Acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in patients with cancer and major depressive disorder: Qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present study explored the acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy from the perspective of patients with cancer and depression who participated in a clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of this novel intervention. METHODS: Guided by the conceptual framework of acceptability, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with participants of the psilocybin trial. Data were analyzed using template and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 28) perspectives on the acceptability of the group and simultaneous sessions was generally positive, both in terms of safety and efficacy: first, the groups contributed to increase participants' sense of safety and preparedness as they were engaging in the therapy; and second, the groups fostered a sense of connection and of belonging, which served to enrich and deepen the meaning of participants' experience, ultimately opening a dimension of self-transcendence and compassion. Other subthemes related to factors influencing the acceptability of the group approach included: 1) the importance of the therapeutic framework, 2) the complementary value of individual sessions, 3) disruptive factors related to the group and/or simultaneous setting, and 4) opportunities and challenges related to group size and how to structure interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This study enhances understanding of what promotes acceptability of the psilocybin-assisted therapy group model for the treatment of MDD in cancer patients. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We conducted exit interviews with participants of a phase 2 trial of psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) conducted in a community cancer center, to assess the acceptability of a novel psilocybin delivery model combining simultaneous individual therapy and group sessions. Our findings support the acceptability of this intervention and suggest that in addition to being feasible, it might also enhance participants' perceived safety and efficacy compared to uniquely individual or group delivery models of PAT. Our analysis highlights critical factors conditioning acceptability and suggests new ways PAT may be scaled and integrated into cancer care.

Advance Care Planning and Palliative Care Consultation in Kidney Transplantation.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Because of the high risk of waitlist mortality and posttransplant complications, kidney transplant (KT) patients may benefit from advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care consultation (PCC). We quantified the prevalence and racial disparities in ACP and PCC among KT candidates and recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 2,575 adult KT candidates and 1,233 adult recipients (2008-2020). EXPOSURE: Race and ethnicity. OUTCOMES: All reports of ACP and PCC were abstracted from chart review. ACP was defined as patient self-report of an advance directive, presence of an advance directive in the medical record, or a documented goals-of-care conversation with a provider. PCC was defined as an ordered referral or a documented palliative care note in the medical record. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Racial/ethnic disparities in ACP/PCC were estimated using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: 21.4% of KT candidates and 34.9% of recipients engaged in ACP. There were racial/ethnic disparities in ACP among KT candidates (White, 24.4%; Black, 19.1%; Hispanic, 15%; other race and ethnicity, 21.1%; P=0.008) and recipients (White, 39.5%; Black, 31.2%; Hispanic, 26.3%; other race and ethnicity, 26.6%; P=0.007). After adjustment, Black KT recipients had a 29% lower likelihood of engaging in ACP (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91) than White KT recipients. Among older (aged≥65 years) recipients, those who were Black had a lower likelihood of engaging in ACP, but there was no racial disparity among younger recipients (P=0.020 for interaction). 4.2% of KT candidates and 5.1% of KT recipients engaged in PCC; there were no racial disparities in PCC among KT candidates (White, 5.3%; Black, 3.6%; Hispanic, 2.5%; other race and ethnicity, 2.1%; P=0.13) or recipients (White, 5.5%; Black, 5.6%; Hispanic, 0.0%; other race and ethnicity, 1.3%; P = 0.21). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability may be limited to academic transplant centers. CONCLUSIONS: ACP is not common among KT patients, and minoritized transplant patients are least likely to engage in ACP; PCC is less common. Future efforts should aim to integrate ACP and PCC into the KT process. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients are at elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. They may benefit from completing a document or conversation with their palliative care provider that outlines their future health care wishes, known as advance care planning (ACP), which is a component of palliative care consultation (PCC). We wanted to determine how many KT candidates and recipients have engaged in ACP or PCC and identify potential racial disparities. We found that 21.4% of candidates and 34.9% of recipients engaged in ACP. After adjustment, Black recipients had a 29% lower likelihood of engaging in ACP. We found that 4.2% of KT candidates and 5.1% of KT recipients engaged in PCC, with no racial disparities found in PCC.

A Comparison of Palliative Care Delivery between Ethnically Chinese and Non-Chinese Canadians in the Last Year of Life.

BACKGROUND: Ethnically Chinese adults in Canada and the United States face multiple barriers in accessing equitable, culturally respectful care at the end-of-life. Palliative care (PC) is committed to supporting patients and families in achieving goal-concordant, high-quality serious illness care. Yet, current PC delivery may be culturally misaligned. Therefore, understanding ethnically Chinese patients' use of palliative care may uncover modifiable factors to sustained inequities at the end-of-life. OBJECTIVE: To compare the use and delivery of PC in the last year of life between ethnically Chinese and non-Chinese adults. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: All Ontario adults who died between January 1st, 2012, and October 31st, 2022, in Ontario, Canada. EXPOSURES: Chinese ethnicity. MAIN MEASURES: Elements of physician-delivered PC, including model of care (generalist; specialist; mixed), timing and location of initiation, and type of palliative care physician at initial consultation. KEY RESULTS: The final study cohort included 527,700 non-Chinese (50.8% female, 77.9 ± 13.0 mean age, 13.0% rural residence) and 13,587 ethnically Chinese (50.8% female, 79.2 ± 13.6 mean age, 0.6% rural residence) adults. Chinese ethnicity was associated with higher likelihoods of using specialist (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.53, 95%CI 1.46-1.60) and mixed (aOR 1.32, 95%CI 1.26-1.38) over generalist models of PC, compared to non-Chinese patients. Chinese ethnicity was also associated with a higher likelihood of PC initiation in the last 30 days of life (aOR 1.07, 95%CI 1.03-1.11), in the hospital setting (aOR 1.24, 95%CI 1.18-1.30), and by specialist PC physicians (aOR 1.33, 95%CI 1.28-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: Chinese ethnicity was associated with a higher likelihood of mixed and specialist models of PC delivery in the last year of life compared to adults who were non-Chinese. These observed differences may be due to later initiation of PC in hospital settings, and potential differences in unmeasured needs that suggest opportunities to initiate early, community-based PC to support ethnically Chinese patients with serious illness.

Integrating evidence-based communication principles into routine cancer care.

PURPOSE: The global incidence of cancer and available cancer-directed therapy options is increasing rapidly, presenting patients and clinicians with more complex treatment decisions than ever before. Despite the dissemination of evidence-based communication training tools and programs, clinicians cite barriers to employing effective communication in cancer care (e.g., discomfort of sharing serious news, concern about resource constraints to meet stated needs). We present two composite cases with significant communication challenges to guide clinicians through an application of evidence-based approaches to achieve quality communication. METHODS: Composite cases, communication skills blueprint, and visual conceptualization. RESULTS: High-stakes circumstances in each case are described, including end-of-life planning, advanced pediatric illness, strong emotions, and health inequities. Three overarching communication approaches are discussed: (1) content selection and delivery; (2) rapport development; and (3) empathic connection. The key takeaways following each case provide succinct summaries of challenges encountered and approaches used. A communication blueprint from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Communication Skills Training Program and Research Laboratory has been adapted and is comprised of strategies, skills, process tasks, and sample talking points. A visually concise tool - the Communication Blueprint Traffic Circle - illustrates these concepts and demonstrates the iterative, holistic, and agile considerations inherent to effective communication. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based communication is foundational to person-centeredness, associated with improved clinician and patient/caregiver outcomes, and can be integrated throughout routine oncology care. When used by clinicians, evidence-based communication can improve patient and caregiver experiences and assist in ensuring goal-concordant cancer care delivery.

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.

Asian American Medicare Beneficiaries Disproportionately Receive Invasive Mechanical Ventilation When Hospitalized at the End-of-Life.

BACKGROUND: Asian Americans are the fastest-growing ethnic minority in the USA, but we know little about the end-of-life care for this population. OBJECTIVE: Compare invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) use between older Asian and White decedents with hospitalization in the last 30 days of life. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A 20% random sample of 2000-2017 Medicare fee-for-service decedents who were 66 years or older and had a hospitalization in the last 30 days of life. EXPOSURE: White and Asian ethnicity as collected by the Social Security Administration. MAIN MEASURES: We identified IMV using validated procedural codes. We compared IMV use between Asian and White fee-for-service decedents using random-effects logistic regression analysis, adjusting for sociodemographics, admitting diagnosis, comorbidities, and secular trends. KEY RESULTS: From 2000 to 2017, we identified 2.1 million White (54.5% female, 82.4±8.1 mean age) and 28,328 Asian (50.8% female, 82.6±8.1 mean age) Medicare fee-for-service decedents hospitalized in the last 30 days. Compared to White decedents, Asian fee-for-service decedents have an increased adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.42 (95%CI: 1.38-1.47) for IMV. In sub-analyses, Asians' AOR for IMV differed by admitting diagnoses (cancer AOR=1.32, 95%CI: 1.15-1.51; congestive heart failure AOR=1.75, 95%CI: 1.47-2.08; dementia AOR=1.93, 95%CI: 1.70-2.20; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease AOR=2.25, 95%CI: 1.76-2.89). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to White decedents, Asian Medicare decedents are more likely to receive IMV when hospitalized at the end-of-life, especially among patients with non-cancer admitting diagnoses. Future research to better understand the reasons for these differences and perceived quality of end-of-life care among Asian Americans is urgently needed.

"I think that she would have wanted. . .": Qualitative interviews with bereaved caregivers reveal complexity in measuring goal-concordant care at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Experts consider goal-concordant care an important healthcare outcome for individuals with serious illness. Despite their relationship to the patient and knowledge about the patient's wishes and values, little is known about bereaved family caregivers' perceptions of how end-of-life care aligns with patient goals and preferences. AIM: To understand caregivers' perceptions about patients' care experiences, the extent to which care was perceived as goal-concordant, and the factors that contextualized the end-of-life care experience. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study employing a semi-structured interview guide based on the National Health and Aging Trends Survey end-of-life planning module. Template analysis was used to identify themes. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen recently bereaved family caregivers of people with serious illness in two academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. RESULTS: Most caregivers reported goal-concordant care, though many also recalled experiences of goal discordance. Three themes characterized care perceptions and related to perceived quality: communication, relationships and humanistic care, and care transitions. Within communication, caregivers described the importance of clear communication, inadequate prognostic communication, and information gaps that undermined caregiver confidence in decision making. Patient-clinician relationships enriched care and were considered higher-quality when felt to be humanistic. Finally, care transitions impacted goal discordance when marked by logistical barriers, a need to establish relationships with new providers, inadequate information transfer, and poor care coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Bereaved caregivers commonly rated care as goal-concordant while also identifying areas of disappointing and low-quality care. Communication, relationships and humanistic care, and care transitions are modifiable quality improvement targets for patients with advanced cancer.

Environmental Considerations for Effective Telehealth Encounters: A Narrative Review and Implications for Best Practice.

Introduction: Due to the reduction in-person visits, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to expansions in the use of telehealth technology to provide patient care, yet clinicians lack evidence-based guidance on how to most effectively use video communication to enhance patient experience and outcomes. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to describe environmental factors derived from research in social psychology and human-computer interaction (HCI) that may guide effective video-based clinician-patient telehealth communication. Results: Factors such as nonverbal cues, spatial proximity, professionalism cues, and ambient features play an important role in patient experience. We present a visual typology of telehealth backgrounds to inform clinical practice and guide future research. Discussion: A growing body of empirical evidence indicates that environmental cues may play an essential role in establishing psychological safety, improving patient experience, and supporting clinical efficacy in these virtual experiences. Conclusion: The expanded use of telehealth visits suggests the need for further research on the relative effects of these environmental factors on patient experience and outcomes.

Patient Preference for Telehealth Background Shapes Impressions of Physicians and Information Recall: A Randomized Experiment.

Introduction: Telehealth is increasing rapidly as a health care delivery platform, but we lack empirical evidence regarding how telehealth environments can affect patient experiences. The present research determined how physician's telehealth backgrounds affect various patient outcomes. Methods: Participants viewed a 30-s video of a physician with one of six different virtual backgrounds and reported various socioemotional and cognitive responses to the mock telehealth experience. Results: Although the telehealth background manipulation did not impact participants' socioemotional or cognitive responses, participants' subjective perceptions of the telehealth backgrounds were related to important clinical outcomes, such as their ability to remember critical information from the appointment and overall satisfaction with the experience. Discussion: Telehealth environments may result in tradeoffs between patient experience, subjective impressions of clinicians, and information recall. Conclusions: A physician's telehealth background can have measurable impact on patients' telehealth experiences, suggesting a need for careful background selection and design.

What is empathy? Oncology patient perspectives on empathic clinician behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Oncology patients and physicians value empathy because of its association with improved health outcomes. Common measures of empathy lack consistency and were developed without direct input from patients. Because of their intense engagement with health care systems, oncology patients may have unique perspectives on what behaviors signal empathy in a clinical setting. METHODS: As part of a cross-sectional study of patient perspectives on clinician empathy at an academic cancer center in the northeastern United States, the authors solicited up to 10 free-text responses to an open-ended question about what clinician behaviors define empathy. RESULTS: The authors categorized open-ended responses from 89 oncology patients into 5 categories representing 14 themes. These categories were relationship sensitivity, focus on the whole person, communication, clinician attributes, and institutional resources and care processes. Frequently represented themes, including listening, understanding, and attention to emotions and what matters most, aligned with existing measures of empathy; behaviors that were not well represented among existing measures included qualities of information sharing and other communication elements. Patients also associated clinician demeanor, accessibility, and competence with empathy. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology patients' perspectives on empathy highlight clinician behaviors and attributes that may help to refine patient experience measures and may be adopted by clinicians and cancer centers to enhance patient care and outcomes. High-quality communication skills training can promote active listening and paying attention to the whole person. A system-level focus on delivering empathic care may improve patients' experiences and outcomes. LAY SUMMARY: Oncology patients' responses to an open-ended question about empathic clinician behavior have revealed insights into a variety of behaviors that are perceived as demonstrative of empathy. These include behaviors that imply sensitivity to the clinician-patient relationship, such as listening and understanding and attention to the whole person. Participants valued caring communication and demeanor and clinician accessibility. Perspective taking was not common among answers. Many existing measures of clinical care quality do not include the behaviors cited by patients as empathic. These results can inform efforts to refine quality measures of empathy-associated behaviors in clinical practice. Cancer centers can use skills training to improve elements of communication.

From Barriers to Assets: Rethinking factors impacting advance care planning for African Americans.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore multiple perspectives regarding barriers to and facilitators of advance care planning (ACP) among African Americans to identify similarities or differences that might have clinical implications. METHOD: Qualitative study with health disparities experts (n = 5), community members (n = 9), and seriously ill African American patients and caregivers (n = 11). Using template analysis, interviews were coded to identify intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems-level themes in accordance with a social ecological framework.ResultParticipants identified seven primary factors that influence ACP for African Americans: religion and spirituality; trust and mistrust; family relationships and experiences; patient-clinician relationships; prognostic communication, care preferences, and preparation and control. These influences echo those described in the existing literature; however, our data highlight consistent differences by group in the degree to which these factors positively or negatively affect ACP. Expert participants reinforced common themes from the literature, for example, that African Americans were not interested in prognostic information because of mistrust and religion. Seriously ill patients were more likely to express trust in their clinicians and to desire prognostic communication; they and community members expressed a desire to prepare for and control the end of life. Religious belief did not appear to negate these desires.Significance of resultsThe literature on ACP in African Americans may not accurately reflect the experience of seriously ill African Americans. What are commonly understood as barriers to ACP may in fact not be. We propose reframing stereotypical barriers to ACP, such as religion and spirituality, or family, as cultural assets that should be engaged to enhance ACP. Although further research can inform best practices for engaging African American patients in ACP, findings suggest that respectful, rapport-building communication may facilitate ACP. Clinicians are encouraged to engage in early ACP using respectful and rapport building communication practices, including open-ended questions.

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.

Palliative Care for Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

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.

Methodological innovations to strengthen evidence-based serious illness communication.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: A growing population of those affected by serious illness, prognostic uncertainty, patient diversity, and healthcare digitalization pose challenges for the future of serious illness communication. Yet, there is paucity of evidence to support serious illness communication behaviors among clinicians. Herein, we propose three methodological innovations to advance the basic science of serious illness communication. RESULTS: First, advanced computation techniques - e.g. machine-learning techniques and natural language processing - offer the possibility to measure the characteristics and complex patterns of audible serious illness communication in large datasets. Second, immersive technologies - e.g., virtual- and augmented reality - allow for experimentally manipulating and testing the effects of specific communication strategies, and interactional and environmental aspects of serious illness communication. Third, digital-health technologies - e.g., shared notes and videoconferences - can be used to unobtrusively observe and manipulate communication, and compare in-person to digitally-mediated communication elements and effects. Immersive and digital health technologies allow integration of physiological measurement (e.g. synchrony or gaze) that may advance our understanding of patient experience. CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New technologies and measurement approaches, while imperfect, will help advance our understanding of the epidemiology and quality of serious illness communication in an evolving healthcare environment.