Association of a Heart Failure Management Incentive in Primary Care With Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We aim to examine the association between primary care physicians' billing of Q050A, a pay-for-performance heart failure (HF) management incentive fee code, and the composite outcome of mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department visits. METHODS AND RESULTS: This population-based cohort study linked administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada, for patients with HF aged >66 years between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2020. Cases were patients with HF who had a Q050A fee code billed. Cases and controls were matched 1:1 on age, sex, patient status on being rostered to a primary care physician, cardiologist, or internist visit in the 6 months before study enrollment, Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group resource use bands, days between HF diagnosis and study enrollment (±2 years), and the logit of the propensity score. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed the association of Q050A with the outcome. A total of 59 664 cases had a Q050A billed, whereas 244 883 patients did not. Before matching, patients who had a Q050A billed were more likely to be men (52% versus 49%), were rostered to a primary care physician (100% versus 96%), had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, and had higher health care costs. The mean follow-up was 481 days for cases and 530 days for controls. The composite outcome (hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.09-1.12]) was significantly higher for cases than controls. CONCLUSIONS: The Q050A incentive improved financial compensation for primary care physicians managing patients with HF but was not associated with improvements in the outcome. Research on promoting evidence-based HF management is warranted.

Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness. METHODS: The development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before-after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1-2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one's values. RESULTS: In the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (-6.7 points, 95% CI -11.1 to -2.3, p=0.003; 0-100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (-10.0 points, 95% CI -17.3 to -2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1-5 scale; N=61). CONCLUSIONS: The Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted.

Evaluating the Implementation of the Conversation Starter Kit in Long Term Care.

INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning can improve the quality of life for residents in long-term care homes and reduce stress for families. However, care home staff and families often lack knowledge about advance care planning, making it especially difficult for residents with dementia to communicate their care plan wishes. A Conversation Starter Kit may increase advance care planning awareness among staff and families. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated an advance care planning intervention, the Conversation Starter Kit booklet, for use in long term care homes. METHODS: Data were collected at three long-term care homes in southern Ontario. We collected data from 55 residents who were able to make decisions on their own paired with 11 family members of these residents. We also collected data from 24 family members of residents who were unable to make decisions on their own. This study used a quasi-experimental, one group pre/post design. Quantitative surveys were administered before and after a three-month advance care planning intervention. An additional structured interview was completed at the end of the intervention period, which included both closed and open-ended questions to assess perceptions about the booklet's use or non-use. RESULTS: Residents reported more engagement in advance care planning after completing the Conversation Starter Kit booklet, particularly related to asking questions to health care providers about health care decisions. Family members reported feeling very certain that they would be able to make decisions on behalf of the resident but felt less certain after completing the booklet, implying the booklet raised their awareness of the types of decisions they might need to make, hopefully prompting them to be more prepared for decisions in the future. CONCLUSIONS: An advance care planning intervention - The Conversation Starter Kit booklet - appears acceptable and easy to use for residents and family members/friends in long-term care and can improve resident engagement in advance care planning. Although using the booklet may decrease efficacy for decision making among family members of long-term care residents, it may highlight the importance of more actionable engagement in advance care planning among residents, their families/friends, and staff.

Characteristics of Clinicians Are Associated With Their Beliefs About ICD Deactivation: Insight From the DECIDE-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Discussing goals of care with heart failure patients is recommended but is not done systematically, due to factors such as time and personal beliefs. A recent survey showed that one-fifth of clinicians believe that implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation (ICDD) is unethical or constitutes physician-assisted suicide. We investigated whether individuals' characteristics are associated with these beliefs. METHODS: The Decision-Making About Goals of Care for Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure (DECIDE-HF) survey was given to healthcare providers at 9 hospitals to assess their perceived barriers to goals-of-care discussions. The association between respondent characteristics and their beliefs was examined using 2 adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: We included 760 clinicians (459 nurses, 94 fellows, and 207 cardiologists). The responses varied among professions, with the belief that ICDD is unethical considered to be important barrier by nurses (24%), fellows (10%), and staff (7%); P < 0.001). After adjusting for site, spirituality being more important in life (odds ratio [OR]: 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.37-3.56; P = 0.001, compared to less important), region of training (Asia [OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.12-16.31; P = 0.001] and Middle East [OR: 5.55; 95% CI:1.57-19.63; P = 0.008] compared to Canada), and years in practice (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.07-1.63; P = 0.01 per decade) influenced beliefs about ICDD being unethical, with similar results for the belief that ICDD represents physician-assisted suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Sociocultural factors, region of training, and profession influence clinicians' beliefs about ICDD being unethical and representing physician-assisted suicide. These factors and beliefs must be acknowledged when facing the delicate issue of end-of-life discussion.

CONTEXTE: Une discussion sur les objectifs de soins avec les patients atteints d'insuffisance cardiaque est recommandée, mais elle n'est pas systématiquement menée en raison de facteurs tels que les contraintes de temps et les croyances personnelles. Selon une enquête récente, un cinquième des cliniciens croient qu'une désactivation d'un défibrillateur cardioverteur implantable (DDCI) est contraire à l'éthique ou représente un suicide assisté par le médecin. Nous avons vérifié si des caractéristiques individuelles sont associées à ces croyances. MÉTHODOLOGIE: L'enquête DECIDE-HF ( Deci sion-Making About Goals of Care for Hospitalize d Pati e nts With H eart F ailure) a été réalisée chez des professionnels de la santé de neuf hôpitaux dans le but d'évaluer les obstacles qu'ils percevaient face à la discussion sur les objectifs de soins. Le lien entre les caractéristiques des répondants et leurs croyances a été analysé à l'aide de deux modèles ajustés de régression logistique. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons interrogé 760 cliniciens (459 infirmières, 94 médecins associés et 207 cardiologues). Les réponses ont varié d'une profession à l'autre, la croyance qu'une DDCI est contraire à l'éthique étant considérée comme un obstacle important par 24 % des infirmières, 10 % des médecins associés et 7 % des membres du personnel (p < 0,001). Après ajustement selon l'établissement, l'importance de la spiritualité dans la vie (très important [rapport de cotes {RC}] = 2,21; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 1,37-3,56; p = 0,001 comparativement à moins important), la région d'obtention du diplôme (Asie [RC = 5,88; IC à 95 % : 2,12-16,31; p = 0,001] et Moyen-Orient [RC = 5,55; IC à 95 % : 1,57-19,63; p = 0,008] comparativement au Canada) et le nombre d'années d'exercice (RC = 1,32; IC à 95 % : 1,07-1,63; p = 0,01 par tranche de 10 ans) ont influencé les croyances voulant qu'une DDCI soit contraire à l'éthique, et les résultats ont été similaires pour la croyance selon laquelle une DDCI représente un suicide assisté par le médecin. CONCLUSIONS: Des facteurs socioculturels, la région de formation et la profession influencent les croyances des cliniciens sur la DDCI et le fait qu'ils la considèrent comme étant une démarche contraire à l'éthique ou un suicide assisté par un médecin. Ces facteurs et croyances doivent être reconnus lorsque vient le temps d'aborder la délicate question de la discussion sur la fin de vie.

Clinicians' Perspectives After Implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Discussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations. Objective: To explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020. Exposures: The SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP. Results: Among 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.

Implementing Advance Care Planning Tools in Practice: A Modified World Café to Elicit Barriers and Recommendations from Potential Adopters.

This paper reports findings from a modified World Café conducted at a palliative care professional conference in 2019, where input on tools to support advance care planning (ACP) was solicited from healthcare practitioners, managers and family members of patients. Barriers to ACP tool use included insufficient structures and resources in healthcare, death-avoidance culture and inadequate patient and family member engagement. Recommendations for tool use included clarification of roles and processes, training, mandates and monitoring, leadership support, greater reflection of diversity in tools and methods for public engagement. This paper illuminates factors to consider when implementing ACP tools in healthcare.

Observational study of agreement between attending and trainee physicians on the surprise question: "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?"

BACKGROUND: Optimal end-of-life care requires identifying patients that are near the end of life. The extent to which attending physicians and trainee physicians agree on the prognoses of their patients is unknown. We investigated agreement between attending and trainee physician on the surprise question: "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?", a question intended to assess mortality risk and unmet palliative care needs. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective cohort study of general internal medicine patients at 7 tertiary academic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. General internal medicine attending and senior trainee physician dyads were asked the surprise question for each of the patients for whom they were responsible. Surprise question response agreement was quantified by Cohen's kappa using Bayesian multilevel modeling to account for clustering by physician dyad. Mortality was recorded at 12 months. RESULTS: Surprise question responses encompassed 546 patients from 30 attending-trainee physician dyads on academic general internal medicine teams at 7 tertiary academic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Patients had median age 75 years (IQR 60-85), 260 (48%) were female, and 138 (25%) were dependent for some or all activities of daily living. Trainee and attending physician responses agreed in 406 (75%) patients with adjusted Cohen's kappa of 0.54 (95% credible interval 0.41 to 0.66). Vital status was confirmed for 417 (76%) patients of whom 160 (38% of 417) had died. Using a response of "No" to predict 12-month mortality had positive likelihood ratios of 1.84 (95% CrI 1.55 to 2.22, trainee physicians) and 1.51 (95% CrI 1.30 to 1.72, attending physicians), and negative likelihood ratios of 0.31 (95% CrI 0.17 to 0.48, trainee physicians) and 0.25 (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.46, attending physicians). CONCLUSION: Trainee and attending physician responses to the surprise question agreed in 54% of cases after correcting for chance agreement. Physicians had similar discriminative accuracy; both groups had better accuracy predicting which patients would survive as opposed to which patients would die. Different opinions of a patient's prognosis may contribute to confusion for patients and missed opportunities for engagement with palliative care services.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Support Intervention About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized Patients Who Have a High Risk of Death.

BACKGROUND: Many seriously ill hospitalized patients have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as part of their care plan, but CPR is unlikely to achieve the goals of many seriously ill hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a multicomponent decision support intervention changes documented orders for CPR in the medical record, compared to usual care. DESIGN: Open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Patients on internal medicine and neurology wards at two tertiary care teaching hospitals who had a 1-year mortality greater than 10% as predicted with a validated model and whose care plan included CPR, if needed. INTERVENTION: Both the control and intervention groups received usual communication about CPR at the discretion of their care team. The intervention group participated in a values clarification exercise and watched a CPR video decision aid. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a no-CPR order at 14 days after enrollment. KEY RESULTS: We recruited 200 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. Mean age was 77 years. There was no difference between the groups in no-CPR orders 14 days after enrollment (17/100 (17%) intervention vs 17/99 (17%) control, risk difference, - 0.2%) (95% confidence interval - 11 to 10%; p = 0.98). In addition, there were no differences between groups in decisional conflict summary score or satisfaction with decision-making. Patients in the intervention group had less conflict about understanding treatment options (decisional conflict knowledge subscale score mean (SD), 17.5 (26.5) intervention arm vs 40.4 (38.1) control; scale range 0-100 with lower scores reflecting less conflict). CONCLUSIONS: Among seriously ill hospitalized patients who had CPR as part of their care plan, this decision support intervention did not increase the likelihood of no-CPR orders compared to usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Frailty Network, The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization.

A pilot evaluation of the Strengthening a Palliative Approach in Long-Term Care (SPA-LTC) program.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased annual mortality in long-term care (LTC) homes, research has shown that care of dying residents and their families is currently suboptimal in these settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate resident and family outcomes associated with the Strengthening a Palliative Approach in LTC (SPA-LTC) program, developed to help encourage meaningful end of life discussions and planning. METHODS: The study employs a mixed method design in four LTC homes across Southern Ontario. Data were collected from residents and families of the LTC homes through chart reviews, interviews, and focus groups. Interviews with family who attended a Palliative Care Conference included both closed-ended and open-ended questions. RESULTS: In total, 39 residents/families agreed to participate in the study. Positive intervention outcomes included a reduction in the proportion of emergency department use at end of life and hospital deaths for those participating in SPA-LTC, improved support for families, and increased family involvement in the care of residents. For families who attended a Palliative Care Conference, both quantitative and qualitative findings revealed that families benefited from attending them. Residents stated that they appreciated learning about a palliative approach to care and being informed about their current status. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of SPA-LTC for residents and families justify its continued use within LTC. Study results also suggest that certain enhancements of the program could further promote future integration of best practices within a palliative approach to care within the LTC context. However, the generalizability of these results across LTC homes in different regions and countries is limited given the small sample size.

Quality of clinicians' conversations with patients and families before and after implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program in a hospital setting: a retrospective chart review study.

BACKGROUND: Seriously ill patients in hospital have indicated that better communication with practitioners is vital for improving care. The aim of this study was to assess whether the quality of conversations about serious illness improved after implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP). METHODS: In this retrospective chart review study, we evaluated patients who were admitted to a medical ward at Hamilton General Hospital, had a stay of at least 48 hours, and were at risk for a lengthy stay or increased need for community-based services (inter-RAI Emergency Department Screener score of 5 or 6). The SICP study period was from Mar. 1, 2017, to Jan. 19, 2018. We used a validated codebook to assess the quality of documented conversations regarding serious illness for eligible patients before (usual care [control group]) and after SICP implementation (intervention group), specifically examining the following domains: patients' values and goals, understanding of prognosis and illness, end-of-life care planning, and code status or desire for other life-sustaining treatments. RESULTS: The study sample included 56 patients in the control group and 56 patients in the intervention group. The overall quality of documented conversations about serious illness was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (p < 0.001) and was significantly higher in the subdomains of values and goals (p < 0.001), understanding of prognosis and illness (p < 0.001) and life-sustaining treatments (p = 0.03) but not end-of-life care planning (p = 0.48). INTERPRETATION: Implementation of the SICP in a hospital setting was associated with higher quality of documented conversations regarding serious illness with patients at high risk for clinical or functional deterioration. The SICP is transferable and adaptable to a hospital setting, and was associated with an increase in adherence to best practices compared to usual care.

Medical students' experiences with goals of care discussions and their impact on professional identity formation.

CONTEXT: Goals of care (GoC) discussions occur amongst patients, family members and clinicians in order to establish plans of care and are invaluable aspects of end-of-life care. In previous research, medical learners have reported insufficient training and emotional distress about end-of-life decision making, but most studies have focused on postgraduate trainees and have been quantitative or have evaluated specific educational interventions. None have qualitatively explored medical students' experiences with GoC discussions, their perceptions of associated hidden curricula, and the impacts of these on professional identity formation (PIF), the individualised developmental processes by which laypersons evolve to think, act and feel like, and ultimately become, medical professionals. METHODS: Using purposive sampling at one Canadian medical school, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 medical students to explore their experiences with GoC discussions during their core internal medicine clerkship. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and anonymised. Concurrently with data collection, transcripts were analysed iteratively and inductively using interpretative phenomenological analysis, a qualitative research approach that allows the rich exploration of subjective experiences. RESULTS: Participants reported minimal support and supervision in conducting GoC discussions, which were experienced as ethically challenging, emotionally powerful encounters exemplifying tensions between formal and hidden curricula. Role modelling and institutional culture were key mechanisms through which hidden curricula were transmitted, subverting formal curricula in doing so and contributing to participants' emotional distress. Participants' coping responses were generally negative and included symptoms of burnout, the pursuit of standardisation, rationalisation, compartmentalisation and the adaptation of previously held, more idealised professional identities. CONCLUSIONS: GoC discussions in this study were often led by inexperienced medical students and impacted negatively on their PIF. Through complex emotional processes, they struggled to reconcile earlier concepts of physician identities with newly developing ones and often reluctantly adopted suboptimal professional behaviours and attitudes. Improved education about GoC discussions is necessary for patient care and may represent concrete and specific opportunities to influence students' PIF positively.

Supporting shared decision-making about cardiopulmonary resuscitation using a video-based decision-support intervention in a hospital setting: a multisite before-after pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatients are often prescribed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without a shared decision-making process. Since implementation of decision aids into practice is highly sensitive to the clinical milieu, we performed a pilot study to refine our study procedures and to evaluate the acceptability and potential effectiveness of a shared decision-making intervention when implemented in a Canadian hospital setting. METHODS: In this before-after pilot study, we recruited patients and family members on the medical wards of 2 Canadian teaching hospitals between September 2015 and March 2017. The intervention consisted of viewing a CPR decision video and completing a values-clarification worksheet; follow-up discussion with the physician was encouraged. The primary feasibility outcome was acceptability of the video, and the primary effectiveness outcome was change in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (lower scores being more desirable) after the intervention. Participants rated the extent of shared decision-making using the CollaboRATE instrument. RESULTS: Of the 71 participants (43 patients with a mean age of 79.0 [standard deviation (SD) 11.4] yr and 28 family members with a mean age of 61.0 [SD 10.0] yr), 65 (92%) rated the CPR decision video as good to excellent. The intervention was associated with an improvement in knowledge about CPR (+2.7 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 3.3, effect size 1.5) and a reduction in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (-18.1 points, 95% CI -21.8 to -14.3, effect size 1.4). The 36 participants who had a discussion with a physician about CPR after watching the video rated the extent of shared decision-making as 6.3 (SD 1.7) (possible maximum score 9). There was a nonsignificant decrease in the proportion of patients with a medical order for CPR after the intervention (71% before v. 63% after, p = 0.06). INTERPRETATION: The CPR decision video was acceptable to patients and family members. Our decision-support intervention may improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict and reduce the prevalence of medical orders for CPR in the Canadian hospital setting.

Brief English and Spanish Survey Detects Change in Response to Advance Care Planning Interventions.

CONTEXT: The validated 82-item Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey measures a broad range of ACP behaviors but is long. OBJECTIVES: Determine whether shorter survey versions (55-item, 34-item, 15-item, 9-item, and 4-item versions) can detect similar change in response to two well-validated ACP interventions and provide practical effect size information. METHODS: We assessed ACP engagement for 986 English- and Spanish-speaking adults in a randomized trial of PREPARE vs. an advance directive-only study arms. The survey was administered at baseline, one week, three months, six months, and 12 months. We calculated mean change scores from baseline to follow-up time points by study arm, intraclass correlation coefficients of change scores between the 82-item survey with shorter versions, and within-group and between-group effect sizes of the mean change scores. RESULTS: Shorter survey versions were able to detect within-group and between-group changes at all time points. Within-group intraclass correlations of the 82-item to shorter versions were high (0.78-0.97), and the amount of between-group differences was comparable using all survey versions. Twelve-month within-group effect sizes ranged narrowly from 0.76 to 1.05 for different survey versions in the PREPARE arm and from 0.44 to 0.64 for the advance directive-only version. Between-group effect sizes ranged narrowly from 0.24 to 0.30 for different survey versions. Results were similar when stratified by English and Spanish speakers. CONCLUSION: Shorter versions of the ACP Engagement Survey were able to detect within-group and between-group changes comparable with the 82-item version and can be useful for efficiently and effectively measuring ACP engagement in research and clinical settings.

Enhancing Medical Learners' Knowledge of, Comfort and Confidence in Holding Serious Illness Conversations.

OBJECTIVES: Having early discussions with seriously ill patients about their priorities and values can improve their peace of mind and family outcomes during bereavement; however, physicians and medical students report feeling underprepared to hold serious illness conversations. We evaluated the impact of the Serious Illness Care Program clinician training workshop on medical learners' knowledge of comfort and confidence in holding such conversations. METHODS: Eligible learners were penultimate- or final-year medical students or first-year residents of generalist programs (Family Medicine, Internal Medicine). Learners participated in a 2.5-hour workshop involving reflection on serious illness discussions, didactic teaching and demonstration of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), role play with standardized patients, direct observation, and feedback from experts. Participants completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires with Likert-type scale and open-ended questions, which were analyzed using paired t tests and qualitative content analysis, respectively. RESULTS: We enrolled 25 learners. The intervention was associated with an increase in knowledge (P < .001) and self-efficacy (P < .001). All learners reported gaining new skills, with a majority specifically identifying a framework for structuring serious illness conversations in the qualitative analysis (n = 14, 56%). Participants stated the workshops would improve their comfort in holding serious illness conversations (n = 24, 96%), and that it would be valuable to integrate the workshops into their formal curricula (n = 23, 92%). CONCLUSIONS: Training on the use of the SICG is novel for medical students and first-year residents and associated with the improvement in their knowledge of and perceived capacity to hold serious illness conversations. This study suggests that the integration of SICG training into medical curricula may have educational value.

Breaking silence: a survey of barriers to goals of care discussions from the perspective of oncology practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet healthcare practitioners infrequently discuss goals of care (GoC) with hospitalized cancer patients. We sought to identify barriers to GoC discussions from the perspectives of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and oncology nurses. METHODS: This was a single center survey of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and inpatient oncology nurses. Barriers to GoC discussions were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). RESULTS: Between July 2013 and May 2014, of 185 eligible oncology clinicians, 30 staff oncologists, 10 oncology residents, and 28 oncology nurses returned surveys (response rate of 37%). The most important barriers to GoC discussions were patient and family factors. They included family members' difficulty accepting poor prognoses (mean score 5.9, 95% CI [5.7, 6.2]), lack of family agreement in the goals of care (mean score 5.8, 95% CI [5.5, 6.1]), difficulty understanding the limitations of life-sustaining treatments (mean score 5.8, 95% CI [5.6, 6.1]), lack of patients' capacity to make goals of care decisions (mean score 5.7, 95% CI [5.5, 6.0]), and language barriers (mean score 5.7, 95% CI [5.4, 5.9]). Participants viewed system factors and healthcare provider factors as less important barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology practitioners perceive patient and family factors as the most limiting barriers to GoC discussions. Our findings underscore the need for oncology clinicians to be equipped with strong communication skills to help patients and families navigate GoC discussions.

Patient-family agreement on values and preferences for life-sustaining treatment: results of a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify agreement between patients and their family members on their own values and preferences for use or non-use of life-sustaining treatments for the patient. METHODS: Hospitalised patients aged 55 years or older with advanced pulmonary, cardiac, liver disease or metastatic cancer or aged 80 years or older from medical wards at 16 Canadian hospitals and their family members completed a questionnaire including eight items about values related to life-sustaining treatment and a question about preferences for life-sustaining treatments. RESULTS: We recruited a total of 313 patient-family member dyads. Crude agreement between patients and family members about values related to life-sustaining treatment was 42% across all eight items but varied widely: 20% when asking how important it was for the patient to respect the wishes of family members regarding their care; 72% when asking how important it was for the patient to be kept comfortable and suffer as little as possible. Crude agreement on preferences for life-sustaining treatment was 91% (kappa 0.60; 95%CI 0.45 to 0.75) when looking at preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus no CPR but fell to 56% when including all five response options with varying degrees of resuscitative, medical or comfort options (kappa 0.39; 95%CI 0.31 to 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: There is appreciable disagreement between seriously ill hospitalised patients and family members in their values and preferences for life-sustaining treatment. Strategies are needed to improve the quality of advance care planning, so that surrogates are better able to honour patient's wishes at the end of life.

Factors influencing decision making in neonatology: inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVE: We studied decision making regarding inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) in preterm infants with Pulmonary Hypertension (PH). STUDY DESIGN: We asked members of the AAP-Society of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine and Division-Chiefs to select from three management options- initiate iNO, engage parents in shared decision making or not consider iNO in an extremely preterm with PH followed by rating of factors influencing their decision. RESULTS: Three hundred and four respondents (9%) completed the survey; 36.5% chose to initiate iNO, 42% to engage parents, and 21.5% did not consider iNO. Provider's prior experience, safety, and patient-centered care were rated higher by those who initiated or offered iNO; lack of effectiveness and cost considerations by participants who did not chose iNO. CONCLUSIONS: Most neonatologists offer or initiate iNO therapy based on their individual experience. The minority who chose not to consider iNO placed higher value on lack of effectiveness and cost. These results demonstrate a tension between evidence and pathophysiology-based-therapy/personal experience.

Correction: Communication Tools for End-of-Life Decision-Making in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150671.].

Patterns of Care During the Terminal Hospital Admission for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Costs of end of life care for patients who have advanced heart failure (HF) are increasing. There is a perception that many of these patients receive aggressive treatments near the end of life. However, actual patterns of care are unclear. In this article we describe the use of life-sustaining treatments and the timing of goals of care discussions during patients' terminal admission for HF. We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18 years or older with a most responsible discharge diagnosis of HF who died between April 2012 and December 2013. We identified 133 eligible decedents of whom 67 (50%) received some form of life-sustaining treatment, although only 14 (11%) received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The first documented orders for scope of treatment were: CPR for 39 (29%), active medical treatment with no CPR for 81 (61%), and comfort care with no CPR for 11 (8%) patients. The last documented orders were for comfort care in 85 (64%) patients. There were 28 (21%) patients who received palliative care consultation. Median time between palliative care consultation and death was 6 days and between orders for comfort care and death was 24 hours. In contrast to the high mortality risk of our study cohort, palliative care consultation was often absent or in the final days of life, with orders for comfort-oriented care being written only 24 hours before death, suggesting there remain opportunities for earlier integration of palliative and goal-directed approaches to therapy for patients who have advanced HF.