Prognostication As an Interactionally Delicate Matter: A Conversation Analytic Study of Hospice Multidisciplinary Team Meetings.

Prognostication has been found to be a delicate matter in interactions between palliative care professionals and patients. Studies have investigated how these discussions are managed and how speakers orient to their delicate nature. However, the degree to which prognostication is a delicate matter in discussions between palliative care professionals themselves has yet to be investigated. This study explored how hospice multidisciplinary team (MDT) members oriented to the delicacy of prognostication during their meetings. Video-recordings of 24 hospice MDT meetings were transcribed and analyzed using Conversation Analysis. In-depth analysis of the interactions showed how prognostic discussions were oriented to as delicate. This was displayed through markers such as pauses and self-repair organization including cutting off words and restarts, and through accounts accompanying the prognosis. In this way, it was seen that prognostication was not necessarily straightforward. This was further evidenced when prognostic requests were problematic to respond to. It is noteworthy that prognostic discussions are delicate during hospice MDT meetings. Potential reasons may reach further than the taboo of death and lie within prognostic uncertainty and accountability. Research is warranted to explore what causes this delicacy and whether specific support is needed for hospice staff.

Time estimates in prognostic discussions: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidisciplinary team meetings.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations state that multidisciplinary team expertise should be utilised for more accurate survival predictions. How the multidisciplinary team discusses prognoses during meetings and how they reference time, is yet to be explored. AIM: To explore how temporality is conveyed in relation to patients' prognoses during hospice multidisciplinary team meetings. DESIGN: Video-recordings of 24 hospice multidisciplinary team meetings were transcribed and analysed using Conversation Analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 65 staff participating in multidisciplinary team meetings in a UK hospice from May to December 2021. RESULTS: Team members conveyed temporality in three different ways. (i) Staff stated that a patient was dying as part of the patient's current health status. These formulations did not include a time reference per se but described the patient's current situation (as dying) instead. (ii) Staff used specific time period references where another specific reference had been provided previously that somehow constrained the timeframe. In these cases, the prognosis would conflict with other proposed care plans. (iii) Staff members used unspecific time period references where the reference appeared vague and there was greater uncertainty about when the patient was expected to die. CONCLUSIONS: Unspecific time period references are sufficient for achieving meaningful prognostic talk in multidisciplinary teams. In-depth discussion and accurate prediction of patient prognoses are not deemed a priority nor a necessity of these meetings. Providing precise predictions may be too difficult due to uncertainty and accountability. The lack of staff pursuing more specific time references implies shared knowledge between staff and a context-specific use of prognostic estimates.

An online randomised controlled trial of prognosticating imminent death in advanced cancer patients: Clinicians give greater weight to advice from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician with a different profession.

BACKGROUND: A second opinion or a prognostic algorithm may increase prognostic accuracy. This study assessed the level to which clinicians integrate advice perceived to be coming from another clinician or a prognostic algorithm into their prognostic estimates, and how participant characteristics and nature of advice received affect this. METHODS: An online double-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted. Palliative doctors, nurses and other types of healthcare professionals were randomised into study arms differing by perceived source of advice (algorithm or another clinician). In fact, the advice was the same in both arms (emanating from the PiPS-B14 prognostic model). Each participant reviewed five patient summaries. For each summary, participants: (1) provided an initial probability estimate of two-week survival (0% 'certain death'-100% 'certain survival'); (2) received advice (another estimate); (3) provided a final estimate. Weight of Advice (WOA) was calculated for each summary (0 '100% advice discounting' - 1 '0% discounting') and multilevel linear regression analyses were conducted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04568629. RESULTS: A total of 283 clinicians were included in the analysis. Clinicians integrated advice from the algorithm more than advice from another clinician (WOA difference = -0.12 [95% CI -0.18, -0.07], p < 0.001). There was no interaction between study arm and participant profession, years of palliative care or overall experience. Advice of intermediate strength (75%) was given a lower WOA (0.31) than advice received at either the 50% (WOA 0.40) or 90% level (WOA 0.43). The overall interaction between strength of advice and study arm on WOA was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinicians adjusted their prognostic estimates more when advice was perceived to come from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician. Research is needed to understand how clinicians make prognostic decisions and how algorithms are used in clinical practice.

Prognostic decision-making about imminent death within multidisciplinary teams: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise evidence on how multidisciplinary team (MDTs) make decisions about identification of imminently dying patients. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Any clinical setting providing care for imminently dying patients, excluding studies conducted solely in acute care settings. DATA SOURCES: The databases AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2021.Included studies presented original study data written in English and reported on the process or content of MDT discussions about identifying imminently dying adult patients. RESULTS: 40 studies were included in the review. Studies were primarily conducted using interviews and qualitative analysis of themes.MDT members involved in decision-making were usually doctors and nurses. Some decisions focused on professionals recognising that patients were dying, other decisions focused on initiating specific end-of-life care pathways or clarifying care goals. Most decisions provided evidence for a partial collaborative approach, with information-sharing being more common than joint decision-making. Issues with decision-making included disagreement between staff members and the fact that doctors were often regarded as final or sole decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic decision-making was often not the main focus of included studies. Based on review findings, research explicitly focusing on MDT prognostication by analysing team discussions is needed. The role of allied and other types of healthcare professionals in prognostication needs further investigation as well. A focus on specialist palliative care settings is also necessary.

Research barriers in children and young people with life-limiting conditions: a survey.

Studies indicate research ethics committee (REC) approval and clinician gatekeeping are two key barriers in recruiting children and young people (CYP) with life-limiting conditions (LLCs) and life-threatening illnesses (LTIs) and their families to research. OBJECTIVES: To explore the reported experiences, difficulties and proposed solutions of chief investigators (CIs) recruiting CYP with LLCs/LTIs and families in the UK. METHODS: 61 CIs conducting studies with CYP with LLCs/LTIs and their families, identified from the UK National Institute of Health Research portfolio, completed an anonymous, web-based questionnaire, including both closed and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and inductive and deductive coding were used to analyse responses. RESULTS: UK CIs cited limitations on funding, governance procedures including Research and Development, Site-Specific and REC approval processes, and clinician gatekeeping as challenges to research. CIs offered some solutions to overcome identified barriers such as working with CYP and their families to ensure their needs are adequately considered in study design and communicated to ethics committees; and designing studies with broad inclusion criteria and developing effective relationships with clinicians in order to overcome clinician gatekeeping. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the challenges and solutions reported by UK CIs have applicability beyond the UK setting. The involvement of clinicians, patients and their families at the inception of and throughout paediatric palliative care research studies is essential. Other important strategies include having clinician research champions and increasing the visibility of research. Further research on the perspectives of all stakeholders, leading to mutually agreed guidance, is required if care and treatment are to improve.

Palliative care training in undergraduate medical, nursing and allied health: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: Impending death is poorly recognised. Many undergraduate healthcare professionals will not have experience of meeting or caring for someone who is dying. As death can occur in any setting, at any time, it is vital that all healthcare students, regardless of the setting they go on to work in, have end-of-life care (EOLC) training. The aim was to determine current palliative care training at the undergraduate level, in multiple professions, in recognising and communicating dying. METHODS: Current UK undergraduate courses in medicine, adult nursing, occupational therapy, social work and physiotherapy were included. All courses received an email asking what training is currently offered in the recognition and communication of dying, and what time was dedicated to this. RESULTS: A total of 73/198 (37%) courses responded to the request for information. 18/20 medical courses provided training in recognising when patients were dying (median 2 hours), and 17/20 provided training in the communication of dying (median 3 hours). 80% (43/54) of nursing and allied health professional courses provided some training in EOLC. Many of the course organisers expressed frustration at the lack of resources, funding and time to include more training. Those courses with more palliative care provision often had a 'champion' to advocate for it. CONCLUSIONS: Training in EOLC was inconsistent across courses and professions. Further research is needed to understand how to remove the barriers identified and to improve the consistency of current training.

An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. AIM: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. DESIGN: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]-100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. RESULTS: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted.

Comparing the performance of the palliative prognostic (PaP) score with clinical predictions of survival: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced cancer, prognosis is usually determined using clinicians' predictions of survival (CPS). The palliative prognostic (PaP) score is a prognostic algorithm that was developed to predict survival in patients with advanced cancer. The score categorises patients into three risk groups in accordance with their probability of surviving for 30 days. The relative accuracy of PaP and CPS is unclear. DESIGN: This was a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Trials from inception up to June 2021. The inclusion criteria were studies in adults with advanced cancer reporting data on performance of both PaP and CPS. Data were extracted on accuracy of prognoses and where available on discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or C-index) and/or diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity). RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. One study reported a direct comparison between PaP risk groups and equivalent risk groups defined by CPS and found that PaP was as accurate as CPS. Five studies reported discrimination of PaP as a continuous total score (rather than using the previously validated risk categories) and reported C-statistics that ranged from 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54, 0.74) up to 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.92). Other studies compared PaP against CPS using non-equivalent metrics (e.g. comparing probability estimates against length of survival estimates). CONCLUSIONS: PaP risk categories and CPS are equally able to discriminate between patients with different survival probabilities. Total PaP scores show good discrimination between patients in accordance with their length of survival. The role of PaP in clinical practice still needs to be defined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021241074, 5th March 2021).

Correction to: An online international comparison of thresholds for triggering a negative response to the "Surprise Question": a study protocol.

Following publication of the original article [1], an error in reference 18 was reported.

Online training improves medical students' ability to recognise when a person is dying: The ORaClES randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recognising dying is a key clinical skill for doctors, yet there is little training. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of an online training resource designed to enhance medical students' ability to recognise dying. DESIGN: Online multicentre double-blind randomised controlled trial (NCT03360812). The training resource for the intervention group was developed from a group of expert palliative care doctors' weightings of various signs/symptoms to recognise dying. The control group received no training. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were senior UK medical students. They reviewed 92 patient summaries and provided a probability of death within 72 hours (0% certain survival - 100% certain death) pre, post, and 2 weeks after the training. Primary outcome: (1) Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) score between participants' and the experts' scores, immediately post intervention. Secondary outcomes: (2) weight attributed to each factor, (3) learning effect and (4) level of expertise (Cochran-Weiss-Shanteau (CWS)). RESULTS: Out of 168 participants, 135 completed the trial (80%); 66 received the intervention (49%). After using the training resource, the intervention group had better agreement with the experts in their survival estimates (δMAD = -3.43, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.34, p = <0.001) and weighting of clinical factors. There was no learning effect of the MAD scores at the 2-week time point (δMAD = 1.50, 95% CI -0.87 to 3.86, p = 0.21). At the 2-week time point, the intervention group was statistically more expert in their decision-making versus controls (intervention CWS = 146.04 (SD 140.21), control CWS = 110.75 (SD 104.05); p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The online training resource proved effective in altering the decision-making of medical students to agree more with expert decision-making.