Goals-of-Care Decisions by Hospitalized Patients With Advanced Cancer: Missed Clinician Opportunities for Facilitating Shared Decision-Making.

CONTEXT: Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer often face complex, preference-sensitive decisions. How clinicians and patients engage in shared decision-making during goals-of-care discussions is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore decision-making by patients and clinicians during inpatient goals-of-care discussions. METHODS: This is a qualitative study of audio-recorded goals-of-care discussions between hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their clinicians. Grounded theory was used to analyze transcripts. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients participated in goals-of-care discussions with 51 unique clinicians. Nearly half of patients (n = 30) were female and their mean age was 60.1 years (SD = 12.7). A palliative care attending or fellow was present in 58 of the 62 discussions. Decisions centered on three topics: 1) disease-modifying treatments; 2) hospice; and 3) code status. Clinicians' approach to decision-making included the following stages: "information exchange," "deliberation," "making a patient-centered recommendation," and "wrap-up: decisional status." Successful completion of each stage varied by the type of decision. When discussing code status, clinicians missed opportunities to engage patients in information exchange and to wrap up decisional status. By contrast, clinicians discussing disease-modifying treatments and hospice failed to integrate patient preferences. Clinicians also missed opportunities to make patient-centered recommendations when discussing treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Clinicians missed opportunities to facilitate shared decision-making regarding goals of care, and these missed opportunities differed by type of decision being discussed. Opportunities for clinician communication training include engagement in collaborative deliberation with patients and making patient-centered recommendations in situations of high medical uncertainty.

Practice Implications of Expanded Genetic Testing in Oncology.

Genetic test use in oncology is growing, yet providers' experiences with evolving testing norms and their implications for patient care remain under-explored. In interviews with oncologists and cancer genetics professionals, 22 key informants described the increasing importance of germline results for therapeutic decision-making, preference for ordering tests directly rather than referring, and rapid adoption of cancer gene panels for testing. Implications for informed consent, result interpretation, and patient management were identified. These results suggest concerns raised by the transition of genetic test delivery from cancer genetics professionals to oncologists that must be addressed in practice guidelines and provider training.

Effect of Standardized Handoff Curriculum on Improved Clinician Preparedness in the Intensive Care Unit: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinician miscommunication contributes to an estimated 250 000 deaths in US hospitals per year. Efforts to standardize handoff communication may reduce errors and improve patient safety. Objective: To determine the effect of a standardized handoff curriculum, UW-IPASS, on interclinician communication and patient outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial was conducted from October 2015 to May 2016 at 8 medical and surgical intensive care units at 2 hospital systems within an academic tertiary referral center. Participants included residents, fellows, advance-practice clinicians, and attending physicians (n = 106 clinicians, with 1488 handoff events over 8 months) and data were collected from daily text message-based surveys and patient medical records. Exposures: The UW-IPASS standardized handoff curriculum. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary aim was to assess the effect of the UW-IPASS handoff curriculum on perceived adequacy of interclinician communication. Patient days of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit length of stay, reintubations within 24 hours, and order workflow patterns were also analyzed. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to compute odds ratios and confidence intervals with adjustment for location, time period, and clinician. Results: A total of 63 residents and advance practice clinicians, 13 fellows, and 30 attending physicians participated in the study. During the control period, clinicians reported being unprepared for their shift because of a poor-quality handoff in 35 of 343 handoffs (10.2%), while UW-IPASS-period residents reported being unprepared in 53 of 740 handoffs (7.2%) (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03-0.74; P = .03). Compared with the control phase, the perceived duration of handoffs among clinicians using UW-IPASS was unchanged (+5.5 minutes; 95% CI, 0.34-9.39; P = .30). Early morning order entry decreased from 106 per 100 patient-days in the control phase to 78 per 100 patient-days in the intervention period (-28 orders; 95% CI, -55 to -4; P = .04). Overall, UW-IPASS was not associated with any changes in intensive care unit length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, or the number of reintubations. Conclusions and Relevance: The UW-IPASS standardized handoff curriculum was perceived to improve intensive care provider preparedness and workflow. IPASS-based curricula represent an important step forward in communication standardization efforts and may help reduce communication errors and omissions. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN14209509.