interviews were conducted (T1-3); patients (T1 n = 11; T2 n = 10; T3 n = 8), family members (T1 n = 5; T2 n = 2; T3 n = 2), and healthcare professionals (T1 n = 6; T2 n = 6; T3 n = 5). The guide was iteratively adapted based on interview feedback, clinical experience, and the literature. The guide was tested on training days with physicians and nurses. Results: The Swedish Serious Illness Conversation Guide was found to be useful in supporting serious illness conversations. Clinicians reported that some questions were emotionally challenging. Explicit questions about prognosis and timing were excluded. Instead, the dual approach of "hoping for the best and preparing for the worst" was used to explore patients' thoughts about the future. Conclusions: Patients, family members, and healthcare professionals found the Swedish Serious Illness Conversation Guide to be appropriate, sensitive, and responsive to their needs. The Swedish Serious Illness Conversation Guide may facilitate a more health-promoting approach to serious illness conversations. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these conversations on person-centered and goal-concordant care.

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.

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.

Impact of Training in Serious Illness Communication and Work Life Balance on Physicians' Self-Efficacy, Clinical Practice and Perception of Roles

Purpose

Serious illness communication is a core task in hemato-oncology that require advanced communication skills and can be emotionally demanding. A 2-day course was implemented as a mandatory part of the 5-year hematology specialist training program in Denmark in 2021. The aim of this study was to assess the quantitative and qualitative effect of course participation on self-efficacy in serious illness communication and measure the prevalence of burnout among physicians in hematology specialist training.

Methods

For quantitative assessment course participants answered three questionnaires: Self-efficacy Advance care planning (ACP), Self-efficacy Existential communication (EC) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks after the course. The control group answered the questionnaires once. Qualitative assessment was performed as structured group interviews with course participants 4 weeks after the course, transcribed, coded, and transformed into themes.

Results

All self-efficacy EC scores and 12 out of 17 self-efficacy ACP scores improved after the course, though mostly non-significant. Course participants reported altered clinical practice and perception of role as a physician. The physicians' confidence that they could find the time to discuss ACP were low and remained low. The prevalence of burnout was high. Burnout levels were non-significantly lower after the course.

Conclusion

A mandatory course of formal training can increase physician self-efficacy in serious illness communication and alter clinical practice and perception of roles. The high level of burnout among physicians in hemato-oncology calls for institutional interventions in addition to training.