Mortality and Readmission After Cervical Fracture from a Fall in Older Adults: Comparison with Hip Fracture Using National Medicare Data

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/115960/1/jgs13670.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/115960/2/jgs13670_am.pd

Adherence and Concordance between Serious Illness Care Planning Conversations and Oncology Clinician Documentation among Patients with Advanced Cancer

Background:Serious illness conversations are part of advance care planning (ACP) and focus on prognosis, values, and goals in patients who are seriously ill. To be maximally effective, such conversations must be documented accurately and be easily accessible. Objectives:The two coprimary objectives of the study were to assess concordance between written documentation and recorded audiotaped conversations, and to evaluate adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide questions. Methods:Data were obtained as part of a trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clinicians were trained to use a guide to conduct and document serious illness conversations. Conversations were audiotaped. Two researchers independently compared audiorecordings with the corresponding documentation in an electronic health record (EHR) template and free-text progress notes, and rated the degree of concordance and adherence. Results:We reviewed a total of 25 audiorecordings. Clinicians addressed 87% of the conversation guide elements. Prognosis was discussed least frequently, only in 55% of the patients who wanted that information. Documentation was fully concordant with the conversation 43% of the time. Concordance was best when documenting family matters and goals, and least frequently concordant when documenting prognostic communication. Most conversations (64%) were documented in the template, a minority (28%) only in progress notes and two conversations (8%) were not documented. Concordance was better when the template was used (62% vs. 28%). Conclusion:Clinicians adhered well to the conversation guide. However, key information elicited was documented and fully concordant less than half the time. Greater concordance was observed when clinicians used a prespecified template. The combined use of a guide and EHR template holds promise for ACP conversations

A Qualitative Study of Serious Illness Conversations in Patients with Advanced Cancer

BACKGROUND: Conversations with seriously ill patients about their values and goals have been associated with reduced distress, a better quality of life, and goal-concordant care near the end of life. Yet, little is known about how such conversations are conducted. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the content of serious illness conversations and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of audio-recorded, serious illness conversations using an evidence-based guide and obtained through a cluster randomized controlled trial in an outpatient oncology setting. Setting/Measurements: Clinicians assigned to the intervention arm received training to use the "Serious Illness Conversation Guide" to have a serious illness conversation about values and goals with advanced cancer patients. Conversations were de-identified, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two researchers. Key themes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 25 conversations conducted by 16 clinicians were evaluated. The median conversation duration was 14 minutes (range 4-37), with clinicians speaking half of the time. Thematic analyses demonstrated five key themes: (1) supportive dialogue between patients and clinicians; (2) patients' openness to discuss emotionally challenging topics; (3) patients' willingness to articulate preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments; (4) clinicians' difficulty in responding to emotional or ambiguous patient statements; and (5) challenges in discussing prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this exploratory study suggest that seriously ill patients are open to discussing values and goals with their clinician. Yet, clinicians may struggle when disclosing a time-based prognosis and in responding to patients' emotions. Such skills should be a focus for additional training for clinicians caring for seriously ill patients

Feasibility of frailty screening among patients with advanced heart failure

Background Frailty is common among patients with advanced heart failure (HF), and screening for frailty to guide care is recommended. Although multiple tools are available to screen for frailty, the feasibility of routinely incorporating frailty screening into daily clinical practice among hospitalised advanced HF patients has not been rigorously tested.Methods This was a prospective, single-centre, quality improvement study. Two brief frailty screening tools were incorporated into palliative care consultations for all patients ≥50 years from August 2021 to October 2022. In the first phase, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was implemented, followed by the Study of Osteoporotic Fracture (SOF) tool or a modified SOF (mSOF) version in the second phase. The primary outcome was feasibility (%) of performing frailty screenings for this high-risk population.Results A total of 212 patients (mean age 69±10 years, 69% male, 79% white, 30% with ischaemic HF) were referred for palliative care consultation during the study period. Overall, frailty screens were completed in 86% (n=183) of patients. CFS and mSOF reached >80% of adoption, while SOF adoption was 54%. Altogether, 52% of the population screened frail by use of CFS and 52% also by mSOF. All clinicians (n=6) participating in the study reported that frailty screening tools were useful and acceptable, and 83% reported plans for continued utilisation in future clinical practice.Conclusions Frailty screening with CFS or mSOF tools was feasible in hospitalised patients with advanced HF. Tools that require physical assessment were more challenging to implement. These data support the feasibility of incorporating questionnaire-based frailty screening in a busy hospital setting

Prioritizing Primary Care Patients for a Communication Intervention Using the “Surprise Question”: a Prospective Cohort Study

BackgroundCommunication about priorities and goals improves the value of care for patients with serious illnesses. Resource constraints necessitate targeting interventions to patients who need them most.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a clinician screening tool to identify patients for a communication intervention.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingPrimary care clinics in Boston, MA.ParticipantsPrimary care physicians (PCPs) and nurse care coordinators (RNCCs) identified patients at high risk of dying by answering the Surprise Question (SQ): "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 2 years?"MeasurementsPerformance of the SQ for predicting mortality, measured by the area under receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.ResultsSensitivity of PCP response to the SQ at 2 years was 79.4% and specificity 68.6%; for RNCCs, sensitivity was 52.6% and specificity 80.6%. In univariate regression, the odds of 2-year mortality for patients identified as high risk by PCPs were 8.4 times higher than those predicted to be at low risk (95% CI 5.7-12.4, AUC 0.74) and 4.6 for RNCCs (3.4-6.2, AUC 0.67). In multivariate analysis, both PCP and RNCC prediction of high risk of death remained associated with the odds of 2-year mortality.LimitationsThis study was conducted in the context of a high-risk care management program, including an initial screening process and training, both of which affect the generalizability of the results.ConclusionWhen used in combination with a high-risk algorithm, the 2-year version of the SQ captured the majority of patients who died, demonstrating better than expected performance as a screening tool for a serious illness communication intervention in a heterogeneous primary care population

Exploring the value of structured narrative feedback within the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex): a qualitative analysis

Objectives The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) has emerged as a framework for conversations with patients with a serious illness diagnosis. This study reports on narratives generated from open-ended questions of a novel assessment tool, the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex), to assess resident-led conversations with patients in oncology outpatient clinics.Design Qualitative study using template analysis.Setting Three academic cancer centres in Canada.Participants 7 resident physicians (trainees), 7 patients from outpatient cancer clinics, 10 preceptors (raters) consisting of medical oncologists, palliative care physicians and radiation oncologists.Interventions Each trainee conducted an SIC with a patient, which was videotaped. The raters watched the videos and evaluated each trainee using the novel SIC-Ex and the reference Calgary-Cambridge Guide (CCG) initially and again 3 months later. Two independent coders used template analysis to code the raters’ narrative comments and identify themes/subthemes.Outcome measures How narrative comments aligned with elements of the CCG and SICG.Results Template analysis yielded four themes: adhering to SICG, engaging patients and family members, conversation management and being mindful of demeanour. Narrative comments identified numerous verbal and non-verbal elements essential to SICG. Some comments addressing general skills in engaging patients/families and managing the conversation (eg, setting agenda, introduction, planning, exploring, non-verbal communication) related to both the CCG and SICG, whereas other comments such as identifying substitute decision maker(s), affirming commitment and introducing Advance Care Planning were specific to the SICG.Conclusions Narrative comments generated by SIC-Ex provided detailed and nuanced insights into trainees’ competence in SIC, beyond the numerical ratings of SIC-Ex and the general communication skills outlined in the CCG, and may contribute to a more fulsome assessment of SIC skills

Adherence and Concordance between Serious Illness Care Planning Conversations and Oncology Clinician Documentation among Patients with Advanced Cancer

Background: Serious illness conversations are part of advance care planning (ACP) and focus on prognosis, values, and goals in patients who are seriously ill. To be maximally effective, such conversations must be documented accurately and be easily accessible. Objectives: The two coprimary objectives of the study were to assess concordance between written documentation and recorded audiotaped conversations, and to evaluate adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide questions. Methods: Data were obtained as part of a trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clinicians were trained to use a guide to conduct and document serious illness conversations. Conversations were audiotaped. Two researchers independently compared audiorecordings with the corresponding documentation in an electronic health record (EHR) template and free-text progress notes, and rated the degree of concordance and adherence. Results: We reviewed a total of 25 audiorecordings. Clinicians addressed 87% of the conversation guide elements. Prognosis was discussed least frequently, only in 55% of the patients who wanted that information. Documentation was fully concordant with the conversation 43% of the time. Concordance was best when documenting family matters and goals, and least frequently concordant when documenting prognostic communication. Most conversations (64%) were documented in the template, a minority (28%) only in progress notes and two conversations (8%) were not documented. Concordance was better when the template was used (62% vs. 28%). Conclusion: Clinicians adhered well to the conversation guide. However, key information elicited was documented and fully concordant less than half the time. Greater concordance was observed when clinicians used a prespecified template. The combined use of a guide and EHR template holds promise for ACP conversations

A Qualitative Study of Serious Illness Conversations in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Background: Conversations with seriously ill patients about their values and goals have been associated with reduced distress, a better quality of life, and goal-concordant care near the end of life. Yet, little is known about how such conversations are conducted. Objective: To characterize the content of serious illness conversations and identify opportunities for improvement. Design: Qualitative analysis of audio-recorded, serious illness conversations using an evidence-based guide and obtained through a cluster randomized controlled trial in an outpatient oncology setting. Setting/Measurements: Clinicians assigned to the intervention arm received training to use the "Serious Illness Conversation Guide" to have a serious illness conversation about values and goals with advanced cancer patients. Conversations were de-identified, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two researchers. Key themes were analyzed. Results: A total of 25 conversations conducted by 16 clinicians were evaluated. The median conversation duration was 14 minutes (range 4-37), with clinicians speaking half of the time. Thematic analyses demonstrated five key themes: (1) supportive dialogue between patients and clinicians; (2) patients' openness to discuss emotionally challenging topics; (3) patients' willingness to articulate preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments; (4) clinicians' difficulty in responding to emotional or ambiguous patient statements; and (5) challenges in discussing prognosis. Conclusions: Data from this exploratory study suggest that seriously ill patients are open to discussing values and goals with their clinician. Yet, clinicians may struggle when disclosing a time-based prognosis and in responding to patients' emotions. Such skills should be a focus for additional training for clinicians caring for seriously ill patients