Search

Background: The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), developed in 2011 by Ariadne Labs, restructures care so that knowing and then honoring patients’ wishes becomes part of routine care. Objectives: 1) summarize patient perceptions of use of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) components, 2) assess whether a serious illness conversation was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) and identify the SICG components that were included, 3) summarize clinician perceptions of use of the SICG components, and 4) assess the association of documented SICG components with the patient's perception of the SICG discussion. Methods: Clinicians at three family medicine offices were trained in serious illness conversations using the SICG. They documented their serious illness conversations in the medical record. Retrospective chart review for SICG components was conducted for patients. Patients and clinicians completed questionnaires about their experience with the SICG. Statistical analysis included the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables and Cohen's kappa to determine agreement between clinician documentation and patient perception. Results: Eighty-nine patients consented and completed their baseline questionnaire. Mean age of the 89 patients was 72 years and 65 (73%) were female. Thirty (34%) medical records had one or more SICG components documented. Seventy-nine (89%) patients reported at least one individual component of the SICG being discussed. Clinicians reported they engaged in asking patients what is important to them at a mean of 5.9, with 7 being “all the time”. There was slight agreement (kappa = .19) for patient perception and clinician documentation of discussing patient goals, but no agreement for any of the other SICG components. Conclusion: Even among trained clinicians, only one-third of patients had documentation of at least one SICG component. Only slight agreement was found between clinician documentation of SICG in the medical record and patient perception of SICG discussion.

Left lower lobe pneumonia may be obscured by the heart on the postero-anterior (PA) chest radiograph. In such cases, the lateral projection may be helpful, especially if it exhibits the "spine sign", which is an interruption in the progressive increase in lucency of the vertebral bodies from superior to inferior. We investigated whether the spine sign would help family physicians diagnose left lower lobe pneumonia on chest radiographs.We selected the chest radiographs of all patients with left lower lobe pneumonia who were seen between 1983 and 1995 at a family practice training program (N = 78) and an equal number of chest radiographs of patients without pneumonia. Six family physicians read these radiographs under two viewing conditions: PA only vs PA and lateral. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve methodology to compare the two viewing conditions.There was no significant difference in performance between the two viewing conditions. The lateral view was helpful in some patients but misleading in others. Among patients with pneumonia, the lateral view was helpful when the spine sign was present, but it was misleading when the spine sign was absent.In this study of family physicians, the lateral chest radiograph did not improve overall diagnostic accuracy in patients with left lower lobe pneumonia. Among pneumonia patients with the spine sign, however, the lateral view was often helpful.

When faced with questions about patient care, family physicians usually turn to books in their personal libraries for the answers. The resources in these libraries have not been adequately characterized.We recorded the titles of all medical books in the personal libraries of 103 randomly selected family physicians in eastern Iowa. We also noted all clinical information that was posted on walls, bulletin boards, refrigerators, and so forth. Participants were asked to describe their use of other resources such as computers, MEDLINE, reprint files, and "peripheral brains" (personal notebooks of clinical information). For each physician, we recorded how often the resources were used to answer clinical questions during 2 half-day observation periods.The 103 participants owned a total of 5794 medical books, with 2836 different titles. Each physician kept an average of 56 books in the office. Prescribing references (especially the Physicians' Desk Reference) were most common (owned by 100% of the participants), followed by books on general internal medicine (99%), adult infectious disease (89%), and general pediatrics (83%). Books used to answer clinical questions were more likely to be up to date (copyright date within 5 years) than unused books (74% vs 27%, P.001). Items posted on walls included drug dosage charts and pediatric immunization schedules. Only 26% of the physicians had computers in their offices.Drug-prescribing textbooks were the most common type of book in family physicians' offices, followed by books on general internal medicine and adult infectious diseases. Although many books were relatively old, those used to answer clinical questions were generally current.