Dataset Information

Virtual Geritalk: Improving Serious Illness Communication of Clinicians Who Care for Older Adults.

ABSTRACT:

Context

High quality communication is essential to older adults' medical decision-making, quality of life, and adjustment to serious illness. Studies have demonstrated that Geritalk, a two day (16 hours total) in-person communication skills training improves self-assessed preparedness, skill acquisition, and sustained practice of communication skills. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Geritalk was adapted to a virtual format (four days, 10 hours total).

Objectives

Our study evaluated the change in participants' self-assessed preparedness for serious illness communication before and after the virtual course and satisfaction with the course, and compared these findings to responses from a prior in-person Geritalk course.

Methods

Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine fellows at three urban academic medical centers completed surveys, which employed five-point Likert scales, before and after the virtual course to assess satisfaction with the course and preparedness for serious illness communication.

Results

Of the 20 virtual Geritalk participants, 17 (85%) completed the pre-course assessment, and 14 (70%) completed the post-course assessment. Overall, satisfaction with the course was high (mean 4.9 on a 5-point scale). Compared to in-person Geritalk participants, virtual course participants reported comparable and significant (P < 0.01) improvements in mean self-reported preparedness across all surveyed communication skills.

Conclusion

We show that a virtual communication skills training is feasible and effective. Our findings suggest that the innovative virtual Geritalk course has the potential to increase access to communication skills training, improve serious illness communication skills, and in improve the quality of care received by older adults with serious illness.

SUBMITTER: Frydman JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8380266 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveCommunication 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.MethodsQualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews of clinical leaders, implementation teams, and frontline champions.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsAspects 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.

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:OBJECTIVE:Community Partners in Care (CPIC) was a group-randomized study of two approaches to implementing expanded collaborative depression care: Community Engagement and Planning (CEP), a coalition approach, and Resources for Services (RS), a technical assistance approach. Collaborative care networks in both arms involved health care and other agencies in five service sectors. This study examined six- and 12-month outcomes for CPIC participants with serious mental illness. METHODS:This secondary analysis focused on low-income CPIC participants from racial-ethnic minority groups with serious mental illness in underresourced Los Angeles communities (N=504). Serious mental illness was defined as self-reported severe depression (?20 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-8) at baseline or a lifetime history of bipolar disorder or psychosis. Logistic and Poisson regression with multiple imputation and response weights, controlling for covariates, was used to model intervention effects. RESULTS:Among CPIC participants, 50% had serious mental illness. Among those with serious mental illness, CEP relative to RS reduced the likelihood of poor mental health-related quality of life (OR=.62, 95% CI=.41-.95) but not depression (primary outcomes); reduced the likelihood of having homelessness risk factors and behavioral health hospitalizations; increased the likelihood of mental wellness; reduced specialty mental health medication and counseling visits; and increased faith-based depression visits (each p<.05) at six months. There were no statistically significant 12-month effects. CONCLUSIONS:Findings suggest that a coalition approach to implementing expanded collaborative depression care, compared with technical assistance to individual programs, may reduce short-term behavioral health hospitalizations and improve mental health-related quality of life and some social outcomes for adults with serious mental illness, although no evidence was found for long-term effects in this subsample.

Project description:Importance:An important aspect of high-quality care is ensuring that treatments are in alignment with patient or surrogate decision-maker goals. Treatment discordant with patient goals has been shown to increase medical costs and prolong end-of-life difficulties. Objectives:To evaluate discordance between surrogate decision-maker goals of care and medical orders and treatments provided to hospitalized, incapacitated older patients. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prospective cohort study included 363 patient-surrogate dyads. Patients were 65 years or older and faced at least 1 major medical decision in the medical and medical intensive care unit services in 3 tertiary care hospitals in an urban Midwestern area. Data were collected from April 27, 2012, through July 10, 2015, and analyzed from October 5, 2018, to December 5, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Each surrogate's preferred goal of care was determined via interview during initial hospitalization and 6 to 8 weeks after discharge. Surrogates were asked to select the goal of care for the patient from 3 options: comfort-focused care, life-sustaining treatment, or an intermediate option. To assess discordance, the preferred goal of care as determined by the surrogate was compared with data from medical record review outlining the medical treatment received during the target hospitalization. Results:A total of 363 dyads consisting of patients (223 women [61.4%]; mean [SD] age, 81.8 [8.3] years) and their surrogates (257 women [70.8%]; mean [SD] age, 58.3 [11.2] years) were included in the analysis. One hundred sixty-nine patients (46.6%) received at least 1 medical treatment discordant from their surrogate's identified goals of care. The most common type of discordance involved full-code orders for patients with a goal of comfort (n?=?41) or an intermediate option (n?=?93). More frequent in-person contact between surrogate and patient (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.82), patient residence in an institution (AOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.82), and surrogate-rated quality of communication (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99) were associated with lower discordance. Surrogate marital status (AOR for single vs married, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.01-3.66), number of family members involved in decisions (AOR for ?2 vs 0-1, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.05-3.21), and religious affiliation (AOR for none vs any, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.12-21.09) were associated with higher discordance. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that discordance between surrogate goals of care and medical treatments for hospitalized, incapacitated patients was common. Communication quality is a modifiable factor associated with discordance that may be an avenue for future interventions.

Project description:ImportanceBlack patients with serious illness experience higher-intensity care at the end of life. Little research has used critical, race-conscious approaches to examine factors associated with these outcomes.ObjectiveTo investigate the lived experiences of Black patients with serious illness and how various factors may be associated with patient-clinician communication and medical decision-making.Design, setting, and participantsIn this qualitative study, one-on-one, semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 Black patients with serious illness hospitalized at an urban academic medical center in Washington State between January 2021 and February 2023. Patients were asked to discuss experiences with racism, how those experiences affected the way they communicated with clinicians, and how racism impacted medical decision-making. Public Health Critical Race Praxis was used as framework and process.Main outcomes and measuresThe experience and of racism and its association, as described by Black patients who had serious illness, with patient-clinician communication and medical decision-making within a racialized health care setting.ResultsA total of 25 Black patients (mean [SD] age, 62.0 [10.3] years; 20 males [80.0%]) with serious illness were interviewed. Participants had substantial socioeconomic disadvantage, with low levels of wealth (10 patients with 0 assets [40.0%]), income (annual income <$25 000 among 19 of 24 patients with income data [79.2%]), educational attainment (mean [SD] 13.4 [2.7] years of schooling), and health literacy (mean [SD] score in the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form, 5.8 [2.0]). Participants reported high levels of medical mistrust and high frequency of discrimination and microaggressions experienced in health care settings. Participants reported epistemic injustice as the most common manifestation of racism: silencing of their own knowledge and lived experiences about their bodies and illness by health care workers. Participants reported that these experiences made them feel isolated and devalued, especially if they had intersecting, marginalized identities, such as being underinsured or unhoused. These experiences were associated with exacerbation of existing medical mistrust and poor patient-clinician communication. Participants described various mechanisms of self-advocacy and medical decision-making based on prior experiences with mistreatment from health care workers and medical trauma.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that Black patients' experiences with racism, specifically epistemic injustice, were associated with their perspectives on medical care and decision-making during serious illness and end of life. These findings suggest that race-conscious, intersectional approaches may be needed to improve patient-clinician communication and support Black patients with serious illness to alleviate the distress and trauma of racism as these patients near the end of life.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with serious mental illness (SMI) often have multiple comorbidities and complex medication schedules. Shortages of behavioral health specialists (BHSs), especially in rural areas, frequently make primary care providers (PCPs) the only clinician managing this complex population. The aim of this study was to describe rural/urban psychiatric medication prescribing in older adults with SMI by PCPs and BHSs, and by clinician type.MethodsThis retrospective descriptive analysis used 2018 Medicare data to identify individuals with a bipolar, major depression, schizophrenia, or psychosis diagnosis and examined medication claims for antianxiety, antidepressants, antipsychotics, hypnotics, and anticonvulsants. Descriptive statistics summarized percentage of medications provided by PCPs and BHSs stratified by rural and urban areas and by drug class. Additional analyses compared psychiatric prescribing patterns by physicians, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and physician assistants (PAs).ResultsIn urban areas, PCPs prescribed at least 50% of each psychiatric medication class, except antipsychotics, which was 45.2%. BHSs prescribed 40.7% of antipsychotics and less than 25% of all other classes. In rural areas, percentages of psychiatric medications from PCPs were over 70% for each medication class, except antipsychotics, which was 60.1%. Primary care physicians provided most psychiatric medications, between 36%-57% in urban areas and 47%-65% in rural areas. Primary care APRNs provided up to 13% of prescriptions in rural areas, which was more than the amount prescribed by BHS physicians, expect for antipsychotics. Psychiatric mental health APRNs provided up to 7.5% of antipsychotics in rural areas, but their prescribing contribution among other classes ranged between 1.1%-3.6%. PAs provided 2.5%-3.4% of medications in urban areas and this increased to 3.9%-5.1% in rural areas.ConclusionsResults highlight the extensive roles of PCPs, including APRNs, in managing psychiatric medications for older adults with SMI.