Implementing the Serious Illness Care Program in Safety Net Health Systems: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: Interventions to improve the quality of care for people affected by serious illness commonly fail to reach patients from marginalized and underserved communities, which include those characterized by racialized or indigenous identity, sexual and gender minority status, and rural living. Interventions to improve care through serious illness conversations have demonstrated benefit, but little is known about their implementation in health systems that predominantly serve these patient groups. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to understand factors influencing implementation of a serious illness communication-focused intervention-the Serious Illness Care Program in health systems who primarily provide care to marginalized and underserved communities. METHODS: Qualitative interviews (16) and focus groups (3) were conducted with 19 interdisciplinary team members from six geographically diverse U.S. healthcare systems. Using a template analysis approach, investigators coded data inductively and deductively to identify themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: patient factors, intervention elements, and health system contextual factors. Participants highlighted mission-driven efforts, creativity, interprofessional practice, and trainees as enablers of success. They identified weaknesses in the intervention's communication tool-the Serious Illness Conversation Guide as barriers to implementation of conversations. Resource constraints, socio-economic vulnerability, and mistrust in the health system were seen as additional barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems that provide care to underserved and marginalized communities face unique challenges implementing the Serious Illness Care Program. They also possess assets, some unique to these settings, that support program adoption. Findings suggest that implementation of similar programs in low-resource healthcare settings may help address unmet needs among marginalized populations.

Core Competencies for Serious Illness Conversations: An Integrative Systematic Review.

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.

Core elements of serious illness conversations: an integrative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ariadne 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. AIM: This integrative systematic review aimed to identify and describe core elements of serious illness conversations in relation to the SICP and/or SICG. DESIGN: Literature 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: Core 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.

Breaking the Cycle: Using Serious Illness Communication to Optimize Care Transition Planning in Serious Illness.

It is widely recognized that many older adults in their last year of life will cycle between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities-a phenomenon described as "rehabbing to death." Several strategies to address this complex problem have been proposed, including developing and testing serious illness communication models to provide goal-concordant care by aligning what matters most to patients with how they spend their time in the last months of life. Serious illness communication (SIC) includes structured skills clinicians can use with patients and caregivers to assess illness understanding, goals and values, share information, and make recommendations. Despite the potential of SIC models, there is a lack of literature focused on developing and testing SIC strategies in the context of care transition planning for older adults with serious illness. Our interprofessional team developed "Rehabbing to Death: Practical Strategies to Optimize Care Transitions for Patients with Serious Illness," an evidence-based, interprofessional SIC training curriculum for hospital-based rehabilitation clinicians. This 3-session curriculum was designed to enable rehabilitation clinicians to acquire knowledge of trajectories and outcomes for patients living with serious illness and communication skills to use with patients, families, and interprofessional colleagues. Nine rehabilitation clinicians (n = 3 equally from Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech-Language Pathology) participated in our pilot. Sessions were highly attended [100% (n = 9) sessions 1 and 2, 89% (n = 8) session 3]. Participants who completed the curriculum reported increased self-rated confidence in knowledge of serious illness and ability to communicate prognostic information and recommendations for care transitions with patients, families, and colleagues. In addition, 78% of participants would recommend the curriculum to a colleague and strongly agreed that curricular content and skills were relevant to their clinical practice. Pilot results suggest that implementing an SIC curriculum for hospital-based rehabilitation clinicians is feasible, given high rates of completion and satisfaction.

Lessons Learned About System-Level Improvement in Serious Illness Communication: A Qualitative Study of Serious Illness Care Program Implementation in Five Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness communication is a key element of high-quality care, but it is difficult to implement in practice. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted intervention that contributes to more, earlier, and better serious illness conversations and improved patient outcomes. This qualitative study examined the organizational and implementation factors that influenced improvement in real-world contexts. METHODS: The authors performed semistructured interviews of 30 health professionals at five health systems that adopted SICP as quality improvement initiatives to investigate the organizational and implementation factors that appeared to influence improvement. RESULTS: After SICP implementation across the organizations studied, approximately 4,661 clinicians have been trained in serious illness communication and 56,712 patients had had an electronic health record (EHR)-documented serious illness conversation. Facilitators included (1) visible support from leaders, who financially invested in an implementation team and champions, expressed the importance of serious illness communication as an institutional priority, and created incentives for training and documenting serious illness conversations; (2) EHR and data infrastructure to foster performance improvement and accountability, including an accessible documentation template, a reporting system, and customized data feedback for clinicians; and (3) communication skills training and sustained support for clinicians to problem-solve communication challenges, reflect on communication experiences, and adapt the intervention. Inhibitors included leadership inaction, competing priorities and incentives, variable clinician acceptance of EHR and data tools, and inadequate support for clinicians after training. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation appeared to rely on multilevel organizational strategies to prioritize, reward, and reinforce serious illness communication. The insights derived from this research may function as an organizational road map to guide implementation of SICP or related quality initiatives.

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

OBJECTIVE: Communication about patients' values, goals, and prognosis in serious illness (serious illness communication) is a cornerstone of person-centered care yet difficult to implement in practice. As part of Serious Illness Care Program implementation in five health systems, we studied the clinical culture-related factors that supported or impeded improvement in serious illness conversations. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews of clinical leaders, implementation teams, and frontline champions. RESULTS: We completed 30 interviews across palliative care, oncology, primary care, and hospital medicine. Participants identified four culture-related domains that influenced serious illness communication improvement: (1) clinical paradigms; (2) interprofessional empowerment; (3) perceived conversation impact; (4) practice norms. Changes in clinicians' beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in these domains supported values and goals conversations, including: shifting paradigms about serious illness communication from 'end-of-life planning' to 'knowing and honoring what matters most to patients;' improvements in psychological safety that empowered advanced practice clinicians, nurses and social workers to take expanded roles; experiencing benefits of earlier values and goals conversations; shifting from avoidant norms to integration norms in which earlier serious illness discussions became part of routine processes. Culture-related inhibitors included: beliefs that conversations are about dying or withdrawing care; attitudes that serious illness communication is the physician's job; discomfort managing emotions; lack of reliable processes. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of clinical culture, such as paradigms about serious illness communication and inter-professional empowerment, are linked to successful adoption of serious illness communication. Further research is warranted to identify effective strategies to enhance clinical culture and drive clinician practice change.

Acceptability of a Serious Illness Conversation Guide to Black Americans: Results from a focus group and oncology pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Serious illness conversations (SICs) can improve the experience and well-being of patients with advanced cancer. A structured Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) has been shown to improve oncology patient outcomes but was developed and tested in a predominantly White population. To help address disparities in advanced cancer care, we aimed to assess the acceptability of the SICG among African Americans with advanced cancer and their clinicians. METHODS: A two-phase study conducted in Charleston, SC, included focus groups to gather perspectives on the SICG in Black Americans and a single-arm pilot study of a revised SICG with surveys and qualitative exit interviews to evaluate patient and clinician perspectives. We used descriptive analysis of survey results and thematic analysis of qualitative data. RESULTS: Community-based and patient focus group participants (N = 20) reported that a simulated conversation using an adapted SICG built connection, promoted control, and fostered consideration of religious faith and family. Black patients with advanced cancer (N = 23) reported that SICG-guided conversations were acceptable, helpful, and promoted conversations with loved ones. Oncologists found conversations feasible to implement and skill-building, and also identified opportunities for training and implementation that could support meeting the needs of their patients with low health literacy. An adapted SICG includes language to assess the strength and affirm the clinician-patient relationship. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: An adapted structured communication tool to facilitate SIC, the SICG, appears acceptable to Black Americans with advanced cancer and seems feasible for use by oncology clinicians working with this population. Further testing in other marginalized populations may address disparities in advanced cancer care.

Serious Illness Care Programme-contextual factors and implementation strategies: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Serious Illness Care Programme (SICP) is a multicomponent evidence-based intervention that improves communication about patients' values and goals in serious illness. We aim to characterise implementation strategies for programme delivery and the contextual factors that influence implementation in three 'real-world' health system SICP initiatives. METHODS: We employed a qualitative thematic framework analysis of field notes collected during the first 1.5 years of implementation and a fidelity survey. RESULTS: Analysis revealed empiric evidence about implementation and institutional context. All teams successfully implemented clinician training and an electronic health record (EHR) template for documentation of serious illness conversations. When training was used as the primary strategy to engage clinicians, however, clinician receptivity to the programme and adoption of conversations remained limited due to clinical culture-related barriers (eg, clinicians' attitudes, motivations and practice environment). Visible leadership involvement, champion facilitation and automated EHR-based data feedback on documented conversations appeared to improve adoption. Implementing these strategies depended on contextual factors, including leadership support at the specialty level, champion resources and capacity, and EHR capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems need multifaceted implementation strategies to move beyond the limited impact of clinician training in driving improvement in serious illness conversations. These include EHR-based data feedback, involvement of specialty leaders to message the programme and align incentives, and local champions to problem-solve frontline challenges longitudinally. Implementation of these strategies depended on a favourable institutional context. Greater attention to the influence of contextual factors and implementation strategies may enable sustained improvements in serious illness conversations at scale.

Clinician perspectives on machine learning prognostic algorithms in the routine care of patients with cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Oncologists may overestimate prognosis for patients with cancer, leading to delayed or missed conversations about patients' goals and subsequent low-quality end-of-life care. Machine learning algorithms may accurately predict mortality risk in cancer, but it is unclear how oncology clinicians would use such algorithms in practice. METHODS: The purpose of this qualitative study was to assess oncology clinicians' perceptions on the utility and barriers of machine learning prognostic algorithms to prompt advance care planning. Participants included medical oncology physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) practicing in tertiary and community practices within a large academic healthcare system. Transcripts were coded and analyzed inductively using NVivo software. RESULTS: The study included 29 oncology clinicians (19 physicians, 10 APPs) across 6 practice sites (1 tertiary, 5 community) in the USA. Fourteen participants had previously had exposure to an automated machine learning-based prognostic algorithm as part of a pragmatic randomized trial. Clinicians believed that there was utility for algorithms in validating their own intuition about prognosis and prompting conversations about patient goals and preferences. However, this enthusiasm was tempered by concerns about algorithm accuracy, over-reliance on algorithm predictions, and the ethical implications around disclosure of an algorithm prediction. There was significant variation in tolerance for false positive vs. false negative predictions. CONCLUSION: While oncologists believe there are applications for advanced prognostic algorithms in routine care of patients with cancer, they are concerned about algorithm accuracy, confirmation and automation biases, and ethical issues of prognostic disclosure.

Development, Implementation, and Outcomes of a Serious Illness Care Community of Practice.

CONTEXT: Communities of Practice (CoP) can help geographically separated individuals who share a joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a repertoire of tools to gain, maintain, and implement new skills, including serious illness communication. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the health system uptake, implementation and outcomes of the Serious Illness Community of Practice (SICoP). METHODS: Participants included members of the online SICoP, including participants from all 50 states in the United States and 44 countries, interested in implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program. Yearly surveys asked members about their program's composition, completed trainings, number of serious illness conversations, and utilization of the online SICoP tools and resources. RESULTS: Over four years, membership in the SICoP increased from 429 to 1,912, with an estimated 17,785 clinicians trained and 38,945 serious illness conversations conducted. Members have continued to utilize and modify the SICoP resources. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a CoP has contributed to improving the health care system implementation and process outcomes of serious illness communication training. KEY MESSAGE: This article describes the implementation and health system outcomes of a Community of Practice developed to support serious illness communication. The results indicate that the membership of the community grew and that the community supported growth in the number of trained clinicians and the number of serious illness conversations conducted.

Adherence and Concordance between Serious Illness Care Planning Conversations and Oncology Clinician Documentation among Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Background: Serious illness conversations are part of advance care planning (ACP) and focus on prognosis, values, and goals in patients who are seriously ill. To be maximally effective, such conversations must be documented accurately and be easily accessible. Objectives: The two coprimary objectives of the study were to assess concordance between written documentation and recorded audiotaped conversations, and to evaluate adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide questions. Methods: Data were obtained as part of a trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clinicians were trained to use a guide to conduct and document serious illness conversations. Conversations were audiotaped. Two researchers independently compared audiorecordings with the corresponding documentation in an electronic health record (EHR) template and free-text progress notes, and rated the degree of concordance and adherence. Results: We reviewed a total of 25 audiorecordings. Clinicians addressed 87% of the conversation guide elements. Prognosis was discussed least frequently, only in 55% of the patients who wanted that information. Documentation was fully concordant with the conversation 43% of the time. Concordance was best when documenting family matters and goals, and least frequently concordant when documenting prognostic communication. Most conversations (64%) were documented in the template, a minority (28%) only in progress notes and two conversations (8%) were not documented. Concordance was better when the template was used (62% vs. 28%). Conclusion: Clinicians adhered well to the conversation guide. However, key information elicited was documented and fully concordant less than half the time. Greater concordance was observed when clinicians used a prespecified template. The combined use of a guide and EHR template holds promise for ACP conversations.

Communication Tools to Support Advance Care Planning and Hospital Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Design Process.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the medical and social vulnerability of an unprecedented number of people. Consequently, there has never been a more important time for clinicians to engage patients in advance care planning (ACP) discussions about their goals, values, and preferences in the event of critical illness. An evidence-based communication tool-the Serious Illness Conversation Guide-was adapted to address COVID-related ACP challenges using a user-centered design process: convening relevant experts to propose initial guide adaptations; soliciting feedback from key clinical stakeholders from multiple disciplines and geographic regions; and iteratively testing language with patient actors. With feedback focused on sharing risk about COVID-19-related critical illness, recommendations for treatment decisions, and use of person-centered language, the team also developed conversation guides for inpatient and outpatient use. These tools consist of open-ended questions to elicit perception of risk, goals, and care preferences in the event of critical illness, and language to convey prognostic uncertainty. To support use of these tools, publicly available implementation materials were also developed for clinicians to effectively engage high-risk patients and overcome challenges related to the changed communication context, including video demonstrations, telehealth communication tips, and step-by-step approaches to identifying high-risk patients and documenting conversation findings in the electronic health record. Well-designed communication tools and implementation strategies can equip clinicians to foster connection with patients and promote shared decision making. Although not an antidote to this crisis, such high-quality ACP may be one of the most powerful tools we have to prevent or ameliorate suffering due to COVID-19.

Implementing Serious Illness Communication Processes in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Primary care clinicians face barriers to engaging patients in conversations about prognosis, values, and goals ("serious illness conversations"). We introduced a structured, multi-component intervention, the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), to facilitate conversations in the primary care setting. We present findings of a qualitative study to explore practical aspects of program implementation. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews of participating primary care physicians, nurse care coordinators, and social workers and coded transcripts to assess the activities used to integrate SICP into the workflow. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 14 of 46 clinicians from 6 primary care clinics, stopping with thematic saturation. Qualitative analysis revealed major themes around activities in the timing of the conversation (before, during, and after) and overarching insights about the program. Clinicians used a variety of strategies to adapt program components while preserving key program goals, including processes to generate accountability to ensure that conversations happen in busy clinical workflows. The interviews revealed changes to clinicians' mindset and norms, such as the recognition of the need to start conversations earlier in the illness course and the use of more expansive models of prognostic communication that address function and quality of life. Data also revealed indicators of sustainable behavior change and the spread of communication practices to patients outside the intended program scope. CONCLUSION: SICP served as a framework for primary care clinicians to integrate serious illness communication into routine care. The shifts in processes employed by inter-professional clinicians revealed comprehensive models for prognostic communication and creative workflows to ensure that patients with complex illnesses had proactive, longitudinal, and patient-centered serious illness conversations and care planning.

Serious Illness Conversations With Outpatient Oncology Clinicians: Understanding the Patient Experience.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend earlier advance care planning discussions focused on goals and values (serious illness communication) among oncology patients. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional quality improvement evaluation of patients who had a serious illness conversation (SIC) with an oncology clinician using the Serious Illness Conversation Guide to understand patient perceptions of conversations using a structured guide. METHODS: We contacted 66 oncology patients with an SIC documented in the electronic health record. Thirty-two patients (48%) responded to survey and/or structured interview questions by telephone. We used summary statistics and thematic analysis to analyze results. RESULTS: Twenty-eight respondents (90%) reported that the SIC was worthwhile. Seventeen respondents (55%) reported that the conversation increased their understanding of their future health, and 18 (58%) reported that the conversation increased their sense of closeness with their clinician. Although the majority of respondents (28 [90%]) reported that the conversation increased (13 [42%]) or had no effect (15 [48%]) on their hopefulness, a small minority (3 [10%]) reported a decrease in hopefulness. Qualitative analysis revealed 6 themes: clinician-patient relationship, impact on well-being, memorable characteristics of the conversation, improved prognostic understanding, practical planning, and family communication. CONCLUSION: SICs are generally acceptable to oncology patients (nonharmful to the vast majority, positive for many). Our qualitative analysis suggests a positive impact on prognostic understanding and end-of-life planning, but opportunities for improvement in the delivery of prognosis and preparing patients for SICs. Our data also identify a small cohort who responded negatively, highlighting an important area for future study.

Measuring Goal-Concordant Care: Results and Reflections From Secondary Analysis of a Trial to Improve Serious Illness Communication.

CONTEXT: Many consider goal-concordant care (GCC) to be the most important of advance care planning and palliative care. Researchers face significant challenges in attempting to measure this outcome. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of a system-level intervention to improve serious illness communication on GCC and other outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe our measurement approach to GCC, present findings from a post-hoc analysis of trial data, and discuss lessons learned about measuring GCC. METHODS: Using trial data collected to measure GCC, we analyzed ratings and rankings from a nonvalidated survey of patient priorities in the setting of advanced cancer, the Life Priorities Scale, and compared outcomes with correlative measures. RESULTS: Participants commonly rated several predetermined and literature-derived priorities as important but did so in ways that were commonly incongruent with rankings. Ratings were frequently stable over time; rankings less so. Rankings are more likely to help assess the degree to which care is goal concordant but may be best augmented by corollary measures that signal achievement of a given priority. CONCLUSION: Measuring GCC remains a fundamental challenge to palliative care researchers. Ratings attest to the fact that many things matter to patients; however, rankings can better determine what matters most. Insights gained from our experience may guide future research aiming to use this outcome to assess the effect of intervention to improve serious illness care.

Quality of clinicians' conversations with patients and families before and after implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program in a hospital setting: a retrospective chart review study.

BACKGROUND: Seriously 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). METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: The 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). INTERPRETATION: Implementation 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.

A systematic intervention to improve serious illness communication in primary care: Effect on expenses at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: At a population level, conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients exploring patients' goals and values can drive high-value healthcare, improving patient outcomes and reducing spending. METHODS: We examined the impact of a quality improvement intervention to drive better communication on total medical expenses in a high-risk care management program. We present our analysis of secondary expense outcomes from a prospective implementation trial of the Serious Illness Care Program, which includes clinician training, coaching, tools, and system interventions. We included patients who died between January 2014 and September 2016 who were selected for serious illness conversations, using the "Surprise Question," as part of implementation of the program in fourteen primary care clinics. RESULTS: We evaluated 124 patients and observed no differences in total medical expenses between intervention and comparison clinic patients. When comparing patients in intervention clinics who did and did not have conversations, we observed lower average monthly expenses over the last 6 ($6297 vs. $8,876, p = 0.0363) and 3 months ($7263 vs. $11,406, p = 0.0237) of life for patients who had conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Possible savings observed in this study are similar in magnitude to previous studies in advance care planning and specialty palliative care but occur earlier in the disease course and in the context of documented conversations and a comprehensive, interprofessional case management program. IMPLICATIONS: Programs designed to drive more, earlier, and better serious illness communication hold the potential to reduce costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospectively designed trial, non-randomized sample, analysis of secondary outcomes.

Patient and clinician experience of a serious illness conversation guide in oncology: A descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Oncology guidelines recommend earlier communication with patients about prognosis and goals-of-care in serious illness. However, current evidence leaves gaps in our understanding of the experience of these conversations. This analysis evaluates the patient and clinician experience of a conversation using a Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG). DESIGN/SETTING: Secondary analysis from a cluster-randomized clinical trial in a northeastern cancer center. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and patients with advanced cancer who received the intervention. INTERVENTION: SICG, clinician training, systems-changes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The patient questionnaire assessed perceptions of the conversation and impact on anxiety, hopefulness, peacefulness, sense of control over medical decisions, closeness with their clinician, and behaviors. The clinician questionnaire assessed feasibility, acceptability, and impact on satisfaction in their role. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 clinicians and 163 patients; 41 clinicians and 118 patients had a SICG discussion. Most patients described the conversation as worthwhile (79%) and reported no change or improvement in their sense of peacefulness, hopefulness, and anxiety (on average 79%); 56% reported feeling closer with their clinician. Qualitative patient data described positive behavior changes, including enhanced planning for future care and increased focus on personal priorities. Nearly 90% of clinicians agreed that the SICG facilitated timely, effective conversations, and 70% reported increased satisfaction in their role. CONCLUSION: Conversations using a SICG were feasible, acceptable, and were associated with positive experiences for both patients and clinicians in oncology in ways that align with national recommendations for serious illness communication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01786811 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01786811.