Gaps in communication of end-of-life care preferences increase risk of patient harm. Adoption of oncology practice guidelines advocating serious illness communication for patients with advanced cancer is limited.
Objectives
(1) Increase Serious Illness Conversation (SIC) use across oncology teams via an interdisciplinary quality improvement (QI) approach and (2) assess patient reported shared decision making (SDM) experiences with clinicians engaged in SIC implementation.
Design
QI methodology was applied to spread the implementation of SIC across 4 oncology teams. CollaboRATE scores were used to evaluate patient reported outcomes of SDM for patients with advanced cancer.
Settings/Subjects
The SIC QI initiative was a component of the Promise Partnership Learning Health System (PPLHS) piloted in the Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Measurements
(1) The percentage of eligible patients with documented SIC and (2) a comparison of a patient reported measure of SDM (CollaboRATE) among SIC eligible patients in encounters with providers who took part in the implementation versus those who did not.
Results
Oncology teams screened a total of 538 patients, identified 278 eligible patients, and completed 144 SIC conversations. The teams improved the proportion of documented SIC among eligible patients from near 0% to a collective frequency of 52%. For clinicians’ top-box CollaboRATE scores, a chi-squared test demonstrated a statistically significant association between providers implementing SIC into practice and patient reported shared decision making (.16, p = .031).
Conclusions
This approach allows for tailoring of iterative improvement cycles to mitigate barriers and improve the practice of SIC among oncology teams.
GilliganTCoyleNFrankelRM, et al.Patient-clinician communication: American society of clinical oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(31):3618-3632. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2311
2.
BernackiREBlockSDAmerican College of Physicians High Value Care Task Force. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):1994-2003. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5271
3.
ZhangBWrightAAHuskampHA, et al.Health care costs in the last week of life: associations with end-of-life conversations. Arch Intern Med (1960). 2009;169(5):480-488. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.587
4.
HuangYTWangYWChiCW, et al.Differences in medical costs for end-of-life patients receiving traditional care and those receiving hospice care: a retrospective study. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229176. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229176
5.
WrightAAZhangBRayA, et al.Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc. 2008;300(14):1665-1673. doi:10.1001/jama.300.14.1665
6.
LagrotteriaASwintonMSimonJ, et al.Clinicians’ perspectives after implementation of the serious illness care program: a qualitative study. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2121517. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21517
7.
DaughertyCKHlubockyFJ. What are terminally ill cancer patients told about their expected deaths? A study of cancer physicians’ self-reports of prognosis disclosure. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(36):5988-5993. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.17.2221
8.
KarimSLupichukSTanASinnarajahASimonJ. Real world implementation of the serious illness care program in cancer care: results of a quality improvement initiative. J Palliat Med. 2021;24(6):905-909. doi:10.1089/jpm.2020.0680
9.
HagertyRGButowPNEllisPMDimitrySTattersallMHN. Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(7):1005-1053. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi211
10.
HowardMBernardCKleinD, et al.Barriers to and enablers of advance care planning with patients in primary care: survey of health care providers. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64(4):e190-e198. [Replaced stl from Internal Pubmed] [CS: 100].
11.
QuillTE. Perspectives on care at the close of life. Initiating end-of-life discussions with seriously ill patients: addressing the “elephant in the room”. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284(19):2502-2507. doi:10.1001/jama.284.19.2502
12.
KarimSLevineOSimonJ. The serious illness care program in oncology: evidence, real-world implementation and ongoing barriers. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(3):1527-1536. doi:10.3390/curroncol29030128
13.
LakinJRArnoldCGCatzenHZ, et al.Early serious illness communication in hospitalized patients: a study of the implementation of the Speaking about Goals and Expectations (Sage) program. Healthcare. 2021;9(2):100510. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100510
14.
PaladinoJBernackiRNevilleBA, et al.Evaluating an intervention to improve communication between oncology clinicians and patients with life-limiting cancer: a cluster randomized clinical trial of the serious illness care program. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):801-809. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0292
15.
LakinJRNealBJMaloneyFL, et al.A systematic intervention to improve serious illness communication in primary care: effect on expenses at the end of life. Healthcare. 2020;8(2):100431. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100431
16.
HoAJamesonKPavlishC. An exploratory study of interprofessional collaboration in end-of-life decision-making beyond palliative care settings. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(6):795-803. doi:10.1080/13561820.2016.1203765
17.
MyrhøjCBViftrupDTJardenMClemmensenSN. Interdisciplinary collaboration in serious illness conversations in patients with multiple myeloma and caregivers – a qualitative study. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(1):93. doi:10.1186/s12904-023-01221-5
18.
WaspGTCullinanAMAntonCP, et al.Interdisciplinary approach and patient/family partners to improve serious illness conversations in outpatient oncology. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(10):e1567-e1573. doi:10.1200/OP.22.00086
19.
CelenzaJFZayackDBuus-FrankMEHorbarJD. Family involvement in quality improvement: from bedside advocate to system advisor. Clin Perinatol. 2017;44(3):553-566. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2017.05.008
20.
ForcinoRCBarrPJO’MalleyAJ, et al.Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient‐reported measure of shared decision making: results from three clinical settings in the United States. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):82-89.
21.
ForcinoRCThygesonMO'MalleyAJMeindersMJWestertGPElwynG. Do collaboRATE scores reflect differences in perceived shared decision-making across diverse patient populations? Evidence from a large-scale patient experience survey in the United States. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(5):778-787. doi:10.1177/2374373519891039
CullinanAWaspGVergoMWilsonMBuus-FrankM. Using quality improvement methods to pilot test and scale a program of serious illness conversations in an oncology learning health system. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2022;63(5):875. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2022.02.070
24.
LefkowitsCChandlerCSukumvanichP, et al.Validation of the “surprise question” in gynecologic oncology: comparing physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141:128. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.04.339
PressonAPZhangCAbtahiAMKeanJHungMTyserAR. Psychometric properties of the press Ganey® outpatient medical practice survey. Health Qual Life Outcome. 2017;15(1):32. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0610-3
27.
PaulJBForcinoRCThompsonR, et al.Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e014681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681
28.
BarrPJThompsonRWalshTGrandeSWOzanneEMElwynG. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e2. doi:10.2196/jmir.3085
29.
UbbinkDTvan AsbeckEVAartsJWM, et al.Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making. Patient Educ Counsel. 2022;105(7):2475-2479. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.007
30.
HagertyRGButowPNEllisPM, et al.Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients’ views on the disclosure of prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(6):1278-1288. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.11.138
31.
NørskovKHOvergaardDLomborgKKjeldsenLJardenM. Patient ambassador support: experiences of the mentorship between newly diagnosed patients with acute leukaemia and their patient ambassadors. Eur J Cancer Care. 2020;29(6):e13289. doi:10.1111/ecc.13289
32.
VigEKStarksHTaylorJSHopleyEKFryer-EdwardsK. Surviving surrogate decision-making: what helps and hampers the experience of making medical decisions for others. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(9):1274-1279. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0252-y
33.
PistrangNJayZGesslerSBarkerC. Telephone peer support for women with gynaecological cancer: benefits and challenges for supporters. Psycho Oncol. 2013;22(4):886-894. doi:10.1002/pon.3080
