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.

Patient-physician conversations about life-sustaining treatment: Treatment preferences and participant assessments.

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, the Danish parliament issued legislation requiring Danish physicians to clarify and honor seriously ill patients' treatment preferences. The American POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) document could be a valuable model for this process. The aim of the study was to examine patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment and participant assessment of a Danish POLST form. METHODS: The study is a prospective intervention based on a pilot-tested Danish POLST form. Participant assessments were examined using questionnaire surveys. Patients with serious illness and/or frailty from seven hospital wards, two general practitioners, and four nursing homes were included. The patients and their physicians completed the POLST form based on a process of shared decision-making. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients (aged 41-95) participated. Hereof, 88% declined cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 83% preferred limited medical interventions or comfort care, and 74% did not require artificial nutrition. The preferences were similar within age groups, genders, and locations, but with a tendency toward younger patients being more in favor of full treatment and nursing home residents being more in favor of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Questionnaire response rates were 69% (66/95) for patients, 79% (22/28) for physicians, and 31% (9/29) for nurses. Hereof, the majority of patients, physicians, and nurses found that the POLST form was usable for conversations and decision-making about life-sustaining treatment to either a high or very high degree. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The majority of seriously ill patients did not want a resuscitation attempt and opted for selected treatments. The majority of participants found that the Danish POLST was usable for conversations and decisions about life-sustaining treatment to either a high or a very high degree, and that the POLST form facilitated an opportunity to openly discuss life-sustaining treatment.

Discussing patient preferences for levels of life-sustaining treatment: development and pilot testing of a Danish POLST form.

BACKGROUND: Medically frail and/or chronically ill patients are often admitted to Danish hospitals without documentation of patient preferences. This may lead to inappropriate care. Modelled on the American Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form, the purpose of the study was to develop and pilot test a Danish POLST form to ensure that patients' preferences for levels of life-sustaining treatment are known and documented. METHODS: The study was a mixed methods study. In the initial phase, a Danish POLST form was developed on the basis of literature and recommendations from the National POLST organisation in the US. A pilot test of the Danish POLST form was conducted in hospital wards, general practitioners' clinics, and nursing homes. Patients were eligible for inclusion if death was assessed as likely within 12 months. The patient and his/her physician engaged in a conversation where patient values, beliefs, goals for care, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment alternatives were discussed. The POLST form was completed based on the patient's values and preferences. Family members and/or nursing staff could participate. Participants' assessments of the POLST form were evaluated using questionnaires, and in-depth interviews were conducted to explore experiences with the POLST form and the conversation. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients participated, 45 questionnaires were completed and 14 interviews were conducted. Most participants found the POLST form readable and understandable, and 93% found the POLST form usable to a high or very high degree for discussing preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (a) an understandable document is essential for the conversation, (b) handling and discussing wishes, and (c) significance for the future. CONCLUSION: The Danish version of the POLST form is assessed by patients, families, physicians, and nurses as a useful model for obtaining and documenting Danish patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment. However, this needs to be confirmed in a larger-scale study.

Decision-making conversations for life-sustaining treatment with seriously ill patients using a Danish version of the US POLST: a qualitative study of patient and physician experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' and physicians' perspectives on a decision-making conversation for life-sustaining treatment, based on the Danish model of the American Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews following a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment. SETTING: Danish hospitals, nursing homes, and general practitioners' clinics. SUBJECTS: Patients and physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analyses of interview data. FINDINGS: After participating in a conversation about life-sustaining treatment using the Danish POLST form, a total of six patients and five physicians representing different settings and age groups participated in an interview about their experience of the process. Within the main research questions, six subthemes were identified: Timing, relatives are key persons, clarifying treatment preferences, documentation across settings, strengthening patient autonomy, and structure influences conversations. Most patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable but also complicated due to the different levels of knowledge and attending to individual patient needs and medical necessities. Relatives were considered as key persons to ensure the understanding of the treatment trajectory and the ability to advocate for the patient in case of a medical crisis. The majority of participants found that the conversation strengthened patient autonomy. CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable, especially for strengthening patient autonomy. Relatives were considered key persons. The timing of the conversation and securing sufficient knowledge for shared decision-making were the main perceived challenges.KEY POINTSConversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment are important, but not performed systematically.When planning a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment, the timing of the conversation and the inclusion of relatives are key elements.Decision-making conversations can help patients feel in charge and less alone, and make it easier for health professionals to provide goal-concordant care.Using a model like the Danish POLST form may help to initiate, conduct and structure conversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.

Improvements in hospice utilization among patients with advanced-stage lung cancer in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Hospice, a patient-centered care system for those with limited life expectancy, is important for enhancing quality of life and is understudied in integrated health care systems. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 21,860 decedents with advanced-stage lung cancer diagnosed from January 2007 to June 2013 in the national US Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Trends over time, geographic regional variability, and patient and tumor characteristics associated with hospice use and the timing of enrollment were examined. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2013, 70.3% of decedents with advanced-stage lung cancer were enrolled in hospice. Among patients in hospice, 52.9% were enrolled in the last month of life, and 14.7% were enrolled in the last 3 days of life. Hospice enrollment increased (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.07; P < .001), whereas the mean time from the cancer diagnosis to hospice enrollment decreased by 65 days (relative decrease, 32%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; P < .001). Relative decreases in late hospice enrollment were observed in the last month (7%; AOR, 0.98; P = .04) and last 3 days of life (26%; AOR, 0.95; P < .001). The Southeast region of the United States had both the highest rate of hospice enrollment and the lowest rate of late enrollment. Patient sociodemographic and lung cancer characteristics were associated with hospice enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced-stage lung cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System, overall and earlier hospice enrollment increased over time. Considerable regional variability in hospice enrollment and the persistence of late enrollment suggests opportunities for improvement in end-of-life care. Cancer 2018;124:426-33. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Computerized patient-reported symptom assessment in radiotherapy: a pilot randomized, controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Computer-based, patient-reported symptom survey tools have been described for patients undergoing chemotherapy. We hypothesized that patients undergoing radiotherapy might also benefit, so we developed a computer application to acquire symptom ratings from patients and generate summaries for use at point of care office visits and conducted a randomized, controlled pilot trial to test its feasibility. METHODS: Subjects were randomized prior to beginning radiotherapy. Both control and intervention group subjects completed the computerized symptom assessment, but only for the intervention group were printed symptom summaries made available before each weekly office visit. Metrics compared included the Global Distress Index (GDI), concordance of patient-reported symptoms and symptoms discussed by the physician and numbers of new and/or adjusted symptom management medications prescribed. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients completed the study: 54 in the control and 58 in the intervention arms. There were no differences in GDI over time between the control and intervention groups. In the intervention group, more patient-reported symptoms were actually discussed in radiotherapy office visits: 46/202 vs. 19/230. A sensitivity analysis to account for within-subjects correlation yielded 23.2 vs. 10.3 % (p = 0.03). Medications were started or adjusted at 15.4 % (43/280) of control visits compared to 20.4 % (65/319) of intervention visits (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This computer application is easy to use and makes extensive patient-reported outcome data available at the point of care. Although no differences were seen in symptom trajectory, patients who had printed symptom summaries had improved communication during office visits and a trend towards a more active symptom management during radiotherapy.

Frequency of outpatient antibiotic prescription on discharge to hospice care.

The use of antibiotics is common in hospice care despite limited evidence that it improves symptoms or quality of life. Patients receiving antibiotics upon discharge from a hospital may be more likely to continue use following transition to hospice care despite a shift in the goals of care. We quantified the frequency and characteristics for receiving a prescription for antibiotics on discharge from acute care to hospice care. This was a cross-sectional study among adult inpatients (≥18 years old) discharged to hospice care from Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2012. Data were collected from an electronic data repository and from the Department of Care Management. Among 62,792 discharges, 845 (1.3%) patients were discharged directly to hospice care (60.0% home and 40.0% inpatient). Most patients discharged to hospice were >65 years old (50.9%) and male (54.6%) and had stayed in the hospital for ≤7 days (56.6%). The prevalence of antibiotic prescription upon discharge to hospice was 21.1%. Among patients discharged with an antibiotic prescription, 70.8% had a documented infection during their index admission. Among documented infections, 40.3% were bloodstream infections, septicemia, or endocarditis, and 38.9% were pneumonia. Independent risk factors for receiving an antibiotic prescription were documented infection during the index admission (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=7.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=4.68 to 10.46), discharge to home hospice care (AOR=2.86; 95% CI=1.92 to 4.28), and having a cancer diagnosis (AOR=2.19; 95% CI=1.48 to 3.23). These data suggest that a high proportion of patients discharged from acute care to hospice care receive an antibiotic prescription upon discharge.

Concordance of out-of-hospital and emergency department cardiac arrest resuscitation with documented end-of-life choices in Oregon.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Resuscitation measures should be guided by previous patient choices about end-of-life care, when they exist; however, documentation of these choices can be unclear or difficult to access. We evaluate the concordance of a statewide registry of actionable resuscitation orders unique to Oregon with out-of-hospital and emergency department (ED) care provided for patients found by emergency medical services (EMS) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients found by EMS providers in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 5 counties in 2010. We used probabilistic linkage to match patients found in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with previously signed documentation of end-of-life decisions in the Oregon Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) registry. We evaluated resuscitation interventions in the field and ED. RESULTS: There were 1,577 patients found in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, of whom 82 had a previously signed POLST form. Patients with POLST do-not-resuscitate orders for whom EMS was called had resuscitation withheld or ceased before hospital admission in 94% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 83% to 99%). Compared with patients with no POLST or known do-not-resuscitate orders, more patients with attempt resuscitation POLST orders had field resuscitation attempted (84% versus 60%; difference 25%; 95% CI 12% to 37%) and were admitted to hospitals (38% versus 17%; difference 20%; 95% CI 3% to 37%), with no documented misinterpretations of the form once CPR was initiated. CONCLUSION: In this sample of patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, out-of-hospital and ED care was generally concordant with previously documented end-of-life orders in the setting of critical illness. Further research is needed to compare the effectiveness of Oregon's POLST system to other methods of end-of-life order documentation.

Core elements of serious illness conversations: an integrative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), inclusive of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), has been adapted for use in a variety of settings and among diverse population groups. Explicating the core elements of serious illness conversations could support the inclusion or exclusion of certain components in future iterations of the programme and the guide. AIM: This integrative systematic review aimed to identify and describe core elements of serious illness conversations in relation to the SICP and/or SICG. DESIGN: Literature published between 1 January 2014 and 20 March 2023 was searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed. All articles were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines. Data were analysed with thematic synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 64 articles met the inclusion criteria. Three themes were revealed: (1) serious illness conversations serve different functions that are reflected in how they are conveyed; (2) serious illness conversations endeavour to discover what matters to patients and (3) serious illness conversations seek to align what patients want in their life and care. CONCLUSIONS: Core elements of serious illness conversations included explicating the intention, framing, expectations and directions for the conversation. This encompassed discussing current and possible trajectories with a view towards uncovering matters of importance to the patient as a person. Preferences and priorities could be used to inform future preparation and recommendations. Serious illness conversation elements could be adapted and altered depending on the intended purpose of the conversation.

Core Competencies for Serious Illness Conversations: An Integrative Systematic Review.

Objective: The Serious Illness Care Program was developed to support goals and values discussions between seriously ill patients and their clinicians. The core competencies, that is, the essential clinical conversation skills that are described as requisite for effective serious illness conversations (SICs) in practice, have not yet been explicated. This integrative systematic review aimed to identify core competencies for SICs in the context of the Serious Illness Care Program. Methods: Articles published between January 2014 and March 2023 were identified in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed databases. In total, 313 records underwent title and abstract screening, and 96 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The articles were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines, and data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results: In total, 53 articles were included. Clinicians' core competencies for SICs were described in 3 themes: conversation resources, intrapersonal capabilities, and interpersonal capabilities. Conversation resources included using the conversation guide as a tool, together with applying appropriate communication skills to support better communication. Intrapersonal capabilities included calibrating one's own attitudes and mindset as well as confidence and self-assurance to engage in SICs. Interpersonal capabilities focused on the clinician's ability to interact with patients and family members to foster a mutually trusting relationship, including empathetic communication with attention and adherence to patient and family members views, goals, needs, and preferences. Conclusions: Clinicians need to efficiently combine conversation resources with intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to successfully conduct and interact in SICs.

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.

An Integrative Review of the State of POLST Science: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?

OBJECTIVES: POLST is widely used in the care of seriously ill patients to document decisions made during advance care planning (ACP) conversations as actionable medical orders. We conducted an integrative review of existing research to better understand associations between POLST use and key ACP outcomes as well as to identify directions for future research. DESIGN: Integrative review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. METHODS: We queried PubMed and CINAHL databases using names of POLST programs to identify research on POLST. We abstracted study information and assessed study design quality. Study outcomes were categorized using the international ACP Outcomes Framework: Process, Action, Quality of Care, Health Status, and Healthcare Utilization. RESULTS: Of 94 POLST studies identified, 38 (40%) had at least a moderate level of study design quality and 15 (16%) included comparisons between POLST vs non-POLST patient groups. There was a significant difference between groups for 40 of 70 (57%) ACP outcomes. The highest proportion of significant outcomes was in Quality of Care (15 of 19 or 79%). In subdomain analyses of Quality of Care, POLST use was significantly associated with concordance between treatment and documentation (14 of 18 or 78%) and preferences concordant with documentation (1 of 1 or 100%). The Action outcome domain had the second highest positive rate among outcome domains; 9 of 12 (75%) Action outcomes were significant. Healthcare Utilization outcomes were the most frequently assessed and approximately half (16 of 35 or 46%) were significant. Health Status outcomes were not significant (0 of 4 or 0%), and no Process outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings of this review indicate that POLST use is significantly associated with a Quality of Care and Action outcomes, albeit in nonrandomized studies. Future research on POLST should focus on prospective mixed methods studies and high-quality pragmatic trials that assess a broad range of person and health system-level outcomes.

Pediatric oncology providers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to early integration of pediatric palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients experience significant symptoms during cancer treatment. Symptom management is frequently inadequate. We studied perceptions of pediatric oncology care providers regarding early integration of palliative care (PC) for pediatric patients to identify barriers and facilitators that might assist in understanding how care could be improved. PROCEDURES: Pediatric oncology providers were recruited to participate in four focus groups. A proposal for early integration of a pediatric palliative care team (PPCT) was presented and followed by a facilitated discussion. Data were analytically categorized into themes by three independent coders using constant comparative analysis and crystallization techniques. A consensus approach was used to identify final themes. RESULTS: Barriers to the proposed care model of early integration of a PPCT included provider role, conflicting philosophy, patient readiness, and emotional influence and were more prevalent in the physician participants compared to nurse practitioner, nursing, and social work participants. Facilitators included patient eligibility, improved patient care, education, and evidence-based medicine. Though all participants were invested in providing optimal patient care, physician participants believed the current standard of care model is meeting the needs of patients and family, while the nurse practitioner, nursing, and social work participants working on the same healthcare team believed the proposed care model would improve the overall care of children diagnosed with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Differing perceptions among healthcare providers regarding the care of children with cancer suggest that team functioning could be improved. Avenues for pilot testing early integration of PC could provide useful information for a next study.

The Oregon physician orders for life-sustaining treatment registry: a preliminary study of emergency medical services utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form translates patient treatment preferences into medical orders. The Oregon POLST Registry provides emergency personnel 24-h access to POLST forms. OBJECTIVE: To determine if Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) can use the Oregon POLST Registry to honor patient preferences. METHODS: Two telephone surveys were developed: one for the EMT who made a call to the Registry and one for the patient or the surrogate. The EMT survey was designed to determine if the POLST form accessed through the Registry changed the care of the patient. The patient/surrogate survey was designed to determine if the care provided matched the preferences on the POLST. When feasible, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) record was reviewed to determine whether or not treatment was provided. RESULTS: During the study period there were 34 EMS calls with matches to patients' POLST forms, and 23 interviews were completed with EMS callers, for a response rate of 68%. In seven cases (30%) the patient was in cardiopulmonary arrest; one patient had a respiratory arrest with a pulse. Eight respondents (35%) reported that the patient was conscious and apparently able to make decisions about preferences. For 10 cases (44%) the POLST orders changed treatment, and in six instances (26%) they affected the decision to transport the patient. For the 10/11 patients or surrogates interviewed, the care reportedly matched their wishes. CONCLUSION: This small study suggests that an electronic registry of POLST forms can be used by EMTs to enhance their ability to locate and honor patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments.

Advance Care Planning in the United States: A 2023 review.

Advance Care Planning (ACP) in the US is complex due in part to a lack of a unified health care system, though more recent policy changes permitting reimbursement for ACP conversations offer some hope. One key barrier to ACP is public perceptions of ACP, made worse by a historical focus on messaging that is unappealing and does not meet people's need to focus on the present before contemplating the future. As we learn more about how to engage the public, there is also increasing recognition that the previous focus on making very specific decisions about the future needs to shift to a focus on preparing people for communication and decision making. Numerous programs exist for health care professionals to support meaningful explorations of goals, values, and preferences, and there is growing availability of resources to support this work, both in the community and health care setting. Further research is needed to understand the full complexity of ACP implementation and to identify person-centred outcomes to support high quality ACP.

Testing the What Matters to Me workbook in a diverse sample of seriously ill patients and caregivers.

Objectives: We evaluated the What Matters to Me Workbook, a patient-facing version of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide co-created by Ariadne Labs and The Conversation Project. Methods: We purposively recruited diverse seriously ill patients and caregivers in the US. Participants completed the Workbook, a survey, and a semi-structured in-depth interview about their experience. Qualitative analysis of interviews and notes was employed to extract themes. Simple descriptive statistics were employed to analyze eight investigator authored questions. Results: Twenty-nine study participants completed twenty-one interviews and twenty-five surveys. Ratings for safety (3.87/4, SD = 0.43) and acceptability (3.59/4, SD = 0.956) were higher than ratings for ease of use (3.30/4, SD = 0.97) and usefulness (3.24/4, SD = 0.80). Qualitative analysis identified that while the workbook was safe, acceptable, easy to use, and useful, it is more important who is recommending it and how they are explaining it. Conclusion: If presented in the right way by a trustworthy person, the What Matters to Me Workbook can be an easy to use, useful, and safe resource for patients with serious illness and their caregivers. Innovation: The Workbook focuses on serious illness rather than end-of-life and meshes with a clinician-facing conversation guide and a health-system level intervention.

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.

Influence of personal preferences for life-sustaining treatment on medical decision making among pediatric intensivists.

OBJECTIVES: Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment by physicians is influenced by a variety of factors; the role of physicians' personal preferences for life-sustaining treatments has not previously been explored. We sought to examine the relationship between personal preferences for life-sustaining treatment and medical decision making among pediatric intensivists. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national anonymous mail survey. SUBJECTS: All board-certified/eligible pediatric intensivists identified by the American Medical Association Masterfile. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 471 (30%) surveys were returned. A Personal Preference Score was calculated from responses to personal-preference questions for life-sustaining treatments adapted from "Your Life, Your Choices," by Pearlman et al. Physicians were asked to consider the "acceptability" of offering and recommending treatment options involving life-sustaining treatments in a hypothetical scenario of a 2-yr old with a high cervical spinal-cord transection. Logistic regression controlling for sociodemographic characteristics found significant relationships (p<.01) between physicians' own preferences modeled as a one standard deviation change in their own Personal Preference Score (preference for life-sustaining treatment) and whether they offered more or less aggressive care (OR [95%CI]). Physicians who had a higher Personal Preference Score (higher preference for their own life-sustaining treatment) were more likely to recommend a tracheostomy (1.38 [1.35-1.41]) and reintubation if the patient failed extubation (1.87 [1.81-1.94]). Pediatric intensivists who had a lower Personal Preference Score (lower preference for life-sustaining treatment) were more likely to recommend that the patient not be reintubated if extubation failed (1.42 [1.39-1.46]) and to recommend Do Not Resuscitate status (1.34 [1.31-1.37]). CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric intensivists, personal preferences for life-sustaining treatment were significantly associated with scenario-based responses to acceptability of withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Physicians should be aware of the potential for personal preferences to influence practice recommendations, and endeavor to elicit and respect family preferences in collaborative decision making.

Update in palliative care--2011.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this update is to summarize scientifically rigorous articles published in 2010 that serve to advance the field of palliative medicine and have an impact on clinical practice. METHOD: We conducted two separate literature searches for articles published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010. We reviewed title pages from the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, JAMA, Journal of Clinical Oncology, JGIM, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Journal of Palliative Medicine, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, PC-FACS (Fast Article Critical Summaries for Clinicians in Palliative Care). We also conducted a Medline search with the key words "palliative," "hospice," and "terminal" care. Each author presented approximately 20 abstracts to the group. All authors reviewed these abstracts, and when needed, full text publications. We focused on articles relevant to general internists. We rated the articles individually, eliminating by consensus those that were not deemed of highest priority, and discussed the final choices as a group. RESULTS: We first identified 126 articles with potential relevance. We presented 20 at the annual SGIM update session, and discuss 11 in this paper.