Search

IntroductionFewer than half of all people in the USA have a documented advance care plan (ACP). Hospitalisation offers an opportunity for physicians to initiate ACP conversations. Despite expert recommendations, hospital-based physicians (hospitalists) do not routinely engage in these conversations, reserving them for the critically ill.The objective of this study is to test the effect of a novel behavioural intervention on the incidence of ACP conversations by hospitalists practicing at a stratified random sample of hospitals drawn from 220 US acute care hospitals staffed by a large, nationwide acute care physician practice with an ongoing ACP quality improvement initiative.Methods and analysisWe developedHopewell Hospitalist, a theory-based adventure video game, to modify physicians' attitudes towards ACP conversations and to increase their motivation for engaging in them. The planned study is a pragmatic stepped-wedge crossover phase III trial, testing the efficacy ofHopewell Hospitalistfor increasing ACP conversations. We will randomise 40 hospitals to the month (step) in which they receive the intervention. We aim to recruit 30 hospitalists from up to eight hospitals each step to complete the intervention, playingHopewell Hospitalistfor at least 2 hours. The primary outcome is ACP billing for patients aged 65 and older managed by participating hospitalists. We hypothesise that the intervention will increase ACP billing in the quarter after dissemination, and have 80% power to detect a 1% absolute increase and 99% power to detect a 3.5% absolute increase.Ethics and disseminationDartmouth’s Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects has approved the study protocol, which is registered on clinicaltrials.gov. We will disseminate the results through manuscripts and the trials website.Hopewell Hospitalistwill be made available on the iOS Application Store for download, free of cost, at the conclusion of the trial.Trial registration numberNCT04557930.

Improving communication training for primary palliative care using a required palliative care rotation for internal medicine (IM) residents has not been assessed.To assess skills acquisition and acceptability for IM residents not selecting an elective.A consecutive, single-arm cohort underwent preobjective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with learner-centric feedback, two weeks of clinical experience, and finally a post-OSCE to crystallize learner-centric take home points.IM second year residents from Dartmouth-Hitchcock were exposed to a required experiential palliative care rotation.Pre- and post-OSCE using a standardized score card for behavioral skills, including patient-centered interviewing, discussing goals of care/code status, and responding to emotion, as well as a confidential mixed qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the experience.Twelve residents were included in the educational program (two were excluded because of shortened experiences) and showed statistically significant improvements in overall communication and more specifically in discussing code status and responding to emotions. General patient-centered interviewing skills were not significantly improved, but prerotation scores reflected pre-existing competency in this domain. Residents viewed the observed simulated clinical experience (OSCE) and required rotation as positive experiences, but wished for more opportunities to practice communication skills in real clinical encounters.A required palliative care experiential rotation flanked by OSCEs at our institution improved the acquisition of primary palliative care communication skills similarly to other nonclinical educational platforms, but may better meet the needs of the resident and faculty as well as address all required ACGME milestones.

Context No brief patient-reported experience measure focuses on the most significant concerns of seriously ill individuals. Objectives The objective of the study was to develop the consideRATE questions. Methods This user-centered design study had three phases. We reviewed the literature and consulted stakeholders, including caregivers, clinicians, and researchers, to identify the elements of care most important to patients (Phase 1). We refined items based on cognitive interviews with patients, families, and clinicians (Phase 2). We piloted the measure with patients and families (Phase 3). Results Phase 1 resulted in seven questions addressing the following elements: 1) care team attention to patients' physical symptoms, 2) emotional symptoms, 3) environment of care, 4) respect for patients' priorities, 5) communication about future plans, 6) communication about financial and similar affairs, and 7) communication about illness trajectory. Phase 2 participants included eight patients, eight family members, and seven clinicians. We added an open-text comment option. We did not identify any other issues that were important enough to participants to include. Response choices ranged from one (very bad) to four (very good), with a not applicable option (does not apply). Phase 3 involved 15 patients and 16 family members and demonstrated the acceptability of the consideRATE questions. Most reported that the questions were not distressing, disruptive, or confusing. Completion time averaged 2.4 minutes (range 1–5). Conclusion Our brief patient-reported serious illness experience measure is based on what matters most to patients, families, and clinicians. It was acceptable to patients and families in a regional sample. It has promise for use in clinical settings.