Increasing goals of care conversations in primary care: Study protocol for a cluster randomized, pragmatic, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care conversations explore seriously ill patients' values to guide medical decision making and often inform decisions about life sustaining treatments. Ideally, conversations occur before a health crisis between patients and clinicians in the outpatient setting. In the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, most conversations still occur in the inpatient setting. Strategies are needed to improve implementation of outpatient, primary care goals of care conversations. METHODS: We plan a cluster randomized (clinician-level) sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patient implementation strategies on the outcome of goals of care conversation documentation when delivered in combination with clinician implementation strategies. Across three VA healthcare system sites, we will enroll primary care clinicians with low rates of goals of care conversations and their patients with serious medical illness in the top 10th percentile of risk of hospitalization or death. We will compare the effectiveness of sequences of implementation strategies and explore how patient and site factors modify implementation strategy effects. Finally, we will conduct a mixed-methods evaluation to understand implementation strategy success or failure. The design includes two key innovations: (1) strategies that target both clinicians and patients and (2) sequential strategies with increased intensity for non-responders. CONCLUSION: This study aims to determine the effect of different sequences and combinations of implementation strategies on primary care documentation of goals of care conversations. Study partners, including the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care and Office of Primary Care, can consider policies based on study findings.

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Virtual Group Advance Care Planning Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the transition from in person to virtual advance care planning (ACP) engagement efforts. This pilot initiative evaluated virtual group visits (GVs) and in-person GVs for ACP to determine their feasibility and effectiveness. METHODS: Participants included patients in a Geriatric Medicine clinic who were referred by their primary care physician to an ACP GVs intervention. The ACP GVs had 2 sessions, led by clinicians with ACP expertise who facilitated a discussion on patients' values, goals, and preferences. Participants were provided with technical assistance to support use of the virtual platform. Evaluation included an ACP readiness survey, post-session feedback, GV observations, and electronic health record review at baseline and a 6 month follow-up for goals of care documentation and advance directives. RESULTS: Seventy patients attended 46 ACP GVs from August 2019 to February 2022, including 16 in-person GVs and 54 virtual GVs. At a 6 month follow-up, for virtual GVs participants (n = 54), goals of care documentation increased from 31% to 93%, and advance directives increased from 22% to 30%. For in-person GVs participants (n = 16), goals of care documentation increased from 25% to 100%, and advance directives increased from 69% to 75%. All surveyed patients in both formats would recommend ACP GVs. CONCLUSION: ACP GVs are feasible and effective for supporting ACP, demonstrating an increase in both goals of care conversations and advance directives completion.

Outcomes of a Multisite Mentored Implementation Approach to Promoting Goals of Care Conversations.

CONTEXT: The Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment (PACT) Project is a multisite quality improvement effort that has been shown to increase the frequency of goals of care (GOC) conversations in hospitalized patients with serious illness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of PACT on goal-discordant care and resource utilization. METHODS: Hospitals enrolled in a multiyear mentored implementation quality improvement initiative to facilitate GOC conversations for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with care discordant with stated preferences, assessed by comparing documented wishes to Medicare claims data for patients who were admitted to intervention units and died over the study period. Secondary outcomes evaluated end-of-life resource utilization by comparing Medicare claims data for intervention patients with propensity score-matched controls. RESULTS: In the 9 hospitals included in the study, 1347 intervention group patients were compared to 4019 in the control group. Rates of discordance between wishes and care were generally low in the intervention group. Compared to the control group, patients in the intervention group had lower costs (-976.05 dollars, P = 0.010), were less likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR 0.9, P = 0.005), less likely to be on a ventilator or undergo CPR or cardioversion, more likely to enroll in hospice (OR 1.81, P < 0.001) and had a longer hospice stay (3.35 more days, P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: A multisite mentored implementation quality improvement intervention for seriously ill hospitalized patients resulted in care aligned with goals and decreased resource utilization at the end of life.

Common mistakes and evidence-based approaches in goals-of-care conversations for seriously ill older adults in cardiac care unit.

For older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses near the end of life, clinicians frequently face difficult decisions about the medical care they provide because of clinical uncertainty. This difficulty is further complicated by unique challenges and medical advancements for patients with advanced heart diseases. In this article, we describe common mistakes encountered by clinicians when having goals-of-care conversations (e.g. conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients/surrogates to discuss patient's values and goals for clinical care near the end of life.). Then, we delineate an evidence-based approach in goals-of-care conversations and highlight the unique challenges around decision-making in the cardiac intensive care unit.

Improve Advance Care Planning: A Brief Report Discussing Goals of Care Interventions to Improve Communication Among Health Care Teams and Patients Maximizing the Use of the Electronic Health Record Tools.

Introduction: A key element of advance care planning (ACP) is the goals of care (GOC) conversation between the provider and the patient. The value of meaningful GOC conversations for the patient, provider, and health care institution is well documented. However, if the GOC documentation is buried in the medical record, not well defined, or poorly documented, that value is squandered. The Improvement Process: Interventions were implemented with oncology physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs). These included education, system reform including improving the ease and consistency of documentation of ACP, and regular feedback. Results: Participants reported increased confidence in communication skills about GOC conversations postworkshops. Data results for the tracked metrics, health care power of attorney, code status, and GOC, all showed improvement. Conclusion: Physicians and NPs recognized the importance of GOC conversations as part of ACP. Considerable progress was made by focusing on GOC conversations, maximizing information technology, participating in coaching, and ongoing data monitoring.

The PACT Project: Feasibility of a Multidisciplinary, Multi-Faceted Intervention to Promote Goals of Care Conversations.

BACKGROUND: Patients living with serious illness generally want their physicians to facilitate Goals of Care conversations (GoCc), yet physicians may lack time and skills to engage in these conversations in the outpatient setting. The problem may be addressed by supporting multiple members of the clinical team to facilitate GoCc with the patient while admitted to the hospital. METHODS: A multi-modal training and mentored implementation program was developed. A group of 10 hospitals were recruited to participate. Each hospital selected a primary inpatient unit on which to start the intervention, then expanded to a secondary unit later in the project. The number of trained facilitators (champions) and the number of documented GoCc were tracked over time. RESULTS: Nine of 10 hospitals completed the 3-year project. Most of the units were general medical-surgical units. Forty-eight champions were trained at the kick-off conference, attended primarily by nurses, physicians, and social workers. By the end of the project, 153 champions had been trained. A total of 51 087 patients were admitted to PACT units with 85.4% being screened for eligibility. Of the patients who were eligible, over 68% had documented GoCc. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted quality improvement intervention focused on serious illness communication skills can support a diverse clinical workforce to facilitate inpatient GoCc over time.

Primary Palliative Care in the Emergency Department and Acute Care Setting.

Amidst a global COVID pandemic, the palliative care community and healthcare systems around the country continue to explore opportunities to improve early patient and family access to end-of-life care resources. They need not look any further than the Emergency Departments (ED) located on their campuses and around their communities for this chance. As advances in medical therapies continue to extend disease specific life expectancies and as the American population continues to age, we will continue to see older adults with chronic medical illnesses visiting the ED in their final stages of life (Smith et al. in Health Aff (Millwood) 31(6):1277-1285, 2012; Albert et al. in NCHS Data Brief 130:1-8, 2013). If the ED is to continue to be the primary portal of hospital entry for patients requiring emergent care for acute and chronic terminal illnesses, then it stands to reason that it should also be equally prepared to provide the earliest access to palliative care and advance care planning resources for patients and families who may want and benefit from these services. This chapter will explore the unique horizon of opportunities that exist for emergency medicine and the palliative care specialty to fulfill this obligation. Discussion will be centered around core principles in screening, assessment, and management of palliative care needs in the ED, importance of goals of care conversations, and the coordination of early palliative care and hospice consults that can facilitate safe transitions of care.

Rural Hospital Disparities in Goals of Care Documentation.

CONTEXT: Goals of care conversations for seriously ill hospitalized patients are associated with high-quality patient-centered care. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the prevalence of documented goals of care conversations for rural hospitalized patients compared to nonrural hospitalized patients. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed goals of care documentation using a template note for adult patients with predicted 90-day mortality greater than 30% admitted to eight rural and nine nonrural community hospitals between July 2021 and April 2023. We compared predictors and prevalence of goals of care documentation among rural and nonrural hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 31,098 patients admitted during the study period, 21% were admitted to a rural hospital. Rural patients were more likely than nonrural patients to be >65 years old (89% vs. 86%, P = <.0001), more likely to live in a neighborhood classified in the highest quintile of socioeconomic disadvantage (40% vs. 16%, P = <.0001), and less likely to receive a palliative care consult (8% vs. 18%, P = <.0001). Goals of care documentation occurred less often for patients admitted to rural vs. nonrural community hospitals (2% vs. 7%, P < .0001). In the base multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for patient characteristics, the odds of goals care documentation were lower in rural vs. nonrural community hospitals (aOR 0.4, P = .0232). In a second multivariable logistic regression model including both patient characteristics and severity of illness, the odds of goals of care documentation in rural community hospitals were no longer statistically different than nonrural community hospitals (aOR 0.5, P = .1080). Patients who received a palliative care consult had a lower prevalence of goals of care documentation in rural vs. nonrural hospitals (16% vs. 37%, P = <.0001). CONCLUSION: In this study of 17 rural and nonrural community hospitals, we found low overall prevalence of goals of care documentation with particularly infrequent documentation occurring within rural hospitals. Future study is needed to assess barriers to goals of care documentation contributing to low prevalence of goals of care conversations in rural hospital settings.

Barriers to advance care planning among patients with advanced serious illnesses: A national survey of health-care professionals in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the barriers that health-care professionals (HCPs) face in having advance care planning (ACP) conversations with patients suffering from advanced serious illnesses and to provide care consistent with patients' documented preferences. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of HCPs trained in facilitating ACP conversations in Singapore between June and July 2021. HCPs responded to hypothetical vignettes about a patient with an advanced serious illness and rated the importance of barriers (HCP-, patient-, and caregiver-related) in (i) conducting and documenting ACP conversations and (ii) providing care consistent with documented preferences. RESULTS: Nine hundred eleven HCPs trained in facilitating ACP conversations responded to the survey; 57% of them had not facilitated any in the last 1 year. HCP factors were reported as the topmost barriers to facilitating ACP. These included lack of allocated time to have ACP conversations and ACP facilitation being time-consuming. Patient's refusal to engage in ACP conversations and family experiencing difficulty in accepting patient's poor prognosis were the topmost patient- and caregiver-related factors. Non-physician HCPs were more likely than physicians to report being fearful of upsetting the patient/family and lack of confidence in facilitating ACP conversations. About 70% of the physicians perceived caregiver factors (surrogate wanting a different course of treatment and family caregivers being conflicted about patients' care) as barriers to providing care consistent with preferences. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Study findings suggest that ACP conversations be simplified, ACP training framework be improved, awareness regarding ACP among patients, caregivers, and general public be increased, and ACP be made widely accessible.

The Team-Based Serious Illness Care Program, A Qualitative Evaluation of Implementation and Teaming.

CONTEXT: Earlier and more frequent serious illness conversations with patients allow clinical teams to better align care with patients' goals and values. Nonphysician clinicians often have unique perspectives and understanding of patients' wishes and are thus well-positioned to support conversations with seriously ill patients. The Team-based Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) at Stanford aimed to involve all care team members to support and conduct serious illness conversations with patients and their caregivers and families. OBJECTIVES: We conducted interviews with clinicians to understand how care teams implement team-based approaches to conduct serious illness conversations and navigate resulting team complexity. METHODS: We used a rapid qualitative approach to analyze semistructured interviews of clinicians and administrative stakeholders in two team-based SICP implementation groups (i.e., inpatient oncology and hospital medicine) (n = 25). Analysis was informed by frameworks/theory: cross-disciplinary role agreement, team formation and functioning, and organizational theory. RESULTS: Implementing team-based SICP was feasible. Theme 1 centered on how teams formed and managed to come to an agreement: teams with rapidly changing staffing/responsibilities prioritized communication, whereas teams with consistent staffing/responsibilities primarily relied on protocols. Theme 2 demonstrated that leaders and managers at multiple levels could support implementation. Theme 3 explored strengths and opportunities. Positively, team-based SICP distributed work burden, timed conversations in alignment with patient needs, and added unique value from nonphysician team members. Role ambiguity and conflict were attributed to miscommunication and ethical conflicts. CONCLUSION: Team-based serious illness communication is viable and valuable, with a range of successful workflow and leadership approaches.

Patients' spiritual concerns and needs and how to address them during advance care planning conversations: Healthcare chaplains' perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations require the consideration of deeply held personal values and beliefs and the discussion of uncertainty, fears, and hopes related to current and future personal healthcare. However, empirical data are limited on how such spiritual concerns and needs are supported during ACP. This study explored board-certified healthcare chaplains' perspectives of patients' spiritual needs and support in ACP conversations. METHODS: An online survey of 563 board-certified chaplains was conducted from March to July 2020. The survey included 3 open-ended questions about patients' hopes and fears and about how the chaplains addressed them during ACP conversations. Written qualitative responses provided by 244 of the chaplains were examined with content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of the 244 chaplains were White (83.6%), female (59%), Protestant (63.1%), and designated to one or more special care units (89.8%). Major themes on patients' hopes and fears expressed during ACP were (1) spiritual, religious, and existential questions; (2) suffering, peace, and comfort; (3) focus on the present; (4) hopes and fears for family; and (5) doubt and distrust. Major themes on how chaplains addressed them were (1) active listening to explore and normalize fears, worries, and doubts; (2) conversations to integrate faith, values, and preferences into ACP; and (3) education, empowerment, and advocacy. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: ACP conversations require deep listening and engagement to address patients' spiritual needs and concerns - an essential dimension of engaging in whole-person care - and should be delivered with an interdisciplinary approach to fulfill the intended purpose of ACP.

Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED): a protocol for an implementation study in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence supports the use of structured goals of care conversations and documentation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) preferences in durable, accessible, and actionable orders to improve the care for people living with serious illness. As the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides an excellent environment to test implementation strategies that promote this evidence-based practice. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) program seeks to improve care outcomes for seriously ill Veterans by supporting efforts to conduct goals of care conversations, systematically document LST preferences, and ensure timely and accurate communication about preferences across VA and non-VA settings. METHODS: PERSIVED encompasses two separate but related implementation projects that support the same evidence-based practice. Project 1 will enroll 12 VA Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) programs and Project 2 will enroll six VA Community Nursing Home (CNH) programs. Both projects begin with a pre-implementation phase during which data from diverse stakeholders are gathered to identify barriers and facilitators to adoption of the LST evidence-based practice. This baseline assessment is used to tailor quality improvement activities using audit with feedback and implementation facilitation during the implementation phase. Site champions serve as the lynchpin between the PERSIVED project team and site personnel. PERSIVED teams support site champions through monthly coaching sessions. At the end of implementation, baseline site process maps are updated to reflect new steps and procedures to ensure timely conversations and documentation of treatment preferences. During the sustainability phase, intense engagement with champions ends, at which point champions work independently to maintain and improve processes and outcomes. Ongoing process evaluation, guided by the RE-AIM framework, is used to monitor Reach, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance outcomes. Effectiveness will be assessed using several endorsed clinical metrics for seriously ill populations. DISCUSSION: The PERSIVED program aims to prevent potentially burdensome LSTs by consistently eliciting and documenting values, goals, and treatment preferences of seriously ill Veterans. Working with clinical operational partners, we will apply our findings to HBPC and CNH programs throughout the national VA healthcare system during a future scale-out period.

Applying the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework to inform implementation of the Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through enhanced decision-making program in the United States Veterans Health Administration.

In 2017, the National Center for Ethics in Health Care for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) commenced national roll-out of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative. This national VA initiative aimed to promote personalized, proactive, patient-driven care for seriously ill Veterans by documenting Veterans' goals and preferences for life-sustaining treatments in a durable electronic health record note template known as the life-sustaining treatment template. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) quality improvement program was created to address the high variation in life-sustaining treatment template completion in VA Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and Community Nursing Home programs. This manuscript describes the program that focuses on improving life sustaining treatment template completion rates amongst HBPC programs. To increase life-sustaining treatment template completion for Veterans receiving care from HBPC programs, the PERSIVED team applies two implementation strategies: audit with feedback and implementation facilitation. The PERSIVED team conducts semi-structured interviews, needs assessments, and process mapping with HBPC programs in order to identify barriers and facilitators to life-sustaining treatment template completion to inform tailored facilitation. Our interview data is analyzed using the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework, which identifies 57 determinants that might influence practice or implementation of interventions. To quickly synthesize and use baseline data to inform the tailored implementation plan, we adapted a rapid analysis process for our purposes. This paper describes a six-step process for conducting and analyzing baseline interviews through applying the TICD that can be applied and adapted by implementation scientists to rapidly inform tailoring of implementation facilitation.

Medical decision making about long-term artificial nutrition after severe stroke: a case report.

Choosing to use a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG tube) for long term artificial nutrition in the setting of inadequate oral intake after stroke is complex because the decision must be made in a relatively short amount of time and prognosis is often uncertain. This case study utilized interviews with attending and resident neurologists, and surrogate medical decision makers in order to examine how neurologists and surrogate medical decision makers approached the decision to either receive a PEG tube or pursue comfort measures after severe stroke in two patients. Although these two patients presented with similar clinical characteristics and faced similar medical decisions, different decisions regarding PEG tube placement were made. Major challenges included physicians who did not agree on prognosis and surrogates who did not agree on whether to place a PEG tube. These cases demonstrate the importance of the role of the surrogate medical decision maker and the necessity of physicians and surrogate medical decision makers approaching the complex decision of PEG tube placement after stroke together. Additionally, these cases highlight the differing views on what defines a good quality of life and show the vital importance of high-quality goals of care conversations about prognosis and quality of life when deciding whether to place a PEG tube after severe stroke.

Effective Goals-of-Care Conversations: From Skills Training to Bedside.

Introduction: Goals-of-care (GOC) conversations are essential to ensure high-quality care for people with serious illness. We developed a simulation experience to train internal medicine residents in GOC conversations near end of life, followed by a real-life GOC conversation as a Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) including direct feedback from participating patients. Methods: The 3-hour simulation session trained teams of two learners each to interact with standardized patients portraying a patient with end-stage heart failure and an accompanying family member. Residents completed pre- and postsurveys regarding their self-assessed abilities and confidence in conducting these conversations. Piloted in 2016, the Mini-CEX was completed in 2017 with 28 residents 3-9 months after simulation. Patients and participating family members were invited to complete an optional, deidentified survey of their experience. Results: From 2015 to 2017, 84 residents completed simulation training. Ninety percent of postsurvey responders felt more prepared to conduct GOC conversations after simulation compared to 42% before training. Eighty percent or more reported confidence in discussing GOC (previously 67%), prognosis (previously 62%), and hospice (previously 49%). Analysis of Mini-CEX scores revealed that the majority of residents' skills were the same or improved compared with their performance in simulation; more than 70% demonstrated improvement in ensuring patients' comfort, displaying empathy, and recognizing/responding to emotion. Almost all patients and families reported feeling heard and satisfied with their conversation with the resident. Discussion: This curriculum was well received, and initial data support its effectiveness in enhancing residents' self-perceived confidence and interpersonal skills in real-world patient encounters.

Advance Care Planning Shared Decision-Making Tools for Non-Cancer Chronic Serious Illness: A Mixed Method Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Shared decision-making tools can facilitate advance care planning and goals of care conversations in non-cancer serious illness. More information on integrating these tools in ambulatory care could better support clinicians and patients/caregivers in these conversations. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated effectiveness and implementation of integrating palliative care shared decision-making tools into ambulatory care for U.S. adults with serious, life-threatening illness and their caregivers. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2000 - May 2020) for quantitative controlled, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and independently assessed risk of bias or study quality. For quantitative trials, we graded strength of evidence for key outcomes: patient/caregiver satisfaction, depression or anxiety, concordance between patient preferences for care and care received, and healthcare utilization, including advance directive documentation. RESULTS: We included 6 quantitative effectiveness randomized, controlled trials and 5 qualitative implementation studies across primary care and specialty populations. Shared decision-making tools all addressed goals-of-care communication or advance care planning. Palliative care shared decision-making tools may be effective for improving patient satisfaction with communication and advance directive documentation. We were unable to draw conclusions about concordance between preferences and care received. Patients and caregivers preferred advance care planning discussions grounded in patient and caregiver experiences with individualized timing. CONCLUSIONS: For non-cancer serious illness, advance care planning shared decision-making tools may improve several outcomes. Future trials should evaluate concordance with care received and other health care utilization. KEY MESSAGE: This mixed-methods review concludes that when integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for serious illness and conditions other than cancer, advance care planning shared decision-making tools may improve patient satisfaction and advance directive documentation.

The Role and Activities of Board-Certified Chaplains in Advance Care Planning.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare chaplains have key roles in providing palliative support to patients and families, and they are well-suited to facilitate advance care planning (ACP). However, empirical data on the roles and responsibilities of chaplains in facilitating ACP are limited. OBJECTIVES: To examine the roles of board-certified healthcare chaplains in ACP in various healthcare settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based self-report survey was conducted with 585 board-certified chaplains recruited from 3 major professional chaplains' organizations in the U.S. The survey data included chaplains' demographic and professional characteristics, their roles and responsibilities, and responses regarding communication and participation with other healthcare team members in facilitating ACP, including experienced barriers. RESULTS: More participants worked in community hospital settings (42%) and academic medical centers (19.6%) than in any other setting. Over 90% viewed ACP as an important part of their work, 70% helped patients complete advance directives, and 90% helped patients discuss their preferences about end-of-life treatments. Many chaplains were not consistently included in team discussions regarding decision-making, although most chaplains reported that they could always find ways to communicate with their teams. CONCLUSION: Professional board-certified chaplains regularly engage in facilitating ACP discussions with patients and families in various healthcare settings. There is a need to recognize and provide systematic support for the role of chaplains in facilitating ACP conversations and to integrate chaplains into routine interdisciplinary team and family meetings.

Pilot of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative Among Veterans With Serious Illness.

BACKGROUND: Prior to national spread, the Department of Veterans Affairs implemented a pilot of the life-sustaining treatment decisions initiative (LSTDI) to promote proactive goals of care conversations (GoCC) with seriously ill patients, including policy and practice standards, an electronic documentation template and order set, and implementation support. AIM: To describe a 2-year pilot of the LSTDI at 4 demonstration sites. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6664 patients who had at least one GoCC. RESULTS: Descriptive statistics characterized patient demographics, goals of care, LST decisions, and risk of hospitalization or mortality among patients with at least one GoCC. Participants were on average 71.4 years old, 93.2% male, 87.1% white, and 64.7% urban; 27.3% died by the end of the pilot period. Fifteen percent lacked decision-making capacity (DMC). Nonmutually exclusive goals included to be cured (7.6%), to prolong life (34%), to improve/maintain quality of life (61.5%), to be comfortable (53%), to obtain support for family/caregiver (8.4%), to achieve life goals (2.1%), and other (10.5%). Many GoCCs resulted in a do not resuscitate (DNR) order (58.8%). Patients without DMC were more likely to have comfort-oriented goals (77.3% vs 48.8%) and a DNR (84% vs 52.6%). Chart abstraction supported content validity of GoCC documentation. CONCLUSION: The pilot demonstrated that standardizing practices for eliciting and documenting GoCCs resulted in customized documentation of goals of care and LST decisions of a large number of seriously ill patients and established the feasibility of spreading standardized practices throughout a large integrated health care system.

Implementing Goals-of-Care Conversations: Lessons From High- and Low-Performing Sites From a VA National Initiative.

CONTEXT: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) National Center for Ethics in Healthcare implemented the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative, including policy and practice standards, clinician communication training, a documentation template, and central implementation support to foster advance care planning via goals-of-care conversations for seriously ill veterans in 2014, spreading nationally to other Veterans Health Affairs (VA) sites in 2017. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to describe the range of early implementation experiences among the pilot sites, and compare them with spread sites that implemented LSTDI about two years later, identifying cross-site best practices and pitfalls. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 32 key stakeholders from 12 sites to identify cross-site best practices and pitfalls related to implementation. RESULTS: Three primary implementation themes emerged: organizational readiness for transformation, importance of champions, and time and resources needed to achieve implementation. Each theme's barriers and facilitators highlighted variability in success based on complexity in terms of vertical hierarchy and horizontal cross-role/cross-clinic relationships. CONCLUSION: Learning health care systems need multilevel interdisciplinary implementation approaches to support communication about serious illness, from broad-based system-level training and education to build communication skills, to focusing on characteristics of successful individual champions who listen to critics and are tenacious in addressing concerns.

Visual process maps to support implementation efforts: a case example.

BACKGROUND: Process mapping is often used in quality improvement work to examine current processes and workflow and to identify areas to intervene to improve quality. Our objective in this paper is to describe process maps as a visual means of understanding modifiable behaviors and activities, in this case example to ensure that goals of care conversations are part of admitting a veteran in long-term care settings. METHODS: We completed site visits to 6 VA nursing homes and reviewed their current admission processes. We conducted interviews to document behaviors and activities that occur when a veteran is referred to a long-term care setting, during admission, and during mandatory VA reassessments. We created visualizations of the data using process mapping approaches. Process maps for each site were created to document the admission activities for each VA nursing home and were reviewed by the research team to identify consistencies across sites and to identify potential opportunities for implementing goals of care conversations. RESULTS: We identified five consistent behaviors that take place when a veteran is referred and admitted in long-term care. These behaviors are assessing, discussing, decision-making, documenting, and re-assessing. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the process maps, it seems feasible that the LST note and order template could be completed along with other routine assessment processes. However, this will require more robust multi-disciplinary collaboration among both prescribing and non-prescribing health care providers. Completing the LST template during the current admission process would increase the likelihood that the template is completed in a timely manner, potentially alleviate the perceived time burden, and help with the provision of veteran-centered care.