Supporting Interprofessional Engagement in Serious Illness Conversations: An Adapted Resource.

Communication is vital to quality palliative care nursing particularly when caring for someone with a chronic life-limiting illness and their family. Conversations about future decline and preferred care are considered challenging and difficult and are often avoided, resulting in missed opportunities for improving care. To support more, earlier, better conversations, health care organizations in British Columbia, Canada, adopted the Serious Illness Care Program inclusive of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide developed by Ariadne Labs. Workshops for interprofessional team members have been held throughout the province. Nurses and allied health identified the need for more guidance in using the guide in the contexts of their clinical practice. Specifically challenging has been prognosis communication that falls within the scope of practice for each profession. Informed by workshop feedback, an expert team of nurse clinicians and educators tailored an interprofessional clinician reference guide to optimize the guide's use across health care settings. In this article, we present the adaptations focusing on (1) the role of nurses and allied health in serious illness communication, (2) prognosis communication, and (3) a range of role-play scenarios specific to nonphysician practice for serious illness conversations that may arise within the process of care.

Evaluation of the Utility of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (revised) Scale on a Tertiary Palliative Care Unit.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) Scale on a tertiary palliative care unit. METHOD: There were 92 admitted patients who participated in the study; the scale was administered to those able to participate on day 1 (n = 35, 38 percent), on day 4 (n = 20, 21 percent), and weekly. Patient comfort level with the ESAS-r tool was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) on day 4. Nurses' and physicians' perceptions of clinical assessment pre- and postimplementation of the scale were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of the participating physicians, 75 percent (n = 3) found that the ESAS-r Scale did not enhance clinical assessment; the proportion of nurses with that response was 37.5 percent (n = 6). Among these care providers, 50 percent of the physicians (n = 2) and 62 percent of the nurses (n = 10) thought that the scale was burdensome to patients; but 60 percent of the patients who were able to complete the comfort-level survey (n = 12) indicated that they did not find the scale burdensome. CONCLUSION: Patient acuity, team expertise, perceived burden to patients, and time commitment all influenced staff's recommendation not to implement the ESAS-r tool on the palliative care unit.