Balancing risks and rewards: How hematologists discuss uncertainty in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) offers many patients with blood cancers a chance of cure but carries risks. We characterized how hematologists discuss the high-risk, high-reward concept of alloHCT. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of video-recorded virtual encounters of hematologists who routinely perform alloHCT with actors portraying an older man recently diagnosed with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. RESULTS: Hematologists (n = 37) were a median age of 44 years, 65% male, and 68% white. They frequently used "teeter-totter" language that juxtaposed alloHCT's risks and rewards in a dynamic, quickly alternating fashion and communicated uncertainty in transplant outcomes. This dialogue oscillated between encouragement about alloHCT's potential for cure and caution about its risks and occurred within single speech turns and in exchanges between hematologist and patient. Fewer hematologists outlined their big-picture stance on transplant's risks and benefits early in the conversation. Meanwhile, hematologists varied in how they counseled patients to manage transplant-related uncertainty and consider treatment decision making. CONCLUSION: Hematologists use "teeter-totter" language to express hope and concern, confidence and uncertainty, and encouragement and caution about the high-risk, high-reward nature of alloHCT. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Teeter-totter language may help frame big-picture content about alloHCT's risks and benefits that is essential for patient education and decision making.

Embedding an Education Intervention about Shared Decision Making into an RCT: Ensuring competency and fidelity.

Objective: To describe the outcomes of training nephrology clinicians and clinical research participants, to use the Best Case/Worst Case Communication intervention, for discussions about dialysis initiation for patients with life-limiting illness, during a randomized clinical trial to ensure competency, fidelity to the intervention, and adherence to study protocols and the intervention throughout the trial. Methods: We enrolled 68 nephrologists at ten study sites and randomized them to receive training or wait-list control. We collected copies of completed graphic aids (component of the intervention), used with study-enrolled patients, to measure fidelity and adherence. Results: We trained 34 of 36 nephrologists to competence and 27 completed the entire program. We received 60 graphic aids for study-enrolled patients for a 73% return rate in the intervention arm. The intervention fidelity score for the graphic aid reflected completion of all elements throughout the study. Conclusion: We successfully taught the Best Case/Worst Case Communication intervention to clinicians as research participants within a randomized clinical trial. Innovation: Decisions about dialysis are an opportunity to discuss prognosis and uncertainty in relation to consideration of prolonged life supporting therapy. Our study reveals a strategy to evaluate adherence to a communication intervention in real time during a clinical study.

Communication Strategies of Transplant Hematologists in High-Risk Decision-Making Conversations.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to empower patients with blood cancers to make goal-concordant decisions about allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. This study characterizes communication strategies used by hematologists to discuss treatment options and facilitate SDM with patients in this high-risk, high-reward setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We recruited US hematologists who routinely perform allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant through email. Participants conducted up to an hour-long video-recorded encounter with an actor portraying a 67-year-old man with recently diagnosed high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. We transcribed and qualitatively analyzed video-recorded data. RESULTS: The mean age of participants (N = 37) was 44 years, 65% male, and 68% White. Many hematologists included similar key points in this initial consultation, although varied in how much detail they provided. Their discussion of treatment options included transplant and chemotherapy and less commonly supportive care or clinical trials. They often emphasized transplant's potential for cure, discussed transplant chronologically from pretransplant considerations through the post-transplant course, and outlined risks, complications, and major outcomes. Hematologists referred to several elements that formed the basis of treatment decision making. The strength of their treatment recommendations ranged from strong recommendations for transplant or chemotherapy to deferrals pending more information. Hematologists also varied in the extent to which they indicated the decision was physician-driven, patient-led, or shared. CONCLUSION: The transplant decision-making discussion is complex. Identification of similar content areas used by hematologists can be used as the basis for a communication tool to help hematologists discuss allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with patients.

Combining Dual Checkpoint Immunotherapy with Ablative Radiation to All Sites of Oligometastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Toxicity and Efficacy Results of a Phase 1b Trial.

PURPOSE: Ablative local treatment of all radiographically detected metastatic sites in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increases progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prior studies demonstrated the safety of combining stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with single-agent immunotherapy. We investigated the safety of combining SBRT to all metastatic tumor sites with dual checkpoint, anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4), and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) immunotherapy for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a phase 1b clinical trial in patients with oligometastatic NSCLC with up to 6 sites of extracranial metastatic disease. All sites of disease were treated with SBRT to a dose of 30 to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. Dual checkpoint immunotherapy was started 7 days after completion of radiation using anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) immunotherapy for a total of 4 cycles followed by durvalumab alone until progression or toxicity. RESULTS: Of the 17 patients enrolled in this study, 15 patients received at least 1 dose of combination immunotherapy per protocol. The study was closed early (17 of planned 21 patients) due to slow accrual during the COVID-19 pandemic. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6 patients (40%), of which only one was possibly related to the addition of SBRT to immunotherapy. Median PFS was 42 months and median OS has not yet been reached. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering ablative SBRT to all sites of metastatic disease in combination with dual checkpoint immunotherapy did not result in excessive rates of toxicity compared with historical studies of dual checkpoint immunotherapy alone. Although the study was not powered for treatment efficacy results, durable PFS and OS results suggest potential therapeutic benefit compared with immunotherapy or radiation alone in this patient population.

Clinician Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators for Delivering Early Integrated Palliative Care via Telehealth.

Early integrated palliative care (EIPC) significantly improves clinical outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. Telehealth may be a useful tool to deliver EIPC sustainably and equitably. Palliative care clinicians completed a survey regarding their perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and benefits of using telehealth video visits for delivering EIPC for patients with advanced lung cancer. Forty-eight clinicians across 22 cancer centers completed the survey between May and July 2022. Most (91.7%) agreed that telehealth increases access to EIPC and simplifies the process for patients to receive EIPC (79.2%). Clinicians noted that the elderly, those in rural areas, and those with less-resourced backgrounds have greater difficulty using telehealth. Perceived barriers were largely patient-based factors, including technological literacy, internet and device availability, and patient preferences. Clinicians agreed that several organizational factors facilitated telehealth EIPC delivery, including technological infrastructure (85.4%), training (83.3%), and support from study coordinators (81.3%). Other barriers included systems-based factors, such as insurance reimbursement and out-of-state coverage restrictions. Patient-, organization-, and systems-based factors are all important to providing and improving access to telehealth EIPC services. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of telehealth EIPC and how policies and interventions may improve access to and dissemination of this care modality.

Best Case/Worst Case: protocol for a multisite randomised clinical trial of a scenario planning intervention for patients with kidney failure.

INTRODUCTION: Given the burdens of treatment and poor prognosis, older adults with kidney failure would benefit from improved decision making and palliative care to clarify goals, address symptoms, and reduce unwanted procedures. Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) is a communication tool that uses scenario planning to support patients' decision making. This article describes the protocol for a multisite, cluster randomised trial to test the effect of training nephrologists to use the BC/WC communication tool on patient receipt of palliative care, and quality of life and communication. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are enrolling attending nephrologists, at 10 study sites in the USA, who see outpatients with advanced chronic kidney disease considering dialysis. We aim to enrol 320 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≤24 mL/min/1.73 m2 who are age 60 and older and have a predicted survival of 18 months or less. Nephrologists will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive training to use the communication tool (intervention) at study initiation or after study completion (wait-list control). Patients in the intervention group will receive care from a nephrologist trained to use the BC/WC communication tool. Patients in the control group will receive usual care. Using chart review and surveys of patients and caregivers, we will test the efficacy of the BC/WC intervention with receipt of palliative care as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include intensity of treatment at the end of life, the effect of the intervention on quality of communication (QOC) between nephrologists and patients (using the QOC scale), the change in quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale) and receipt of dialysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals have been granted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin (ID: 2022-0193), with each study site ceding review to the primary IRB. All nephrologists will be consented and given a copy of the consent form. No patients or caregivers will be recruited or consented until their nephrology provider has chosen to participate in the study. Results will be disseminated via submission for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and at national meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04466865.

Myosteatosis as a Shared Biomarker for Sarcopenia and Cachexia Using MRI and Ultrasound.

Purpose: Establish bedside biomarkers of myosteatosis for sarcopenia and cachexia. We compared ultrasound biomarkers against MRI-based percent fat, histology, and CT-based muscle density among healthy adults and adults undergoing treatment for lung cancer. Methods: We compared ultrasound and MRI myosteatosis measures among young healthy, older healthy, and older adults with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing systemic treatment, all without significant medical concerns, in a cross-sectional pilot study. We assessed each participant's rectus femoris ultrasound-based echo intensity (EI), shear wave elastography-based shear wave speed, and MRI-based proton density fat-fraction (PDFF). We also assessed BMI, rectus femoris thickness and cross-sectional area. Rectus femoris biopsies were taken for all older adults (n = 20) and we analyzed chest CT scans for older adults undergoing treatment (n = 10). We determined associations between muscle assessments and BMI, and compared these assessments between groups. Results: A total of 10 young healthy adults, 10 older healthy adults, and 10 older adults undergoing treatment were recruited. PDFF was lower in young adults than in older healthy adults and older adults undergoing treatment (0.3 vs. 2.8 vs. 2.9%, respectively, p = 0.01). Young adults had significantly lower EI than older healthy adults, but not older adults undergoing treatment (48.6 vs. 81.8 vs. 75.4, p = 0.02). When comparing associations between measures, PDFF was strongly associated with EI (ρ = 0.75, p < 0.01) and moderately negatively associated with shear wave speed (ρ = -0.49, p < 0.01) but not BMI, whole leg cross-sectional area, or rectus femoris cross-sectional area. Among participants with CT scans, paraspinal muscle density was significantly associated with PDFF (ρ = -0.70, p = 0.023). Histological markers of inflammation or degradation did not differ between older adult groups. Conclusion: PDFF was sensitive to myosteatosis between young adults and both older adult groups. EI was less sensitive to myosteatosis between groups, yet EI was strongly associated with PDFF unlike BMI, which is typically used in cachexia diagnosis. Our results suggest that ultrasound measures may serve to determine myosteatosis at the bedside and are more useful diagnostically than traditional weight assessments like BMI. These results show promise of using EI, shear wave speed, and PDFF proxies of myosteatosis as diagnostic and therapeutic biomarkers of sarcopenia and cachexia.

Corrigendum: Myosteatosis as a Shared Biomarker for Sarcopenia and Cachexia Using MRI and Ultrasound.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2022.896114.].

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Best case/worst case for the trauma ICU: Development and pilot testing of a communication tool for older adults with traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool to support shared decision making in older adults with surgical illness. We aimed to adapt and test BC/WC for use with critically ill older adult trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with 48 trauma clinicians in Wisconsin, Texas, and Oregon. We used qualitative content analysis to characterize feedback and adapted the tool to fit this setting. Using rapid sequence iterative design, we developed an implementation tool kit. We pilot tested this intervention at two trauma centers using a pre-post study design with older trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Main outcome measures included study feasibility, intervention acceptability, quality of communication, and clinician moral distress. RESULTS: BC/WC for trauma patients uses a graphic aid to document major events over time, illustrate plausible scenarios, and convey uncertainty. We enrolled 86 of 116 eligible patients and their surrogates (48 pre/38 postintervention). The median patient age was 72 years (51-95 years) and mean Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score was 126.1 (±30.6). We trained 43 trauma attendings and trauma fellows to use the intervention. Ninety-four percent could perform essential tool elements after training. The median end-of-life communication score (scale 0-10) improved from 4.5 to 6.6 (p = 0.006) after intervention as reported by family and from 4.1 to 6.0 (p = 0.03) as reported by nurses. Moral distress did not change. However, there was improvement (less distress) reported by physicians regarding "witnessing providers giving false hope" from 7.34 to 5.03 (p = 0.022). Surgeons reported the tool put multiple clinicians on the same page and was useful for families, but tedious to incorporate into rounds. CONCLUSION: BC/WC trauma ICU is acceptable to clinicians and may support improved communication in the ICU. Future efficacy testing is threatened by enrollment challenges for severely injured older adults and their family members. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.

Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance on the clinical management of dyspnea in adult patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. An Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) systematic review provided the evidence base for nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions to alleviate dyspnea. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a concurrent comparison group published through early May 2020. The ASCO Expert Panel also wished to address dyspnea assessment, management of underlying conditions, and palliative care referrals, and for these questions, an additional systematic review identified RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidelines published through July 2020. RESULTS: The AHRQ systematic review included 48 RCTs and two retrospective cohort studies. Lung cancer and mesothelioma were the most commonly addressed types of cancer. Nonpharmacologic interventions such as fans provided some relief from breathlessness. Support for pharmacologic interventions was limited. A meta-analysis of specialty breathlessness services reported improvements in distress because of dyspnea. RECOMMENDATIONS: A hierarchical approach to dyspnea management is recommended, beginning with dyspnea assessment, ascertainment and management of potentially reversible causes, and referral to an interdisciplinary palliative care team. Nonpharmacologic interventions that may be offered to relieve dyspnea include airflow interventions (eg, a fan directed at the cheek), standard supplemental oxygen for patients with hypoxemia, and other psychoeducational, self-management, or complementary approaches. For patients who derive inadequate relief from nonpharmacologic interventions, systemic opioids should be offered. Other pharmacologic interventions, such as corticosteroids and benzodiazepines, are also discussed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Effectiveness of Integrated Palliative and Oncology Care for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving intensive chemotherapy experience substantial decline in their quality of life (QOL) and mood during their hospitalization for induction chemotherapy and often receive aggressive care at the end of life (EOL). However, the role of specialty palliative care for improving the QOL and care for this population is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of integrated palliative and oncology care (IPC) on patient-reported and EOL outcomes in patients with AML. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multisite randomized clinical trial of IPC (n = 86) vs usual care (UC) (n = 74) for patients with AML undergoing intensive chemotherapy. Data were collected from January 2017 through July 2019 at 4 tertiary care academic hospitals in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Patients assigned to IPC were seen by palliative care clinicians at least twice per week during their initial and subsequent hospitalizations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients completed the 44-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (score range, 0-176) to assess QOL; the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), with subscales assessing symptoms of anxiety and depression (score range, 0-21); and the PTSD Checklist-Civilian version to assess posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (score range, 17-85) at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 12, and 24. The primary end point was QOL at week 2. We used analysis of covariance adjusting and mixed linear effect models to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. We used Fisher exact test to compare patient-reported discussion of EOL care preferences and receipt of chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Of 235 eligible patients, 160 (68.1%) were enrolled; of the 160 participants, the median (range) age was 64.4 (19.7-80.1) years, and 64 (40.0%) were women. Compared with those receiving UC, IPC participants reported better QOL (adjusted mean score, 107.59 vs 116.45; P = .04), and lower depression (adjusted mean score, 7.20 vs 5.68; P = .02), anxiety (adjusted mean score, 5.94 vs 4.53; P = .02), and PTSD symptoms (adjusted mean score, 31.69 vs 27.79; P = .01) at week 2. Intervention effects were sustained to week 24 for QOL (ß, 2.35; 95% CI, 0.02-4.68; P = .048), depression (ß, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.82 to -0.02; P = .04), anxiety (ß, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.01; P = .04), and PTSD symptoms (ß, -1.43; 95% CI, -2.34 to -0.54; P = .002). Among patients who died, those receiving IPC were more likely than those receiving UC to report discussing EOL care preferences (21 of 28 [75.0%] vs 12 of 30 [40.0%]; P = .01) and less likely to receive chemotherapy near EOL (15 of 43 [34.9%] vs 27 of 41 [65.9%]; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with AML, IPC led to substantial improvements in QOL, psychological distress, and EOL care. Palliative care should be considered a new standard of care for patients with AML. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02975869.

The Critical Care Nurse Communicator Program: An Integrated Primary Palliative Care Intervention.

Twenty percent of Americans die in an intensive care unit (ICU), often incapacitated or requiring assisted decision making. Surrogates are often required to make urgent, complex, high-stakes decisions. Communication among patients, families, and clinicians is often delayed and inefficient with frequent missed opportunities to support the emotional and psychological needs of surrogates, particularly at the end of life. The Critical Care Nurse Communicator program is a nurse-led, primary palliative care intervention designed to improve the quality and consistency of communication in the ICU and address the informational, psychological, and emotional needs of surrogate decision-makers through the shared decision-making process.

Opportunities to Improve Shared Decision Making in Dialysis Decisions for Older Adults with Life-Limiting Kidney Disease: A Pilot Study.

Background: Lack of awareness about the life-limiting nature of renal failure is a significant barrier to palliative care for older adults with end-stage renal disease. Objective: To train nephrologists to use the best case/worst case (BC/WC) communication tool to improve shared decision making about dialysis initiation for older patients with limited life expectancy. Design: This is a pre-/postinterventional pilot study. Setting/Subjects: There were 16 nephrologists and 30 patients of age 70 years and older with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <20 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in outpatient nephrology clinics, in Madison, WI. Measurements: Performance of tool elements, content of communication about dialysis, shared decision making, acceptability of the intervention, decisions to pursue dialysis, and palliative care referrals were measured. Results: Fifteen of 16 nephrologists achieved competence performing the BC/WC tool with standardized patients, executing at least 14 of 19 items. Nine nephrologists met with 30 patients who consented to audio record their clinic visit. Before training, clinic visits focused on laboratory results and preparation for dialysis. After training, nephrologists noted that declining kidney function was "bad news," presented dialysis and "no dialysis" as treatment options, and elicited patient preferences. Observer-measured shared decision-making (OPTION 5) scores improved from a median of 20/100 (interquartile range [IQR] 15-35) before training to 58/100 (IQR 55-65). Patients whose nephrologist used the BC/WC tool were less likely to make a decision to initiate dialysis and were more likely to be referred to palliative care. Conclusions: Nephrologists can learn to use the BC/WC tool with older patients to improve shared decision making about dialysis, which may increase access to palliative care.

Using Implementation Science to Adapt a Training Program to Assist Surgeons with High-Stakes Communication.

OBJECTIVE: Surgeons often conduct difficult conversations with patients near the end of life, yet surgical education provides little formalized communication training. We developed a communication tool, Best Case/Worst Case, and trained surgeons using a one-on-one resource intensive format that was effective but difficult to scale for widespread dissemination. We aimed to generate an implementation package to teach surgeons using fewer resources without sacrificing fidelity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the Replicating Effectiveness Programs framework to guide our implementation strategy and tested our intervention with 39 surgical residents at 4 institutions from September 2016 to June 2017. The implementation package consisted of: (1) instructional video, (2) checklist to assess competence, (3) learner manual, and (4) instructor manual. We focused on 3 implementation outcomes: feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability to participants. RESULTS: Attendance rates ranged from 16% to 75%. Site leaders had little difficulty identifying suitable instructors; however, resident recruitment proved challenging. Sixty-nine percent of residents completed the post-training assessment and the mean score was 12.8 (range 8-15) using the 15-point checklist. Across sites, 69% strongly agreed that Best Case/Worst Case is better than how they usually approach high-stakes conversations and 100% felt prepared to use the tool after training. Instructors reported that the training provided residents with the necessary skills to perform the fundamental elements of Best Case/Worst Case. CONCLUSIONS: Using implementation science we demonstrated that a resource intensive communication training intervention can be successfully modified for group-learning and wide-scale dissemination. However, we identified barriers to implementation, including challenges with feasibility and programmatic buy-in that inform not only resident education but also communication skills training more broadly.

Creating space to discuss end-of-life issues in cancer care.

OBJECTIVES: Analyze entire oncology clinical visits and examine instances in which oncologists have to break the bad news that patients' treatments are no longer effective. METHODS: Using conversation analysis we examine 128 audio recorded conversations between terminal cancer patients, their caregivers, and oncologists. RESULTS: When oncologists break the bad news that a patient's treatment is no longer effective, they often use a conversational device we call an "exhausted current treatment" (ECT) statement, which avoids discussing prognosis in favor of further discussing treatment options. Analysis suggests that improving and prioritizing patient-centered care and shared decision making is possible if we first understand the social organization of clinical visits. CONCLUSIONS: ECT statements and their movement towards discussing treatment options means that opportunities are bypassed for patients and caregivers to process or discuss scan results, and their prognostic implications. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When oncologists and patients, by fixating on treatment options, bypass opportunities to discuss the meaning of scan results, they fail to realize other goals associated with prognostic awareness. Talking about what scans mean may add minutes to that part of the clinic visit, but can create efficiencies that conserve overall time. We recommend that oncologists, after delivering scan news, ask, "Would you like discuss what this means?".

Barriers to Goal-concordant Care for Older Patients With Acute Surgical Illness: Communication Patterns Extrinsic to Decision Aids.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize patterns of communication extrinsic to a decision aid that may impede goal-concordant care. BACKGROUND: Decision aids are designed to facilitate difficult clinical decisions by providing better treatment information. However, these interventions may not be sufficient to effectively reveal patient values and promote preference-aligned decisions for seriously ill, older adults. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 31 decision-making conversations between surgeons and frail, older inpatients with acute surgical problems at a single tertiary care hospital. Conversations occurred before and after surgeons were trained to use a decision aid. We used directed qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns within 3 communication elements: disclosure of prognosis, elicitation of patient preferences, and integration of preferences into a treatment recommendation. RESULTS: First, surgeons missed an opportunity to break bad news. By focusing on the acute surgical problem and need to make a treatment decision, surgeons failed to expose the life-limiting nature of the patient's illness. Second, surgeons asked patients to express preference for a specific treatment without gaining knowledge about the patient's priorities or exploring how patients might value specific health states or disabilities. Third, many surgeons struggled to integrate patients' goals and values to make a treatment recommendation. Instead, they presented options and noted, "It's your decision." CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid alone may be insufficient to facilitate a decision that is truly shared. Attention to elements beyond provision of treatment information has the potential to improve communication and promote goal-concordant care for seriously ill older patients.