Advance care planning evaluation in hospitalised elderly patients: a multicenter, prospective study (The ACCEPT Study)

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.

The Surprise Question and Serious Illness Conversations: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Serious Illness Conversations aim to discuss patient goals. However, on acute medicine units, seriously ill patients may undergo distressing interventions until death.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility of using the Surprise Question, "Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?" to identify patients who would benefit from early Serious Illness Conversations and study any changes in the interdisciplinary team's beliefs, confidence, and engagement as a result of asking the Surprise Question.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort pilot study with two Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles.

PARTICIPANTS/CONTEXT

Fifty-eight healthcare professionals working on Acute Medicine Units participated in pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. The intervention involved asking participants the Surprise Question for each patient. Patient charts were reviewed for Serious Illness Conversation documentation.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical approval was granted by the institutions involved.

FINDINGS

Equivocal overall changes in the beliefs, confidence, and engagement of healthcare professionals were observed. Six out of 23 patients were indicated as needing a Serious Illness Conversation; chart review provided some evidence that these patients had more Serious Illness Conversation documentation compared with the 17 patients not flagged for a Serious Illness Conversation. Issues were identified in equating the Surprise Question to a Serious Illness Conversation.

DISCUSSION

Appropriate support for seriously ill patients is both a nursing professional and ethical duty. Flagging patients for conversations may act as a filtering process, allowing healthcare professionals to focus on conversations with patients who need them most. There are ethical and practical issues as to what constitutes a "serious illness" and if answering "no" to the Surprise Question always equates to a conversation.

CONCLUSION

The barriers of time constraints and lack of training call for institutional change in order to prioritise the moral obligation of Serious Illness Conversations.

Influence of clinical context on interpretation and use of an advance care planning policy: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is a process through which people share their values, goals and preferences regarding future medical treatments with the purpose of aligning care received with patient wishes. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives from patients and clinicians in 4 clinical settings to understand how context influences interpretation and application of advance care planning processes.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative interpretive descriptive design. Patient and clinician participants were recruited across 4 clinical outpatient settings (cancer, heart failure, renal failure and supportive living) in Calgary and Edmonton. Data were collected between 2014 and 2015 by means of recorded one-on-one semistructured interviews. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis in 2016-2017.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients and 34 clinicians participated in interviews. Themes common to all 4 contexts were lack of shared understanding between patients and clinicians, and a lack of consistent clinical process related to advance care planning. Advance care planning understanding and process varied substantially between contexts. This variation seemed to be driven by differences in perceptions around disease burden and the nature of the physician-patient relationship.

INTERPRETATION

Provision of a system-wide policy and procedural framework alone was not found to be sufficient to form a standardized approach to advance care planning, as considerable variability existed in advance care planning process between and within clinical settings. Quality-improvement methods that consider local processes, gaps and barriers can help in developing a consistent, comprehensive process.