Dataset Information

Improving serious illness communication: a qualitative study of clinical culture.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Communication about patients' values, goals, and prognosis in serious illness (serious illness communication) is a cornerstone of person-centered care yet difficult to implement in practice. As part of Serious Illness Care Program implementation in five health systems, we studied the clinical culture-related factors that supported or impeded improvement in serious illness conversations.

Methods

Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews of clinical leaders, implementation teams, and frontline champions.

Results

We completed 30 interviews across palliative care, oncology, primary care, and hospital medicine. Participants identified four culture-related domains that influenced serious illness communication improvement: (1) clinical paradigms; (2) interprofessional empowerment; (3) perceived conversation impact; (4) practice norms. Changes in clinicians' beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in these domains supported values and goals conversations, including: shifting paradigms about serious illness communication from 'end-of-life planning' to 'knowing and honoring what matters most to patients;' improvements in psychological safety that empowered advanced practice clinicians, nurses and social workers to take expanded roles; experiencing benefits of earlier values and goals conversations; shifting from avoidant norms to integration norms in which earlier serious illness discussions became part of routine processes. Culture-related inhibitors included: beliefs that conversations are about dying or withdrawing care; attitudes that serious illness communication is the physician's job; discomfort managing emotions; lack of reliable processes.

Conclusions

Aspects of clinical culture, such as paradigms about serious illness communication and inter-professional empowerment, are linked to successful adoption of serious illness communication. Further research is warranted to identify effective strategies to enhance clinical culture and drive clinician practice change.

SUBMITTER: Paladino J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10362669 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving serious illness communication: a qualitative study of clinical culture.

Paladino Joanna J Sanders Justin J JJ Fromme Erik K EK Block Susan S Jacobsen Juliet C JC Jackson Vicki A VA Ritchie Christine S CS Mitchell Suzanne S

BMC palliative care 20230722 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Communication about patients' values, goals, and prognosis in serious illness (serious illness communication) is a cornerstone of person-centered care yet difficult to implement in practice. As part of Serious Illness Care Program implementation in five health systems, we studied the clinical culture-related factors that supported or impeded improvement in serious illness conversations.<h4>Methods</h4>Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews of clinical leaders, imple ...[more]

PMID: 37481530

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDiscussions 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.ObjectiveTo explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.ExposuresThe SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change.Main outcomes and measuresClinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceIn 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.

Project description:Background: Natural language processing (NLP), a form of computer-assisted data abstraction, rapidly identifies serious illness communication domains such as code-status confirmation and goals of care (GOC) discussions within free-text notes, using a codebook of phrases. Differences in the phrases associated with palliative care for patients with different types of illness are unknown. Objective: To compare communication of code-status clarification and GOC discussions between patients with advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing palliative procedures and patients admitted with life-threatening trauma. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: Patients with in-hospital admissions within two academic medical centers. Measurements: Sensitivity and specificity of NLP-identified communication domains compared with manual review. Results: Among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (n = 523), NLP identified code-status clarification in 54% of admissions and GOC discussions in 49% of admissions. The sensitivity and specificity for code-status clarification were 94% and 99% respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity for a GOC discussion were 93% and 100%, respectively. Using the same codebook in patients with life-threatening trauma (n = 2093), NLP identified code-status clarification in 25.9% of admissions and GOC discussions in 6.3% of admissions. While NLP identification had 100% specificity, the sensitivity for code-status clarification and GOC discussion was reduced to 86% and 50%, respectively. Adding dynamic phrases such as "ongoing discussions" and phrases related to "family meetings" increased the sensitivity of the NLP codebook for code status to 98% and for GOC discussions to 100%. Conclusions: Communication of code status and GOC differ between patients with advanced cancer and those with life-threatening trauma. Recognition of these differences can aid in identification in patterns of palliative care delivery.

Project description:ImportanceDiscussions about goals of care are important for high-quality palliative care yet are often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness.ObjectiveTo evaluate a communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care discussions between clinicians and hospitalized older patients with serious illness.Design, setting, and participantsA pragmatic, randomized clinical trial of a clinician-facing communication-priming intervention vs usual care was conducted at 3 US hospitals within 1 health care system, including a university, county, and community hospital. Eligible hospitalized patients were aged 55 years or older with any of the chronic illnesses used by the Dartmouth Atlas project to study end-of-life care or were aged 80 years or older. Patients with documented goals-of-care discussions or a palliative care consultation between hospital admission and eligibility screening were excluded. Randomization occurred between April 2020 and March 2021 and was stratified by study site and history of dementia.InterventionPhysicians and advance practice clinicians who were treating the patients randomized to the intervention received a 1-page, patient-specific intervention (Jumpstart Guide) to prompt and guide goals-of-care discussions.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. There was also an evaluation of whether the effect of the intervention varied by age, sex, history of dementia, minoritized race or ethnicity, or study site.ResultsOf 3918 patients screened, 2512 were enrolled (mean age, 71.7 [SD, 10.8] years and 42% were women) and randomized (1255 to the intervention group and 1257 to the usual care group). The patients were American Indian or Alaska Native (1.8%), Asian (12%), Black (13%), Hispanic (6%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.5%), non-Hispanic (93%), and White (70%). The proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days was 34.5% (433 of 1255 patients) in the intervention group vs 30.4% (382 of 1257 patients) in the usual care group (hospital- and dementia-adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 0.4% to 7.8%]). The analyses of the treatment effect modifiers suggested that the intervention had a larger effect size among patients with minoritized race or ethnicity. Among 803 patients with minoritized race or ethnicity, the hospital- and dementia-adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 10.2% (95% CI, 4.0% to 16.5%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. Among 1641 non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 1.6% (95% CI, -3.0% to 6.2%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. There was no evidence of differential treatment effects of the intervention on the primary outcome by age, sex, history of dementia, or study site.Conclusions and relevanceAmong hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04281784.

Dataset Information

Improving serious illness communication: a qualitative study of clinical culture.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Improving serious illness communication: a qualitative study of clinical culture.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets