Search

Importance: Discussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations., Objective: To explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation., Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020., Exposures: The SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change., Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP., Results: Among 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity., Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.

Background: Seriously ill patients in hospital have indicated that better communication with practitioners is vital for improving care. The aim of this study was to assess whether the quality of conversations about serious illness improved after implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP)., Methods: In this retrospective chart review study, we evaluated patients who were admitted to a medical ward at Hamilton General Hospital, had a stay of at least 48 hours, and were at risk for a lengthy stay or increased need for community-based services (inter-RAI Emergency Department Screener score of 5 or 6). The SICP study period was from Mar. 1, 2017, to Jan. 19, 2018. We used a validated codebook to assess the quality of documented conversations regarding serious illness for eligible patients before (usual care [control group]) and after SICP implementation (intervention group), specifically examining the following domains: patients' values and goals, understanding of prognosis and illness, end-of-life care planning, and code status or desire for other life-sustaining treatments., Results: The study sample included 56 patients in the control group and 56 patients in the intervention group. The overall quality of documented conversations about serious illness was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group ( p < 0.001) and was significantly higher in the subdomains of values and goals ( p < 0.001), understanding of prognosis and illness ( p < 0.001) and life-sustaining treatments ( p = 0.03) but not end-of-life care planning ( p = 0.48)., Interpretation: Implementation of the SICP in a hospital setting was associated with higher quality of documented conversations regarding serious illness with patients at high risk for clinical or functional deterioration. The SICP is transferable and adaptable to a hospital setting, and was associated with an increase in adherence to best practices compared to usual care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Nurses in acute medical units are uniquely positioned to support goals of care communication. Further understanding of nurse and physician perceptions about hospital nurses' actual and possible roles was required to improve goals of care communication., Objective: To critically examine nurse and physician perceptions of the nurse's role in communication with seriously ill patients and their families., Design: We focus on the qualitative component of a mixed method study. We employed an interpretive descriptive approach informed by Flanagan's critical incident technique., Settings: Participants were recruited from the acute medical units at three tertiary care hospitals in three Canadian provinces., Participants: Thirty participants provided interviews (10 from each site): 12 nurses, 9 staff physicians and 9 medical resident physicians., Methods: Participants' described "critical incidents" they considered as "excellent" or "poor" or "usual" practice. Interviews, were audiotaped and transcribed. Team-based analysis used constant comparison and triangulation to identify healthcare team members' roles in goals of care communication., Results: We identified two major themes from 120 critical incidents: 1) the ambiguous nature of the nurse's role in formal, physician-led, decision-making communication, and 2) embedded in care serious illness communication. Physicians understood nurses' supportive role in relation to their own communication practices that culminated in decisions about care; nurses' reported their roles were determined by unit routines, physician practices and preferences, and their self-confidence in supporting decision-making. Nurses described their unique role in facilitating informal and spontaneous communication with patients and families that was critical background work to physician-led goals of care communication., Conclusions: Nurses and physicians had different understandings, practices and beliefs about goals of care communication The value of nurses embedded in care work is key to supporting the interprofessional team's work during formal goals of care communication., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The lack of validated quality indicators is a major barrier to improving end-of-life communication and decision-making. We sought to show the feasibility of and provide initial validation for a set of quality indicators related to end-of-life communication and decision-making., Methods: We administered a questionnaire to patients and their family members in 12 hospitals and asked them about advance care planning and goals-of-care discussions. Responses were used to calculate a quality indicator score. To validate this score, we determined its correlation with the concordance between the patients' expressed wishes and the medical order for life-sustaining treatments recorded in the hospital chart. We compared the correlation with concordance for the advance care planning component score with that for the goal-of-care discussion scores., Results: We enrolled 297 patients and 209 family members. At all sites, both overall quality indicators and individual domain scores were low and there was wide variability around the point estimates. The highest-ranking institution had an overall quality indicator score (95% confidence interval) of 40% (36%-44%) and the lowest had a score of 18% (11%-25%). There was a strong correlation between the overall quality indicator score and the concordance measure ( r = 0.72, p = 0.008); the estimated correlation between the advance care planning score and the concordance measure ( r = 0.35) was weaker than that between the goal-of-care discussion scores and the concordance measure ( r = 0.53)., Interpretation: Quality of end-of-life communication and decision-making appears low overall, with considerable variability across hospitals. The proposed quality indicator measure shows feasibility and partial validity. Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01362855., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Jessica Simon reports grants from Alberta Innovates Health Solutions and personal fees from Alberta Health Services, during the conduct of the study. James Downar reports receiving fees for statistical analysis from Toronto General/Toronto Western Hospital Foundation and personal fees from Associated Medical Services Inc., during the conduct of the study. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2017 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors.)

Background: In the hospital setting, inadequate engagement between healthcare professionals and seriously ill patients and their families regarding end-of-life decisions is common. This problem may lead to medical orders for life-sustaining treatments that are inconsistent with patient preferences. The prevalence of this patient safety problem has not been previously described., Methods: Using data from a multi-institutional audit, we quantified the mismatch between patients' and family members' expressed preferences for care and orders for life-sustaining treatments. We recruited seriously ill, elderly medical patients and/or their family members to participate in this audit. We considered it a medical error if a patient preferred not to be resuscitated and there were orders to undergo resuscitation (overtreatment), or if a patient preferred resuscitation (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR) and there were orders not to be resuscitated (undertreatment)., Results: From 16 hospitals in Canada, 808 patients and 631 family members were included in this study. When comparing expressed preferences and documented orders for use of CPR, 37% of patients experienced a medical error. Very few patients (8, 2%) expressed a preference for CPR and had CPR withheld in their documented medical orders (Undertreatment). Of patients who preferred not to have CPR, 174 (35%) had orders to receive it (Overtreatment). There was considerable variability in overtreatment rates across sites (range: 14-82%). Patients who were frail were less likely to be overtreated; patients who did not have a participating family member were more likely to be overtreated., Conclusions: Medical errors related to the use of life-sustaining treatments are very common in internal medicine wards. Many patients are at risk of receiving inappropriate end-of-life care., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Practicing healthcare professionals and graduates exiting training programs are often ill-equipped to facilitate important discussions about end-of-life care with patients and their families. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at providing healthcare professionals with training in end-of-life communication skills, compared to usual curriculum., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the date of inception to July 2014 for randomized control trials (RCT) and prospective observational studies of educational training interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills. To be eligible, interventions had to provide communication skills training related to end-of-life decision making; other interventions (e.g. breaking bad news, providing palliation) were excluded. Our primary outcomes were self-efficacy, knowledge and end-of-life communication scores with standardized patient encounters. Sufficiently similar studies were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE., Results: Of 5727 candidate articles, 20 studies (6 RCTs, 14 Observational) were included in this review. Compared to usual teaching, educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills were associated with greater self-efficacy (8 studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.57;95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75; P < 0.001; very low quality evidence), more knowledge (4 studies, SMD 0.76;95% CI 0.40-1.12; p < 0.001; low quality evidence), and improvements in communication scores (8 studies, SMD 0.69; 95% CI 0.41-0.96; p < 0.001; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether these educational interventions affect patient-level outcomes., Conclusion: Very low to low quality evidence suggests that end-of-life communication training may improve healthcare professionals' self-efficacy, knowledge, and EoL communication scores compared to usual teaching. Further studies comparing two active educational interventions are recommended with a continued focus on contextually relevant high-level outcomes., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014012913.

Background: Patients with serious illness, and their families, state that better communication and decision-making with healthcare providers is a high priority to improve the quality of end-of-life care. Numerous communication tools to assist patients, family members, and clinicians in end-of-life decision-making have been published, but their effectiveness remains unclear., Objectives: To determine, amongst adults in ambulatory care settings, the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making on completion of advance care planning., Methods: We searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized intervention studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each of the primary and secondary outcomes., Results: Sixty-seven studies, including 46 RCTs, were found. The majority evaluated communication tools in older patients (age >50) with no specific medical condition, but many specifically evaluated populations with cancer, lung, heart, neurologic, or renal disease. Most studies compared the use of communication tools against usual care, but several compared the tools to less-intensive advance care planning tools. The use of structured communication tools increased: the frequency of advance care planning discussions/discussions about advance directives (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.25-4.26, p = 0.007, low quality evidence) and the completion of advance directives (ADs) (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.43-2.59, p<0.001, low quality evidence); concordance between AD preferences and subsequent medical orders for use or non-use of life supporting treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.39, p = 0.028, very low quality evidence, 1 observational study); and concordance between the care desired and care received by patients (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p = 0.004, low quality evidence, 2 RCTs)., Conclusions: The use of structured communication tools may increase the frequency of discussions about and completion of advance directives, and concordance between the care desired and the care received by patients. The use of structured communication tools rather than an ad-hoc approach to end-of-life decision-making should be considered, and the selection and implementation of such tools should be tailored to address local needs and context., Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014012913.

Background: For many patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), preferences for end-of-life care are unknown, and clinicians and substitute decision-makers are required to make decisions about the goals of care on their behalf. We conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making, compared to usual care, upon the number of documented goals of care discussions, documented code status, and decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatments, in adult patients admitted to the ICU., Methods: We searched multiple databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and Cochrane from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed eligibility, verified data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the tool described by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Pooled estimates of effect (relative risk, standardized mean difference, or mean difference), were calculated where sufficient data existed. GRADE was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome., Results: We screened 5785 abstracts and reviewed the full text of 424 articles, finding 168 eligible articles, including 19 studies in the ICU setting. The use of communication tools increased documentation of goals-of-care discussions (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.55, 7.75, p = 0.020, very low-quality evidence), but did not have an effect on code status documentation (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96, 1.10, p = 0.540, low-quality evidence) or decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89, 1.08, p = 0.70, low-quality evidence). The use of such tools was associated with a decrease in multiple measures of health care resource utilization, including duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.9 days, 95% CI -3.26, -0.54, p = 0.006, very low-quality evidence), length of ICU stay (MD -1.11 days, 95% CI -2.18, -0.03, p = 0.04, very low-quality evidence), and health care costs (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.5, -0.15, p < 0.001, very low-quality evidence)., Conclusions: Structured communication tools may improve documentation of EOL decision making and may result in lower resource use. The supporting evidence is low to very low in quality. Further high-quality randomized studies of simple communication interventions are needed to determine whether structured, rather than ad hoc, approaches to end-of-life decision-making improve patient-level, family-level, and system-level outcomes., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014012913.

Context: The goal of end-of-life (EOL) communication and decision making is to create a shared understanding about a person's values and treatment preferences that will lead to a plan of care that is consistent with these values and preferences. Improvements in communication and decision making at the EOL have been identified as a high priority from a patient and family point of view., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to develop quality indicators related to EOL communication and decision making., Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop definitions, a conceptual framework of EOL communication and decision making, and quality indicators using a modified Delphi method. We generated a list of potential items based on literature review and input from panel members. Panel members rated the items using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very little importance to 7 = extremely important) over four rounds of review until consensus was achieved., Results: About 24 of the 28 panel members participated in all four rounds of the Delphi process. The final list of quality indicators comprised 34 items, divided into the four categories of our conceptual framework: Advance care planning (eight items), Goals of care discussions (13 items), Documentation (five items), and Organization/System aspects (eight items). Eleven items were rated "extremely important" (median score). All items had a median score of five (moderately important) or greater., Conclusion: We have developed definitions, a conceptual framework, and quality indicators that researchers and health care decision makers can use to evaluate and improve the quality of EOL communication and decision making., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

ObjectivesTo develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness.MethodsThe development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before-after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1-2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one's values.ResultsIn the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (-6.7 points, 95% CI -11.1 to -2.3, p=0.003; 0-100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (-10.0 points, 95% CI -17.3 to -2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1-5 scale; N=61).ConclusionsThe Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted.

ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of a novel survey, the advance care planning (ACP) Engagement Survey, in various healthcare settings.SettingA target sample of 50 patients from each of primary care, hospital, cancer care and dialysis care settings.ParticipantsA convenience sample of patients without cognitive impairment who could speak and read English was recruited. Patients 50 and older were eligible in primary care; patients 80 and older or 55 and older with clinical markers of advanced chronic disease were recruited in hospital; patients aged 19 and older were recruited in cancer and renal dialysis centres.OutcomesWe assessed feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of the ACP Engagement Survey using a 6-point scale. The ACP Engagement Survey measures ACP processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy and readiness) on 5-point Likert scales and actions (yes/no).Results196 patients (38-96 years old, 50.5% women) participated. Mean (±SD) time to administer was 48.8±19.6 min. Mean acceptability scores ranged from 3.2±1.3 in hospital to 4.7±0.9 in primary care, and mean relevance ranged from 3.5±1.0 in hospital to 4.9±0.9 in dialysis centres (p

Background: The lack of validated quality indicators is a major barrier to improving end-of-life communication and decision-making. We sought to show the feasibility of and provide initial validation for a set of quality indicators related to end-of-life communication and decision-making.Methods: We administered a questionnaire to patients and their family members in 12 hospitals and asked them about advance care planning and goals-of-care discussions. Responses were used to calculate a quality indicator score. To validate this score, we determined its correlation with the concordance between the patients' expressed wishes and the medical order for life-sustaining treatments recorded in the hospital chart. We compared the correlation with concordance for the advance care planning component score with that for the goal-of-care discussion scores.Results: We enrolled 297 patients and 209 family members. At all sites, both overall quality indicators and individual domain scores were low and there was wide variability around the point estimates. The highest-ranking institution had an overall quality indicator score (95% confidence interval) of 40% (36%-44%) and the lowest had a score of 18% (11%-25%). There was a strong correlation between the overall quality indicator score and the concordance measure (r = 0.72, p = 0.008); the estimated correlation between the advance care planning score and the concordance measure (r = 0.35) was weaker than that between the goal-of-care discussion scores and the concordance measure (r = 0.53).Interpretation: Quality of end-of-life communication and decision-making appears low overall, with considerable variability across hospitals. The proposed quality indicator measure shows feasibility and partial validity. Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01362855. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Practicing healthcare professionals and graduates exiting training programs are often ill-equipped to facilitate important discussions about end-of-life care with patients and their families. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at providing healthcare professionals with training in end-of-life communication skills, compared to usual curriculum. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the date of inception to July 2014 for randomized control trials (RCT) and prospective observational studies of educational training interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills. To be eligible, interventions had to provide communication skills training related to end-of-life decision making; other interventions (e.g. breaking bad news, providing palliation) were excluded. Our primary outcomes were self-efficacy, knowledge and end-of-life communication scores with standardized patient encounters. Sufficiently similar studies were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Of 5727 candidate articles, 20 studies (6 RCTs, 14 Observational) were included in this review. Compared to usual teaching, educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills were associated with greater self-efficacy (8 studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.57;95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75; P < 0.001; very low quality evidence), more knowledge (4 studies, SMD 0.76;95 % CI 0.40-1.12; p < 0.001; low quality evidence), and improvements in communication scores (8 studies, SMD 0.69; 95 % CI 0.41- 0.96; p < 0.001; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether these educational interventions affect patient-level outcomes. Conclusion: Very low to low quality evidence suggests that end-of-life communication training may improve healthcare professionals' self-efficacy, knowledge, and EoL communication scores compared to usual teaching. Further studies comparing two active educational interventions are recommended with a continued focus on contextually relevant high-level outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many healthcare workers are concerned about the provision of nonbeneficial treatment in the acute care setting. We sought to explore the perceptions of acute care practitioners to determine whether they perceived nonbeneficial treatment to be a problem, to generate an acceptable definition of nonbeneficial treatment, to learn about their perceptions of the impact and causes of nonbeneficial treatment, and the ways that they feel could reduce or resolve nonbeneficial treatment. Design: National, bilingual, cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of nursing and medical staff who provide direct patient care in acute medical wards or ICUs in Canada. Main Results: We received 688 responses (response rate 61%) from 11 sites. Seventy-four percent of respondents were nurses. Eighty-two percent of respondents believe that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate. The most acceptable definitions of nonbeneficial treatment were "advanced curative/life-prolonging treatments that would almost certainly result in a quality of life that the patient has previously stated that he/she would not want" (88% agreement) and "advanced curative/ life-prolonging treatments that are not consistent with the goals of care (as indicated by the patient)" (83% agreement). Respondents most commonly believed that nonbeneficial treatment was caused by substitute decision makers who do not understand the limitations of treatment, or who cannot accept a poor prognosis (90% agreement for each cause), and 52% believed that nonbeneficial treatment was "often" or "always" continued until the patient died or was discharged from hospital. Respondents believed that nonbeneficial treatment was a common problem with a negative impact on all stakeholders (> 80%) and perceived that improved advance care planning and communication training would be the most effective (92% and 88%, respectively) and morally acceptable (95% and 92%, respectively) means to resolve the problem of nonbeneficial treatment. Conclusions: Canadian nurses and physicians perceive that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate, and that we need to adopt new techniques of resolving nonbeneficial treatment. The most promising strategies to reduce nonbeneficial treatment are felt to be improved advance care planning and communication training for healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]