Dataset Information

Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program in Outpatient Oncology: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

High-quality conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients about values and goals are associated with improved outcomes but occur infrequently.

Objective

To examine feasibility, acceptability, and effect of a communication quality-improvement intervention (Serious Illness Care Program) on patient outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants

A cluster randomized clinical trial of the Serious Illness Care Program in an outpatient oncology setting was conducted. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 278) and oncology clinicians (n = 91) participated between September 1, 2012, and June 30, 2016. Data analysis was performed from September 1, 2016, to December 27, 2018. All analyses were conducted based on intention to treat.

Interventions

Tools, training, and system changes.

Main outcomes and measures

The coprimary outcomes included goal-concordant care (Life Priorities) and peacefulness (Peace, Equanimity, and Acceptance in the Cancer Experience questionnaire) at the end of life. Secondary outcomes included therapeutic alliance (Human Connection Scale), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 scale), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9), and survival. Uptake and effectiveness of clinician training, clinician use of the conversation tool, and conversation duration were evaluated.

Results

Data from 91 clinicians in 41 clusters (72.9% participation; intervention, n = 48; control, n = 43; 52 [57.1%] women) and 278 patients (45.8% participation; intervention, n = 134; control, n = 144; 148 [53.2%] women) were analyzed. Forty-seven clinicians (97.9%) rated the training as effective (mean [SD] score, 4.3 [0.7] of 5.0 possible); of 39 who received a reminder, 34 (87.2%) completed at least 1 conversation (median duration, 19 minutes; range, 5-70). Peacefulness, therapeutic alliance, anxiety, and depression did not differ at baseline. The coprimary outcomes were evaluated in 64 patients; no significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups. However, the trial demonstrated significant reductions in the proportion of patients with moderate to severe anxiety (10.2% vs 5.0%; P = .05) and depression symptoms (20.8% vs 10.6%; P = .04) in the intervention group at 14 weeks after baseline. Anxiety reduction was sustained at 24 weeks (10.4% vs 4.2%; P = .02), but depression reduction was not sustained (17.8% vs 12.5%; P = .31). Survival and therapeutic alliance did not differ between groups.

Conclusions and relevance

The results of this cluster randomized clinical trial were null with respect to the coprimary outcomes of goal-concordant care and peacefulness at the end of life. Methodologic challenges for the primary outcomes, including measure selection and sample size, limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. However, the significant reductions in anxiety and depression in the intervention group are clinically meaningful and require further study.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01786811.

SUBMITTER: Bernacki R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6547155 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTransition-age youth have elevated rates of mental disorders, and they often do not receive services. This is a serious public health concern, as mental health conditions persist into adulthood. Continuing to engage this population has been a pervasive challenge for the mental health care system worldwide. Few mental health interventions have been developed for transition-age youth, and even fewer have been found to be effective over the transition to adulthood. Cornerstone, a theoretically guided intervention has shown promise for addressing the mental health and psychosocial needs of this population as they emerge into adulthood. Cornerstone provides case management, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, mentoring/peer support, community-based in vivo practice, and groups to address stigma, mistrust, and practical skill development to improve the transition to independence among transition-age youth with serious mental health conditions.Methods/designThis study utilizes a hybrid research design and focuses on examining feasibility, acceptability and preliminary impact, along with factors that influence implementation, to maximize new knowledge. The study combines qualitative methods and a randomized controlled trial, using data to inform and refine protocols and manuals, while testing the preliminary impact of the intervention, compared to best available services (treatment as usual, TAU) at a partnering outpatient mental health clinic (n = 60). Contributors to the intervention development research (n = 20) are national experts on mental health services, clinic administrators and staff and young adults with direct experience. The intervention involves intensive staff training and 18 months of ongoing service provision, monitoring and supervision. Quantitative survey data will be collected at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months measuring mental health and practical life outcomes via self-report measures. Medical records will be used to triangulate self-report data (i.e., primary diagnosis, treatment planning and attendance). Qualitative data focuses on the intervention development process and implementation research and will use constant comparison coding techniques. In this intention-to-treat analysis, we will conduct basic omnibus analyses to examine whether Cornerstone leads to improved outcomes relative to TAU utilizing t tests across treatment conditions for each outcome measure specified. We will likewise examine whether changes in the proposed mediating variables differ across groups.DiscussionThe aim of this study is to refine Cornerstone through an intensive preliminary trial, learning through collaboration with clinic staff, project team members, and leaders in New York State and nationwide on how to best serve transition-age youth with serious mental health conditions. Cornerstone has the potential to fill a large gap in the service system for transition-age youth with serious mental health conditions, and may enhance the menu of care options for those who have been recently diagnosed with a serious mental health condition, and yet, have a long life to live. The program is recovery-oriented, builds on the best evidence to date, and is in line with both local and national health care reform efforts.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02696109 ) on 22 April 16 as Protocol Record R34-MH102525-01A1MRM, as New York University, Cornerstone program for transition-age youth with serious mental illness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Project description:BackgroundFractures are a major health problem in aging societies. Preventive approaches combining bone health and fall prevention are rare. The osteoporotic fracture prevention program in rural areas (OFRA) is a health care fund-driven program for older people in randomly selected districts in Germany. The components of the program were falls prevention exercise classes, examination of bone health by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, and a consultation about "safety in the living environment." The aim of this study was to evaluate this complex preventive intervention in a routine health care setting.MethodsThis cluster-randomized trial was performed from October 2015 to October 2018 and took place in 186 administrative districts in five federal states, 47 districts served as intervention districts, and 139, as controls. Within these districts, we included (a) all community-living women and men aged 70-85 years with prior fragility fractures and (b) all community-living women aged 75-80 years. The analysis used routine data collected by a health insurance company. The primary endpoint was all fragility fractures combined. Fracture types, mortality, and nursing home admission were explorative endpoints. Cox frailty models were used for comparative analyses with a median follow-up time of 365 days (interquartile range: 0 days).ResultsNine thousand four hundred eight individuals were approached to participate in one of the program components, 27,318 individuals served as controls. The mean age was 78.7 years. Of those approached to participate, nearly 30% joined the exercise classes. DXA measurement was reimbursed for 13.6%, and 51.8% received advice about measures to increase "safety in the living environment." The incidence of fragility fractures did not differ between the intervention and the control group (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11). However, femoral fractures, the most frequent fracture type, were reduced in the intervention group (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.99). Mortality and nursing home admission did not differ between the intervention and the control group.ConclusionsA comprehensive fracture prevention program for older people living in rural areas was implemented. The program did not affect the primary endpoint of all fragility fractures combined. It has to be considered that we used a modified intention to treat approach based on geographic randomization and information about endpoints relied exclusively on routine data of the health care insurance.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: 00009000.

Project description:BackgroundRates of smoking among those with serious mental illness (SMI) are two to three times higher than for the general population. Smoking is rarely addressed in mental health settings. Innovative outreach and treatment strategies are needed to address these disparities. The current study is a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a chronic care model of tobacco cessation treatment implemented in outpatient psychiatry clinics.MethodsParticipants were recruited from two outpatient psychiatric clinics and randomly assigned to intervention (counseling and nicotine replacement for 8 weeks, plus ongoing proactive outreach calls inviting reengagement in treatment) or control (brief education and referral to the state quit line). Assessments were conducted at 8 weeks (end of initial treatment block) and 6 months (end of window for retreatment). Feasibility was assessed by enrollment rate, treatment engagement, and completion of follow-up assessments. Acceptability was assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Preliminary efficacy was assessed by 7-day and 30-day abstinence rates, rate of quit attempts, and cigarettes per day. Psychological health was measured to assess for changes related to treatment group or attempts to quit smoking.ResultsNineteen participants were randomized to intervention and 19 to control. Recruitment proved feasible, and high rates of treatment engagement (mean of 4.5 sessions completed in initial treatment block, 89.5% uptake of nicotine replacement) and retention (94.7% of follow-up assessments completed) were observed. Treatment acceptability was high. As anticipated, there were no significant differences in abstinence between groups, but results generally favored the intervention group, including bio-verified 7-day abstinence rates of 21.1% in intervention vs. 17.6% in control and self-reported 30-day abstinence rates of 16.1% in intervention vs. 5.1% in control at 8 weeks. Significantly more intervention participants made at least one quit attempt (94.7% vs 52.6%; OR = 16.20, 95% CI: 1.79-147.01). Cigarettes per day decreased significantly more in the intervention group at 8 weeks (b = - 13.19, SE = 4.88, p = .02).ConclusionsIt was feasible to recruit and retain SMI patients in a smoking cessation trial in the context of outpatient psychiatry. The novel chronic care model treatment was acceptable to patients and showed promise for efficacy. If efficacious, a chronic care model could be effective at reducing smoking among SMI patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov #: NCT03822416 (registered January 30th 2019).

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:BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) conversations are associated with improved end-of-life healthcare outcomes and patients want to engage in ACP with their healthcare providers. Despite this, ACP conversations rarely occur in primary care settings. The objective of this study was to implement ACP through adapted Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) training sessions, and to understand primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of implementing ACP into practice.MethodsWe conducted a quality improvement project guided by the Normalization Process Theory (NPT), in an interprofessional academic family medicine group in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. NPT is an explanatory model that delineates the processes by which organizations implement and integrate new work. PCPs (physicians, family medicine residents, and allied health care providers), completed pre- and post-SICP self-assessments evaluating training effectiveness, a survey evaluating program implementability and sustainability, and semi-structured qualitative interviews to elaborate on barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for successful implementation. Descriptive statistics and pre-post differences (Wilcoxon Sign-Rank test) were used to analyze surveys and thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative interviews.Results30 PCPs participated in SICP training and completed self-assessments, 14 completed NoMAD surveys, and 7 were interviewed. There were reported improvements in ACP confidence and skills. NoMAD surveys reported mixed opinions towards ACP implementation, specifically concerning colleagues' abilities to conduct ACP and patients' abilities to participate in ACP. Physicians discussed busy clinical schedules, lack of patient preparedness, and continued discomfort or lack of confidence in having ACP conversations. Allied health professionals discussed difficulty sharing patient prognosis and identification of appropriate patients as barriers.ConclusionsTraining in ACP conversations improved PCPs' individual perceived abilities, but discomfort and other barriers were identified. Future iterations will require a more systematic process to support the implementation of ACP into regular practice, in addition to addressing knowledge and skill gaps.