"The Equipoise Ruler:" A National Survey on Surgeon Judgment about the Value of Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand professional norms regarding the value of surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Agreed-upon professional norms may improve surgical decision making by contextualizing the nature of surgical treatment for patients. However, the extent to which these norms exist among surgeons practicing in the US is not known. METHODS: We administered a survey with 30 exemplar cases asking surgeons to use their best judgement to place each case on a scale ranging from "Definitely would do this surgery" to "Definitely would not do this surgery." We then asked surgeons to repeat their assessments after providing responses from the first survey. We interviewed respondents to characterize their rationale. RESULTS: We received 580 responses, a response rate of 28.5%. For 19 of 30 cases there was consensus (≥60% agreement) about the value of surgery (range 63% - 99%). There was little within-case variation when the mode was for surgery and more variation when the mode was against surgery or equipoise. Exposure to peer response increased the number of cases with consensus. Women were more likely to endorse a non-operative approach when treatment had high mortality. Specialists were less likely to operate for salvage procedures. Surgeons noted their clinical practice was to withhold judgment and let patients decide despite their assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Professional judgment about the value of surgery exists along a continuum. While there is less variation in judgment for cases that are highly beneficial, consensus can be improved by exposure to the assessments of peers.

Equity in Using Artificial Intelligence Mortality Predictions to Target Goals of Care Documentation.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are increasingly used to target patients with elevated mortality risk scores for goals-of-care (GOC) conversations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the presence or absence of AI-generated mortality risk scores with GOC documentation. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study at one large academic medical center between July 2021 and December 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adult patients with AI-defined Serious Illness Risk Indicator (SIRI) scores indicating > 30% 90-day mortality risk (defined as "elevated" SIRI) or no SIRI scores due to insufficient data. INTERVENTION: A targeted intervention to increase GOC documentation for patients with AI-generated scores predicting elevated risk of mortality. MAIN MEASURES: Odds ratios comparing GOC documentation for patients with elevated or no SIRI scores with similar severity of illness using propensity score matching and risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression. KEY RESULTS: Among 13,710 patients with elevated (n = 3643, 27%) or no (n = 10,067, 73%) SIRI scores, the median age was 64 years (SD 18). Twenty-five percent were non-White, 18% had Medicaid, 43% were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 11% died during admission. Patients lacking SIRI scores were more likely to be younger (median 60 vs. 72 years, p < 0.0001), be non-White (29% vs. 13%, p < 0.0001), and have Medicaid (22% vs. 9%, p < 0.0001). Patients with elevated versus no SIRI scores were more likely to have GOC documentation in the unmatched (aOR 2.5, p < 0.0001) and propensity-matched cohorts (aOR 2.1, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using AI predictions of mortality to target GOC documentation may create differences in documentation prevalence between patients with and without AI mortality prediction scores with similar severity of illness. These finding suggest using AI to target GOC documentation may have the unintended consequence of disadvantaging severely ill patients lacking AI-generated scores from receiving targeted GOC documentation, including patients who are more likely to be non-White and have Medicaid insurance.

Hope and illness expectations: A cross-sectional study in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The fear of taking away hope hinders clinicians' willingness to share serious news with patients with advanced disease. Unrealistic illness expectations, on the other hand, can complicate decision making and end-of-life care outcomes. Exploration of the association between hope and illness expectations can support clinicians in better communication with their patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore whether realistic illness expectations are associated with reduced hope in people with advanced cancer. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional secondary analysis of baseline data from a primary palliative care cluster-randomized trial CONNECT (data collected from July 2016 to October 2020). Hope was measured by Herth Hope Index. Illness expectations were measured by assessing patients' understanding of their treatment goals, life expectancy, and terminal illness acknowledgement. Multivariable regression was performed, adjusting for demographical and clinical confounders. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with advanced solid cancers recruited across 17 oncology clinics. RESULTS: Data from 672 patients were included in the study, with mean age of 69.3 years (±10.2), 53.6% were female. Proportion of patients indicating realistic expectations varied based on which question was asked from 10% to 46%. Median level of hope was 39 (IQR = 36-43). Multivariate non-inferiority regression did not find any significant differences in hope between patients with more and less realistic illness expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hope can be sustained while holding both realistic and unrealistic illness expectations. Communication about serious news should focus on clarifying the expectations as well as supporting people's hopes.

Expert consensus-based guidance on approaches to opioid management in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis. METHODS: The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

Factors Associated With Provision of Nonbeneficial Surgery: A National Survey of Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the association of systems factors with the surgeon's likelihood of offering surgical intervention for older adults with life-limiting acute surgical conditions. BACKGROUND: Use of surgical treatments in the last year of life is frequent. Improved risk prediction and clinician communication are solutions proposed to improve serious illness care, yet systems factors may also drive receipt of nonbeneficial treatment. METHODS: We mailed a national survey to 5200 surgeons randomly selected from the American College of Surgeons database comprised of a clinical vignette describing a seriously ill older adult with an acute surgical condition, which utilized a 2×2 factorial design to assess patient and systems factors on receipt of surgical treatment to surgeons. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixty-one surgeons responded for a weighted response rate of 53%. For an 87-year-old patient with fulminant colitis and advanced dementia or stage IV lung cancer, 40% of surgeons were inclined to offer an operation to remove the patient's colon while 60% were inclined to offer comfort-focused care only. Surgeons were more likely to offer surgery when an operating room was readily available (odds ratio: 4.05, P <0.001) and the family requests "do everything" (odds ratio: 2.18, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Factors outside the surgeon's control contribute to nonbeneficial surgery, consistent with our model of clinical momentum. Further characterization of the systems in which these decisions occur might expose novel strategies to improve serious illness care for older patients and their families.

Disparities in Unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Order Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: A unilateral do-not-resuscitate (UDNR) order is a do-not-resuscitate order placed using clinician judgment which does not require consent from a patient or surrogate. This study assessed how UDNR orders were used during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We analyzed a retrospective cross-sectional study of UDNR use at two academic medical centers between April 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: Two academic medical centers in the Chicago metropolitan area. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to an ICU between April 2020 and April 2021 who received vasopressor or inotropic medications to select for patients with high severity of illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 1,473 patients meeting inclusion criteria were 53% male, median age 64 (interquartile range, 54-73), and 38% died during admission or were discharged to hospice. Clinicians placed do not resuscitate orders for 41% of patients ( n = 604/1,473) and UDNR orders for 3% of patients ( n = 51/1,473). The absolute rate of UDNR orders was higher for patients who were primary Spanish speaking (10% Spanish vs 3% English; p ≤ 0.0001), were Hispanic or Latinx (7% Hispanic/Latinx vs 3% Black vs 2% White; p = 0.003), positive for COVID-19 (9% vs 3%; p ≤ 0.0001), or were intubated (5% vs 1%; p = 0.001). In the base multivariable logistic regression model including age, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, and hospital location, Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9) and primary Spanish language (aOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.1-9.4) had higher odds of UDNR. After adjusting the base model for severity of illness, primary Spanish language remained associated with higher odds of UDNR order (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this multihospital study, UDNR orders were used more often for primary Spanish-speaking patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be related to communication barriers Spanish-speaking patients and families experience. Further study is needed to assess UDNR use across hospitals and enact interventions to improve potential disparities.

Barriers of Acceptance to Hospice Care: a Randomized Vignette-Based Experiment.

BACKGROUND: The per diem financial structure of hospice care may lead agencies to consider patient-level factors when weighing admissions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if treatment cost, disease complexity, and diagnosis are associated with hospice willingness to accept patients. DESIGN: In this 2019 online survey study, individuals involved in hospice admissions decisions were randomized to view one of six hypothetical patient vignettes: "high-cost, high-complexity," "low-cost, high-complexity," and "low-cost, low-complexity" within two diseases: heart failure and cystic fibrosis. Vignettes included demographics, prognoses, goals, and medications with costs. Respondents indicated their perceived likelihood of acceptance to their hospice; if likelihood was <100%, respondents were asked the barriers to acceptance. We used bivariate tests to examine associations between demographic, clinical, and organizational factors and likelihood of acceptance. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals involved in hospice admissions decisions MAIN MEASURES: Likelihood of acceptance to hospice care KEY RESULTS: N=495 (76% female, 53% age 45-64). Likelihoods of acceptance in cystic fibrosis were 79.8% (high-cost, high-complexity), 92.4% (low-cost, high-complexity), and 91.5% (low-cost, low-complexity), and in heart failure were 65.9% (high-cost, high-complexity), 87.3% (low-cost, high-complexity), and 96.6% (low-cost, low-complexity). For both heart failure and cystic fibrosis, respondents were less likely to accept the high-cost, high-complexity patient than the low-cost, high-complexity patient (65.9% vs. 87.3%, 79.8% vs. 92.4%, both p<0.001). For heart failure, respondents were less likely to accept the low-cost, high-complexity patient than the low-cost, low-complexity patient (87.3% vs. 96.6%, p=0.004). Treatment cost was the most common barrier for 5 of 6 vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients receiving expensive and/or complex treatments for palliation may have difficulty accessing hospice.

Primary Palliative Care Improves Uptake of Advance Care Planning Among Patients With Advanced Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care specialists are experts in conducting advance care planning (ACP) but are a limited resource. Oncology nurses often have special relationships with their patients and thus may be poised to provide primary palliative care. We sought to determine the impact of a nurse-led primary palliative care intervention on ACP uptake among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial examining the impact of nurse-based primary palliative care. In the parent trial, patients with advanced cancer received either monthly primary palliative care visits with trained nurses within their cancer center or standard care. Nurses in the intervention arm received special training in ACP. ACP uptake was assessed at enrollment and 3 months later evaluating (1) whether an end-of-life conversation (EOLC) occurred with one's oncologist, and (2) completion of an advance directive (AD). Multivariable logistic regression tested differences in ACP uptake by treatment arm adjusted for age, religious importance, education, time with current oncologist, and performance status. RESULTS: Of 672 patients enrolled, 182/336 (54%) patients in the intervention arm and 196/336 (58%) in the standard care arm lacked an EOLC at baseline and completed the 3-month assessment. Of those, 82/182 (45.1%) patients in the intervention arm and 29/196 (14.8%) in the standard care arm reported having an EOLC at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio, 5.28; 95% CI, 3.10-8.97; P<.001). Similarly, 111/336 (33%) patients in the intervention arm and 105/336 (31%) in the standard care arm lacked an AD at baseline and completed the 3-month assessment. Of those, 48/111 (43.2%) patients in the intervention arm and 19/105 (18.1%) in the standard care arm completed an AD over the study period (adjusted odds ratio, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.89-7.16; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led primary palliative care increased ACP uptake among patients with advanced cancer. Training oncology nurses embedded within community cancer centers to provide primary palliative care may help improve ACP access.

Hope and advance care planning in advanced cancer: Is there a relationship?

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often cite a fear of giving up hope as a reason they defer advance care planning (ACP) among patients with advanced cancer. The objective of this study was to determine whether engagement in ACP affects hope in these patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of primary palliative care in advanced cancer. Patients who had not completed ACP at baseline were included in the analysis. ACP was assessed in the forms of an end-of-life (EOL) conversation with one's oncologist and completion of a living will or advance directive (AD). Measurements were obtained at baseline and at 3 months. Hope was measured using the Herth Hope Index (HHI) (range, 12-48; higher scores indicate higher hope). Multivariate regression was performed to assess associations between ACP and hope, controlling for baseline HHI score, study randomization, patient age, religious importance, education, marital status, socioeconomic status, time since cancer diagnosis, pain/symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), and anxiety/depression score (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale)-all variables known to be associated with ACP and/or hope. RESULTS: In total, 672 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled in the overall study. The mean age was 69 ± 10 years, and the most common cancer types were lung cancer (36%), gastrointestinal cancer (20%) and breast/gynecologic cancers (16%). In this group, 378 patients (56%) had not had an EOL conversation at baseline, of whom 111 of 378 (29%) reported having an EOL conversation by 3 months. Hope was not different between patients who did or did not have an EOL conversation over the study period (mean ± standard deviation ∆HHI, 0.20 ± 5.32 vs -0.53 ± 3.80, respectively; P = .136). After multivariable adjustment, hope was significantly increased in patients who had engaged in an EOL conversation (adjusted mean difference in ∆HHI, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.08-1.82; P = .032). Similarly, of 216 patients (32%) without an AD at baseline, 67 (31%) had subsequently completed an AD. Unadjusted hope was not different between those who did and did not complete an AD (∆HHI, 0.20 ± 3.89 vs -0.91 ± 4.50, respectively; P = .085). After adjustment, hope was significantly higher in those who completed an AD (adjusted mean difference in ∆HHI, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.13-2.49; P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: The current results demonstrate that hope is not decreased after engagement in ACP and indeed may be increased. These findings may provide reassurance to clinicians who are apprehensive about having these important and difficult conversations. LAY SUMMARY: Many oncologists defer advance care planning (ACP) out of concern for giving up hope. This study demonstrates that hope is not decreased in patients who have engaged in ACP either as a conversation with their oncologists or by completing an advance directive. With this information, providers may feel more comfortable having these important conversations with their patients.

A Randomized Trial of a Family-Support Intervention in Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate decision makers for incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle with decisions related to goals of care. Such decisions cause psychological distress in surrogates and may lead to treatment that does not align with patients' preferences. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial involving patients with a high risk of death and their surrogates in five intensive care units (ICUs) to compare a multicomponent family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team with usual care. The primary outcome was the surrogates' mean score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 6 months (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms). Prespecified secondary outcomes were the surrogates' mean scores on the Impact of Event Scale (IES; scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), the Quality of Communication (QOC) scale (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better clinician-family communication), and a modified Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC) scale (scores range from 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating more patient- and family-centered care), as well as the mean length of ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 1420 patients were enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group in the surrogates' mean HADS score at 6 months (11.7 and 12.0, respectively; beta coefficient, -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.67 to 0.99; P=0.61) or mean IES score (21.2 and 20.3; beta coefficient, 0.90; 95% CI, -1.66 to 3.47; P=0.49). The surrogates' mean QOC score was better in the intervention group than in the control group (69.1 vs. 62.7; beta coefficient, 6.39; 95% CI, 2.57 to 10.20; P=0.001), as was the mean modified PPPC score (1.7 vs. 1.8; beta coefficient, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.04; P=0.006). The mean length of stay in the ICU was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (6.7 days vs. 7.4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00; P=0.045), a finding mediated by the shortened mean length of stay in the ICU among patients who died (4.4 days vs. 6.8 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.78; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients and their surrogates, a family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team did not significantly affect the surrogates' burden of psychological symptoms, but the surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication and the patient- and family-centeredness of care were better and the length of stay in the ICU was shorter with the intervention than with usual care. (Funded by the UPMC Health System and the Greenwall Foundation; PARTNER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844492 .).

Gynecologic oncology providers endorse practice-changing impact of communication skills training.

OBJECTIVE: Effective communication improves patient outcomes and is crucial to good patient care. Communication skills training (CST) has been shown to improve communication skills in non-gynecologic oncology specialties. We sought to develop and test CST for gynecologic oncology (GO) providers. METHODS: We developed and conducted a two-day CST workshop with an interprofessional group of 20 GO providers over two years. Participants were surveyed pre-workshop, immediately post-workshop and one month post-workshop regarding self-assessed preparedness to handle challenging communication tasks, workshop evaluation and impact on practice. McNemar's tests were used for pre-post comparisons. RESULTS: Of 12 challenging communication tasks assessed, all participants reported improvement in at least one, with a median of 10. The proportion of participants feeling more than "somewhat prepared" improved significantly for all communication tasks assessed (p < 0.05); improvement was sustained one month later. One month post-workshop, 86% reported thinking about what they had been taught at least weekly and 93% reported encountering situations where they used their CST skills at least weekly. Rates of reported practice-changing impact were >75% for each communication skill. All participants rated the CST educational quality very good or excellent and strongly agreed it should be required of all GO clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Participants felt the workshop provided high-quality, practice-changing education. As a result of the workshop, participants reported statistically significant, sustained improvement in preparedness to handle challenging communication tasks. CST for GO providers is feasible, with high rates of perceived effectiveness and impact on clinical practice. CST workshops should be integrated into GO training.

"Why Would I Choose Death?": A Qualitative Study of Patient Understanding of the Role and Limitations of Cardiac Devices.

BACKGROUND: Although cardiology organizations recommend early introduction of palliative care for patients with heart failure (HF), integration has remained challenging, particularly in patients with cardiac devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices and left ventricular assist devices. Study authors suggest that patients often have limited and erroneous understanding of these devices and their implications for future care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess perceptions of cardiac devices in patients with HF and how these perceptions impacted advance care planning and future expectations. METHODS: This study used qualitative semistructured interviews with 18 community-dwelling patients with New York Heart Association stage II to IV HF. RESULTS: We interviewed 18 patients (mean ejection fraction, 38%; mean age, 64 years; 33% female; 83% white; 39% New York Heart Association class II, 39% class III, and 22% class IV). All had a cardiac implantable electronic device (6% permanent pacemaker, 56% implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 28% biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator); 11% had left ventricular assist devices. Patients with devices frequently misunderstood the impact of their device on cardiac function. A majority expressed the belief that the device would forestall further deterioration, regardless of whether this was the case. This anticipation of stability was often accompanied by the expectation that emerging technologies would continue to preempt decline. Citing this faith in technology, these patients frequently saw limited value in advance care planning. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, patients with cardiac devices overestimated the impact of their devices on preventing disease progression and death and deprioritized advance care planning as a result.

How do clinicians prepare family members for the role of surrogate decision-maker?

PURPOSE: Although surrogate decision-making (SDM) is prevalent in intensive care units (ICUs) and concerns with decision quality are well documented, little is known about how clinicians help family members understand the surrogate role. We investigated whether and how clinicians provide normative guidance to families regarding how to function as a surrogate. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We audiorecorded and transcribed 73 ICU family conferences in which clinicians anticipated discussing goals of care for incapacitated patients at high risk of death. We developed and applied a coding framework to identify normative statements by clinicians regarding what considerations should guide surrogates' decisions, including whether clinicians explained one or more of Buchanan and Brock's three standard principles of SDM to family members. RESULTS: Clinicians made at least one statement about how to perform the surrogate role in 24 (34%) conferences (mean of 0.83 statements per conference (1.77; range 0-9)). We observed three general types of normative guidance provided to surrogates, with some conferences containing more than one type of guidance: counselling about one or more standard principles of SDM (24% of conferences); counselling surrogates to make decisions centred on the patient as a person, without specifying how to accomplish that (14% of conferences); and counselling surrogates to make decisions based on the family's values (8% of conferences). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians did not provide normative guidance about the surrogate role in two-thirds of family conferences for incapacitated patients at high risk for death. When they did, clinicians' guidance was often incomplete and sometimes conflicted with standard principles of SDM. Future work is needed to understand whether providing explicit guidance on how to perform the surrogate role improves decision-making or mitigates surrogates' psychological distress.

Teaching Medical Educators How to Teach Communication Skills: More than a Decade of Experience.

OBJECTIVES: Although opportunities exist for medical educators to gain additional training in teaching, literature that describes how to teach educators to teach communication skills to trainees is limited. The authors developed and evaluated a faculty development course that uses didactics, demonstration, drills, and role-play in a small-group format. METHODS: The course has been offered through the Institute for Clinical Research Education at the University of Pittsburgh for almost 15 years. Course effectiveness was evaluated with a survey of 62 clinicians who completed the course between 2003 and 2012. RESULTS: The response rate was 85%. A total of 98% would recommend the course to a colleague and 98% indicated the course was effective at developing teaching techniques. Their use of standardized patients, teaching in small groups, and role-play increased as a result of participation in the course. A total of 70% went on to formally teach communication skills at various medical education levels. CONCLUSIONS: This structured course effectively taught participants how to teach patient-doctor communication in both classroom and clinical settings. The majority put these techniques to use in formal settings. This course also provided educators with the skills necessary to meet the growing needs of training programs charged with teaching the next generation of providers to effectively communicate with patients. The description presented can serve as a framework for faculty development in teaching communication.

Reconsidering the Language of Serious Illness.

This Viewpoint expresses how use of certain language complicates decision-making for critically ill patients, and it highlights alternative phrasing for effective communication.

Storytelling in the Early Bereavement Period to Reduce Emotional Distress Among Surrogates Involved in a Decision to Limit Life Support in the ICU: A Pilot Feasibility Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Surrogate decision makers involved in decisions to limit life support for an incapacitated patient in the ICU have high rates of adverse emotional health outcomes distinct from normal processes of grief and bereavement. Narrative self-disclosure (storytelling) reduces emotional distress after other traumatic experiences. We sought to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability of storytelling among bereaved surrogates involved in a decision to limit life support in the ICU. DESIGN: Pilot single-blind trial. SETTING: Five ICUs across three hospitals within a single health system between June 2013 and November 2014. SUBJECTS: Bereaved surrogates of ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: Storytelling and control conditions involved printed bereavement materials and follow-up assessments. Storytelling involved a single 1- to 2-hour home or telephone visit by a trained interventionist who elicited the surrogate's story. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes were feasibility (rates of enrollment, intervention receipt, 3- and 6-mo follow-up), acceptability (closed and open-ended end-of-study feedback at 6 mo), and tolerability (acute mental health services referral). Of 53 eligible surrogates, 32 (60%) consented to treatment allocation. Surrogates' mean age was 55.5 (SD, 11.8), and they were making decisions for their parent (47%), spouse (28%), sibling (13%), child (3%), or other relation (8%). We allocated 14 to control and 18 to storytelling, 17 of 18 (94%) received storytelling, 14 of 14 (100%) and 13 of 14 (94%) control subjects and 16 of 18 (89%) and 17 of 18 (94%) storytelling subjects completed their 3- and 6-month telephone assessments. At 6 months, nine of 13 control participants (69%) and 16 of 17 storytelling subjects (94%) reported feeling "better" or "much better," and none felt "much worse." One control subject (8%) and one storytelling subject (6%) said that the study was burdensome, and one control subject (8%) wished they had not participated. No subjects required acute mental health services referral. CONCLUSION: A clinical trial of storytelling in this study population is feasible, acceptable, and tolerable.

Conflict Management Strategies in the ICU Differ Between Palliative Care Specialists and Intensivists.

OBJECTIVES: Conflict is common between physicians and surrogate decision makers around end-of-life care in ICU. Involving experts in conflict management improve outcomes, but little is known about what differences in conflict management styles may explain the benefit. We used simulation to examine potential differences in how palliative care specialists manage conflict with surrogates about end-of-life treatment decisions in ICUs compared with intensivists. DESIGN: Subjects participated in a high-fidelity simulation of conflict with a surrogate in an ICU. In this simulation, a medical actor portrayed a surrogate decision maker during an ICU family meeting who refuses to follow an advance directive that clearly declines advanced life-sustaining therapies. We audiorecorded the simulation encounters and applied a coding framework to quantify conflict management behaviors, which was organized into two categories: task-focused communication and relationship building. We used negative binomial modeling to determine whether there were differences between palliative care specialists' and intensivists' use of task-focused communication and relationship building. SETTING: Single academic medical center ICU. SUBJECTS: Palliative care specialists and intensivists. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 11 palliative care specialists and 25 intensivists. The palliative care specialists were all attending physicians. The intensivist group consisted of 11 attending physicians, 9 pulmonary and critical care fellows, and 5 internal medicine residents rotating in the ICU. We excluded five residents from the primary analysis in order to reduce confounding due to training level. Physicians' mean age was 37 years with a mean of 8 years in practice. Palliative care specialists used 55% fewer task-focused communication statements (incidence rate ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83; p = 0.005) and 48% more relationship-building statements (incidence rate ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.89-2.46; p = 0.13) compared with intensivists. CONCLUSIONS: We found that palliative care specialists engage in less task-focused communication when managing conflict with surrogates compared with intensivists. These differences may help explain the benefit of palliative care involvement in conflict and could be the focus of interventions to improve clinicians' conflict resolution skills.