Patient Identification for Serious Illness Conversations: A Scoping Review

Adapting the serious illness conversation guide for unhoused older adults: a rapid qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Older adults experiencing homelessness (OAEH) age quickly and die earlier than their housed counterparts. Illness-related decisions are best guided by patients' values, but healthcare and homelessness service providers need support in facilitating these discussions. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) is a communication tool to guide discussions but has not yet been adapted for OAEH.

METHODS

We aimed to adapt the SICG for use with OAEH by nurses, social workers, and other homelessness service providers. We conducted semi-structured interviews with homelessness service providers and cognitive interviews with OAEH using the SICG. Service providers included nurses, social workers, or others working in homeless settings. OAEH were at least 50 years old and diagnosed with a serious illness. Interviews were conducted and audio recorded in shelters, transitional housing, a hospital, public spaces, and over Zoom. The research team reviewed transcripts, identifying common themes across transcripts and applying analytic notetaking. We summarized transcripts from each participant group, applying rapid qualitative analysis. For OAEH, data that referenced proposed adaptations or feedback about the SICG tool were grouped into two domains: "SICG interpretation" and "SICG feedback". For providers, we used domains from the Toolkit of Adaptation Approaches: "collaborative working", "team", "endorsement", "materials", "messages", and "delivery". Summaries were grouped into matrices to help visualize themes to inform adaptations. The adapted guide was then reviewed by expert palliative care clinicians for further refinement.

RESULTS

The final sample included 11 OAEH (45% Black, 61 ± 7 years old) and 10 providers (80% White, 8.9 ± years practice). Adaptation themes included changing words and phrases to (1) increase transparency about the purpose of the conversation, (2) promote OAEH autonomy and empowerment, (3) align with nurses' and social workers' scope of practice regarding facilitating diagnostic and prognostic awareness, and (4) be sensitive to the realities of fragmented healthcare. Responses also revealed training and implementation considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

The adapted SICG is a promising clinical tool to aid in the delivery of serious illness conversations with OAEH. Future research should use this updated guide for implementation planning. Additional adaptations may be dependent on specific settings where the SICG will be delivered.

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.

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.

Enhancing Oncologists' Comfort with Serious Illness Conversations: The Impact of Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) Training

Providers oftentimes need to have difficult conversations with patients facing a poor prognosis. Research indicates that providers generally feel ill prepared for these conversations and that bad conversations may lead to more anxiety for patients. Communication skills development training programs have shown improvement in providers' skills. Our cancer center embarked on skills development training to help providers improve their skills and comfort in having serious illness conversations. During our phased approach, about 500 physicians and advanced practice providers in the Division of Oncology were trained for over a year. Their level of comfort with serious illness conversations was measured before and after the training by using both quantitative and qualitative methods. We found that mean and median comfort scores increased from pre-training to post-training. The findings suggest that the improved comfort and confidence observed among providers who undergo communications skills training can lead to better provider-patient communication, more patient-centered care, and improved patient satisfaction.

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.

Cost of Hospitalization Associated with Inpatient Goals-of-Care Program Implementation at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: A Propensity Score Analysis

The impact of goals-of-care programs on acute hospitalization costs is unclear. We compared the hospitalization cost in an 8-month period before implementation of a multimodal interdisciplinary goals-of-care program (1 May 2019 to 31 December 2019) to an 8-month period after program implementation (1 May 2020 to 31 December 2020). Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for differences in potential covariates. The primary outcome was total direct cost during the hospital stay for each index hospitalization. This analysis included 6977 patients in 2019 and 5964 patients in 2020. The total direct cost decreased by 3% in 2020 but was not statistically significant (ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.92, 1.03). Under individual categories, there was a significant decrease in medical oncology (ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.50, 0.68) and pharmacy costs (ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.79, 0.96), and an increase in room and board (ratio 1.06, 95% CI 1.01, 1.10). In subgroup analysis, ICU patients had a significant reduction in total direct cost after program implementation (ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.72, 0.94). After accounting for the length of ICU admission, we found that the total direct cost per hospital day was no longer different between 2019 and 2020 (ratio 0.986, 95% CI 0.92, 1.05), suggesting that shorter ICU admissions likely explained much of the observed cost savings. This study provides real-world data on how "in-the-moment" GOC conversations may contribute to reduced hospitalization costs among ICU patients.

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.

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.

Discrepancy in responses to the surprise question between hemodialysis nurses and physicians, with focus on patient clinical characteristics: A comparative study

INTRODUCTION

The surprise question (SQ) "Would I be surprised if this patient died within the next xx months" can be used by different professions to foresee the need of serious illness conversations in patients approaching end of life. However, little is known about the different perspectives of nurses and physicians in responses to the SQ and factors influencing their appraisals. The aim was to explore nurses' and physicians' responses to the SQ regarding patients on hemodialysis, and to investigate how these answers were associated with patient clinical characteristics.

METHODS

This comparative cross-sectional study included 361 patients for whom 112 nurses and 15 physicians responded to the SQ regarding 6 and 12 months. Patient characteristics, performance status, and comorbidities were obtained. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the interrater agreement between nurses and physicians in their responses to the SQ and multivariable logistic regression was applied to reveal the independent association to patient clinical characteristics.

FINDINGS

Proportions of nurses and physicians responding to the SQ with "no, not surprised" was similar regarding 6 and 12 months. However, there was a substantial difference concerning which specific patient the nurses and physicians responded "no, not surprised", within 6 (κ = 0.366, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.288-0.474) and 12 months (κ = 0.379, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.281-0.477). There were also differences in the patient clinical characteristics associated with nurses' and physicians' responses to the SQ.

DISCUSSION

Nurses and physicians have different perspectives in their appraisal when responding to the SQ for patients on hemodialysis. This may reinforce the need for communication and discussion between nurses and physicians to identify the need of serious illness conversations in patients approaching the end of life, in order to adapt hemodialysis care to patient preferences and needs.