Serious illness care Programme UK: assessing the 'face validity', applicability and relevance of the serious illness conversation guide for use within the UK health care setting.

BACKGROUND: When doctors have honest conversations with patients about their illness and involve them in decisions about their care, patients express greater satisfaction with care and lowered anxiety and depression. The Serious Illness Care Programme (the Programme), originally developed in the United States (U.S), promotes meaningful, realistic and focused conversations about patient's wishes, fears and worries for the future with their illness. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (the guide) provides a framework to structure these conversations. The aim of this paper is to present findings from a study to examine the 'face validity', acceptability and relevance of the Guide for use within the United Kingdom (UK) health care setting. METHODS: A multi-stage approach was undertaken, using three separate techniques: 1. Nominal Group Technique with clinician 'expert groups' to review the Serious Illness Conversation Guide: 14 'experts' in Oncology, Palliative Care and Communication Skills; 2. Cognitive Interviews with 6 patient and public representatives, using the 'think aloud technique'; to explore the cognitive processes involved in answering the questions in the guide, including appropriateness of language, question wording and format 3. Final stakeholder review and consensus. RESULTS: Nominal Group Technique Unanimous agreement the conversation guide could provide a useful support to clinicians. Amendments are required but should be informed directly from the cognitive interviews. Training highlighted as key to underpin the use of the guide. Cognitive interviews The 'holistic' attention to the person as a whole was valued rather than a narrow focus on their disease. Some concern was raised regarding the 'formality' of some wording however and suggestions for amendments were made. Final stakeholder review Stakeholders agreed amendments to 5/13 prompts and unanimously agreed the UK guide should be implemented as a part of the pilot implementation of the Serious Illness Care Programme UK. CONCLUSION: Use of the guide has the potential to benefit patients, facilitating a 'person-centred' approach to these important conversations, and providing a framework to promote shared decision making and care planning. Further research is ongoing, to understand the impact of these conversations on patients, families and clinicians and on concordance of care delivery with expressed patient wishes.

Multi-professional-delivered enhanced supportive care improves quality of life for patients with incurable cancer.

BACKGROUND:: Enhanced supportive care (ESC) promotes the earlier implementation of supportive care within cancer care. While earlier supportive care has been demonstrated to improve patient outcomes, the model of delivery is variable. The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre has developed a multi-professional delivered model with clinical nurse specialists providing ongoing patient review and care. METHOD:: A retrospective single-system design was used to assess longitudinal changes in Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) scores as indicators of quality of life. For other outcomes, a retrospective case control analysis was undertaken. RESULTS:: Statistically significant improvements in all IPOS scores were observed for patients attending ESC. Compared to controls, quantitative outcomes included prolonged survival and reduced chemotherapy-related mortality. Multi-professional delivered ESC successfully improves quality of life and outcomes.

Earlier identification of seriously ill patients: an implementation case series.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the strategies used by a collection of healthcare systems to apply different methods of identifying seriously ill patients for a targeted palliative care intervention to improve communication around goals and values. METHODS: We present an implementation case series describing the experiences, challenges and best practices in applying patient selection strategies across multiple healthcare systems implementing the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP). RESULTS: Five sites across the USA and England described their individual experiences implementing patient selection as part of the SICP. They employed a combination of clinician screens (such as the 'Surprise Question'), disease-specific criteria, existing registries or algorithms as a starting point. Notably, each describes adaptation and evolution of their patient selection methodology over time, with several sites moving towards using more advanced machine learning-based analytical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Involving clinical and programme staff to choose a simple initial method for patient identification is the ideal starting place for selecting patients for palliative care interventions. However, improving and refining methods over time is important and we need ongoing research into better patient selection methodologies that move beyond mortality prediction and instead focus on identifying seriously ill patients-those with poor quality of life, worsening functional status and medical care that is negatively impacting their families.