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.

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.

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.

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.

Patient Identification for Serious Illness Conversations: A Scoping Review.

Serious illness conversations aim to align medical care and treatment with patients' values, goals, priorities, and preferences. Timely and accurate identification of patients for serious illness conversations is essential; however, existent methods for patient identification in different settings and population groups have not been compared and contrasted. This study aimed to examine the current literature regarding patient identification for serious illness conversations within the context of the Serious Illness Care Program and/or the Serious Illness Conversation Guide. A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A comprehensive search was undertaken in four databases for literature published between January 2014 and September 2021. In total, 39 articles met the criteria for inclusion. This review found that patients were primarily identified for serious illness conversations using clinical/diagnostic triggers, the 'surprise question', or a combination of methods. A diverse assortment of clinicians and non-clinical resources were described in the identification process, including physicians, nurses, allied health staff, administrative staff, and automated algorithms. Facilitators and barriers to patient identification are elucidated. Future research should test the efficacy of adapted identification methods and explore how clinicians inform judgements surrounding patient identification.

Serious Illness Care Programme-contextual factors and implementation strategies: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Serious Illness Care Programme (SICP) is a multicomponent evidence-based intervention that improves communication about patients' values and goals in serious illness. We aim to characterise implementation strategies for programme delivery and the contextual factors that influence implementation in three 'real-world' health system SICP initiatives. METHODS: We employed a qualitative thematic framework analysis of field notes collected during the first 1.5 years of implementation and a fidelity survey. RESULTS: Analysis revealed empiric evidence about implementation and institutional context. All teams successfully implemented clinician training and an electronic health record (EHR) template for documentation of serious illness conversations. When training was used as the primary strategy to engage clinicians, however, clinician receptivity to the programme and adoption of conversations remained limited due to clinical culture-related barriers (eg, clinicians' attitudes, motivations and practice environment). Visible leadership involvement, champion facilitation and automated EHR-based data feedback on documented conversations appeared to improve adoption. Implementing these strategies depended on contextual factors, including leadership support at the specialty level, champion resources and capacity, and EHR capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems need multifaceted implementation strategies to move beyond the limited impact of clinician training in driving improvement in serious illness conversations. These include EHR-based data feedback, involvement of specialty leaders to message the programme and align incentives, and local champions to problem-solve frontline challenges longitudinally. Implementation of these strategies depended on a favourable institutional context. Greater attention to the influence of contextual factors and implementation strategies may enable sustained improvements in serious illness conversations at scale.

Developing an easy-to-use tablet computer application for assessing patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: In order to be practically useful, computer applications for patients with cancer must be easily usable by people with limited computer literacy and impaired vision or dexterity. We describe the usability development process for an application that collects quality of life and symptom information from patients with cancer. METHODS: Usability testing consisted of user testing with cancer patients to identify initial design problems and a survey to compare the computer application's ease of use between elderly and younger patients. RESULTS: In user-testing phase, seven men aged 56 to 77 with prostate cancer were observed using the application and interviewed afterwards identifying several usability concerns. Sixty patients with breast, gastrointestinal, or prostate cancer participated in the ease of use survey, with 40% (n=24) aged 65 or older. Younger patients reported significantly higher scores than elderly patients (14.0 vs. 10.8, p = .001), even when prior computer and touch screen use was controlled. CONCLUSION: Elderly users reported lower ease of use scores than younger users; however, their average rating was quite high-10.8 on a scale of -16 to +16. It may be unrealistic to expect elderly or less computer literate users to rate any application as positively as younger, more computer savvy users-perhaps it is enough that they rate the application positively and can use it without undue difficulties. We hope that our process can serve as a model for how to bridge the fields of computer usability and healthcare.

Transitions in end-of-life care: the Oregon trail.

Hospitals can create an environment that supports patients, families, and healthcare professionals so that they are better able to recognize the best way to care for each patient during times of transition. This article highlights some of the supports intentionally put into place to assist patients, family, and staff through difficult transitions at Oregon Health & Science University. These supports include an expert inpatient and outpatient palliative care team to coach patients, families, and staff at the bedside; statewide efforts to raise the skill level of all healthcare professionals through education; and the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) program, which helps ensure that care decisions made in one setting are respected as the patient moves to another care setting.

Shared Medication PLanning In (SIMPLIfy) Home Hospice: An Educational Program to Enable Goal-Concordant Prescribing In Home Hospice.

CONTEXT: Simplifying medication regimens by tapering and/or withdrawing unnecessary drugs is important to optimize quality of life and safety for patients with serious illness. Few resources are available to educate clinicians, patients and family caregivers about this process. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of an educational program called Shared Medication PLanning In (SIMPLIfy) Home Hospice. METHODS: An environmental scan identified a state-of-the-art educational program for home hospice deprescribing that we adapted using a stakeholder panel engagement process. The stakeholder panel (two hospice administrators, three nurses, two physicians, two pharmacists, and two former family caregivers) drawn from two geographically diverse hospice agencies reviewed the educational program and recommended additional content. RESULTS: Iterative rounds of review and feedback resulted in: 1) a three-part clinician educational program (total duration = 1.5 hour) that presents a standardized, goal-concordant, medication review approach to align medications and conversations about regimen simplification with patient and family caregiver goals of care; 2) a patient-family caregiver medication management educational notebook that presents common symptoms, hospice medications, and medication regimen simplification principles; and 3) a brief guide including helpful phrases to use as conversation starters for key steps in the program. A professional designer created thematic coherence for all materials that was well received by stakeholder panelists and hospice staff. CONCLUSION: Educational materials can support hospice programs' and clinicians' efforts to implement goal-concordant medication simplification that optimizes end-of-life outcomes for patients and family caregivers. Evaluation of outcomes including medication appropriateness and family caregiver medication administration burden are not yet available.