PSST! I Need Help! Development of a Peer Support Program for Clinicians Having Serious Illness Conversations During COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Greenwald JL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7837336 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
PSST! I Need Help! Development of a Peer Support Program for Clinicians Having Serious Illness Conversations During COVID-19.
Greenwald Jeffrey L JL Abrams Annah N AN Park Elyse R ER Nguyen Phuong L PL Jacobsen Juliet J
Journal of general internal medicine 20210126 4
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.
| S-EPMC8374609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLarge-scale efforts to train clinicians in serious-illness communication skills are needed, but 2 important gaps in knowledge remain. (1) No proven training method exists that can be readily scaled to train thousands of clinicians. (2) Though the value of interprofessional collaboration to support incapacitated patients' surrogates is increasingly recognized, few interventions for training intensive care unit (ICU) nurses in important communication skills can be leveraged to provide interprofessional family support.ObjectiveTo develop and test a web/videoconference-based platform to train nurses to communicate about serious illness.MethodsA user-centered process was used to develop the intervention, including (1) iteratively engaging a stakeholder panel, (2) developing prototype and beta versions of the platform, and (3) 3 rounds of user testing with 13 ICU nurses. Participants' ratings of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.ResultsStakeholders stressed that the intervention should leverage interactive learning and a streamlined digital interface. A training platform was developed consisting of 6 interactive online training lessons and 3 group-based video-conference practice sessions. Participants rated the program as usable (mean summary score 84 [96th percentile]), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5; SD, 0.7), and effective (mean, 4.8/5; SD, 0.6). Ten of 13 nurses would recommend the intervention over 2-day in-person training.ConclusionsNurses testing this web-based training program judged it usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding with an appropriately powered efficacy trial.
| S-EPMC10316342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/Objectives: The serious illness conversation (SIC) is an evidence-based framework for conversations with patients about a serious illness diagnosis. The objective of our study was to develop and validate a novel tool, the SIC-evaluation exercise (SIC-Ex), to facilitate assessment of resident-led conversations with oncology patients. Design: We developed the SIC-Ex based on SIC and on the Royal College of Canada Medical Oncology milestones. Seven resident trainees and 10 evaluators were recruited. Each trainee conducted an SIC with a patient, which was videotaped. The evaluators watched the videos and evaluated each trainee by using the novel SIC-Ex and the reference Calgary-Cambridge guide (CCG) at months zero and three. We used Kane's validity framework to assess validity. Results: Intra-class correlation using average SIC-Ex scores showed a moderate level of inter-evaluator agreement (range 0.523-0.822). Most evaluators rated a particular resident similar to the group average, except for one to two evaluator outliers in each domain. Test-retest reliability showed a moderate level of consistency among SIC-Ex scores at months zero and three. Global rating at zero and three months showed fair to good/very good inter-evaluator correlation. Pearson correlation coefficients comparing total SIC-Ex and CCG scores were high for most evaluators. Self-scores by trainees did not correlate well with scores by evaluators. Conclusions: SIC-Ex is the first assessment tool that provides evidence for incorporating the SIG guide framework for evaluation of resident competence. SIC-Ex is conceptually related to, but more specific than, CCG in evaluating serious illness conversation skills.
| S-EPMC8241377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeriously 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).MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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).InterpretationImplementation 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.
| S-EPMC7850172 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8325252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAriadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), inclusive of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), has been adapted for use in a variety of settings and among diverse population groups. Explicating the core elements of serious illness conversations could support the inclusion or exclusion of certain components in future iterations of the programme and the guide.AimThis integrative systematic review aimed to identify and describe core elements of serious illness conversations in relation to the SICP and/or SICG.DesignLiterature published between 1 January 2014 and 20 March 2023 was searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed. All articles were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines. Data were analysed with thematic synthesis.ResultsA total of 64 articles met the inclusion criteria. Three themes were revealed: (1) serious illness conversations serve different functions that are reflected in how they are conveyed; (2) serious illness conversations endeavour to discover what matters to patients and (3) serious illness conversations seek to align what patients want in their life and care.ConclusionsCore elements of serious illness conversations included explicating the intention, framing, expectations and directions for the conversation. This encompassed discussing current and possible trajectories with a view towards uncovering matters of importance to the patient as a person. Preferences and priorities could be used to inform future preparation and recommendations. Serious illness conversation elements could be adapted and altered depending on the intended purpose of the conversation.
| S-EPMC11671901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The Serious Illness Care Program was developed to support goals and values discussions between seriously ill patients and their clinicians. The core competencies, that is, the essential clinical conversation skills that are described as requisite for effective serious illness conversations (SICs) in practice, have not yet been explicated. This integrative systematic review aimed to identify core competencies for SICs in the context of the Serious Illness Care Program. Methods: Articles published between January 2014 and March 2023 were identified in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed databases. In total, 313 records underwent title and abstract screening, and 96 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The articles were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines, and data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results: In total, 53 articles were included. Clinicians' core competencies for SICs were described in 3 themes: conversation resources, intrapersonal capabilities, and interpersonal capabilities. Conversation resources included using the conversation guide as a tool, together with applying appropriate communication skills to support better communication. Intrapersonal capabilities included calibrating one's own attitudes and mindset as well as confidence and self-assurance to engage in SICs. Interpersonal capabilities focused on the clinician's ability to interact with patients and family members to foster a mutually trusting relationship, including empathetic communication with attention and adherence to patient and family members views, goals, needs, and preferences. Conclusions: Clinicians need to efficiently combine conversation resources with intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to successfully conduct and interact in SICs.
| S-EPMC11528878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextEmotion regulation by the physician can influence the effectiveness of serious illness conversations. The feasibility of multimodal assessment of emotion regulation during these conversations is unknown.ObjectivesTo develop and assess an experimental framework for evaluating physician emotion regulation during serious illness conversations.MethodsWe developed and then assessed a multimodal assessment framework for physician emotion regulation using a cross-sectional, pilot study on physicians trained in the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) in a simulated, telehealth encounter. Development of the assessment framework included a literature review and subject matter expert consultations. Our predefined feasibility endpoints included: an enrollment rate of ≥60% of approached physicians, >90% completion rate of survey items, and <20% missing data from wearable heart rate sensors. To describe physician emotion regulation, we performed a thematic analysis of the conversation, its documentation, and physician interviews.ResultsOut of 12 physicians approached, 11 (92%) SICG-trained physicians enrolled in the study: five medical oncology and six palliative care physicians. All 11 completed the survey (100% completion rate). Two sensors (chest band, wrist sensor) had <20% missing data during study tasks. The forearm sensor had >20% missing data. The thematic analysis found that physicians': 1) overarching goal was to move beyond prognosis to reasonable hope; 2) tactically focused on establishing a trusting, supportive relationship; and 3) possessed incomplete awareness of their emotion regulation strategies.ConclusionOur novel, multimodal assessment of physician emotion regulation was feasible in a simulated SICG encounter. Physicians exhibited an incomplete understanding of their emotion regulation strategies.
| S-EPMC10574810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSerious illness conversations may help patients avoid unwanted treatments. We previously piloted the telehealth Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to understand the experience of the telehealth SICP from the clinician's perspective.MethodsWe studied 10 clinicians who delivered the telehealth SICP to 20 older adults with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Quantitative outcomes included confidence and acceptability. Confidence was measured using a 22-item survey (range 1-7; a higher score is better). Acceptability was measured using an 11-item survey (5-point Likert scale). Hypothesis testing was performed at α=.10 (2-tailed) due to the pilot nature and small sample size. Clinicians participated in audio-recorded qualitative interviews at the end of the study to discuss their experience.ResultsA total of 8 clinicians completed the confidence measure and 7 clinicians completed the acceptability measure. We found a statistically significant increase in overall confidence (mean increase of 0.5, SD 0.6; P=.03). The largest increase in confidence was in helping families with reconciliation and goodbye (mean 1.4, SD 1.5; P=.04). The majority of clinicians agreed that the format was simple (6/7, 86%) and easy to use (6/7, 86%). Clinicians felt that the telehealth SICP was effective in understanding their patients' values about end-of-life care (7/7, 100%). A total of three qualitative themes emerged: (1) the telehealth SICP deepened relationships and renewed trust; (2) each telehealth SICP visit felt unique and personal in a positive way; and (3) uninterrupted, unrushed time optimized the visit experience.ConclusionsThe telehealth SICP increased confidence in having serious illness conversations while deepening patient-clinician relationships.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04745676; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04745676.
| S-EPMC11240066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.Selection criteriaWe selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).Data collection and analysisThe authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.Authors' conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.
| S-EPMC6448529 | biostudies-literature