Outcomes1. Upon successful completion, participants will be able to outline key skills and strategies for communication with patients and their families during crisis settings.2. Upon successful completion, participants will appreciate how the Serious Illness Conversation Guide may be adapted for crisis communication, for potential use in their clinical practice.Key MessageThere are limited tools to help physicians conduct serious illness conversations within a crisis situation, where there is a high probability of imminent death. The objective of our study was to identify the communication skills and strategies used by experts in crisis situations and to determine if and how the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) can be adapted for crisis.Introduction/ContextThere are limited tools to help physicians conduct serious illness conversations within a crisis situation, where there is a high probability of imminent death. Ariadne Lab's Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) offers physicians a framework to lead conversations with seriously ill patients in stable settings. Though the SICG was designed in outpatient oncology, the patient-tested language and structured framework may also be adaptable to crisis communication.ObjectivesTo identify the communication skills and strategies used by expert clinicians in crisis situations and to examine whether the SICG can be adapted for use in crisis situationsMethodsWe conducted a qualitative analysis using semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed by independent researchers via thematic analysis. We developed a preliminary adapted SICG based on the results.Setting/participantsWe interviewed general internists (n=8), intensive care physicians (n=3) and emergency medicine physicians (n=7) from Ottawa, Canada. All physicians worked at The Ottawa Hospital (a large tertiary care hospital).ResultsWe identified four major themes : a) how crisis situations influence serious illness conversations, b) the key components required for crisis communication, c) the skills and strategies used to navigate difficult situations in crisis, and d) perceptions of adaptability of the SICG to crisis. All physicians felt the SICG could be adapted to crisis. The components of crisis communication that were identified to be absent from the existing SICG included: gathering information on the medical context and prior wishes, assessing capacity and establishing the substitute decision maker, gaining an understanding of the patient's quality of life and baseline function, and involving family.ConclusionOur study outlines key skills and strategies of crisis communication and supports a role for adapting the SICG to acute care. Future studies should test the preliminary adapted guide, seeking feedback from patient-advocates from culturally diverse populations.KeywordsShared Decision Making / Advance Care PlanningCommunication

Background: The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a communication intervention that builds clinician capacity to have earlier, more values-based conversations about goals of care with patients experiencing life-limiting illness. We report the impact of its implementation on hospital wards.Methods: In this quality improvement initiative on the medical wards of two Canadian teaching hospitals, we trained physicians, nurse practitioners, and social workers in the use of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Between February 2017 and December 2019, we prompted trained clinicians to have serious illness conversations with hospitalized patients or their family member(s), for patients at high risk of dying. Outcomes were the number of clinicians trained, the number of conversations delivered, patient or family experience, including the extent to which they felt heard and understood, and clinician experience.Results: We trained 57 (92%) of 62 eligible clinicians. We delivered conversations to 334 (29%) of 1158 eligible patients (or family members) and documented 274 (82%) of these in the medical record. After a serious illness conversation, 80% of patients or families rated the conversations as mostly or extremely worthwhile and felt more heard and understood (+0.2 on 5-point scale, P = 0.04). The majority (95%) of clinicians agreed (some-what, mostly, or completely) that conversations could be done in an appropriate amount of time and 97% agreed (somewhat, mostly, or completely) that the Guide provided information that enhances clinical care. Interpretation: The SICP can be implemented on medical wards of hospitals and can have a positive impact on patient and clinician experience. RésuméContexte : Le Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) est une intervention de communication qui renforce la capacité du clinicien à avoir des conversations plus précoces et davantage axées sur les valeurs concernant les objectifs des soins avec les patients atteints d’une maladie limitant leur espérance de vie. Nous présentons les répercussions de sa mise en œuvre dans les services hospitaliers.Méthodologie : Dans cette initiative sur l’amélioration de la qualité dans les services médicaux de deux hôpitaux universitaires canadiens, nous avons formé des médecins, des infirmières praticiennes et des travailleurs sociaux à l’utilisation du guide de conversation sur les maladies graves. Entre février 2017 et decembre 2019, nous avons incité les cliniciens formés à avoir des conversations sur les maladies graves avec des patients hospitalisés présentant un risque élevé de décès ou des membres de leur famille. Les critères d’évaluation étaient le nombre de cliniciens formés, le nombre de conversations effectuées, l’expérience des patients ou de leur famille, y compris la mesure dans laquelle ils se sont sentis écoutés et compris, et l’expérience des cliniciens.Résultats : Nous avons formé 57 (92 %) des 62 cliniciens admissibles. Des conversations ont été réalisées auprès de 334 (29 %) des 1158 patients (ou membres de la famille) admissibles et 274 (82 %) de ces conversations ont été consignées dans le dossier médical. Après une conversation sur les maladies graves, 80 % des patients ou de leur famille ont évalué les conversations comme étant plutôt ou extrêmement utiles et ils se sont sentis plus écoutés et compris (+ 0,2 sur une échelle de 5 points, P = 0,04). La majorité (95 %) des cliniciens sont d’accord (quelque peu, plutôt ou complètement) sur le fait que les conversations ont pu avoir lieu dans un laps de temps approprié et 97 % sont d’accord (quelque peu, plutôt ou complètement) sur le fait que le guide fournit des renseignements qui améliorent les soins cliniques.Interprétation : Le SICP peut être mis en œuvre dans les services médicaux des hôpitaux et peut avoir des répercussions positives sur l’expérience des patients et des cliniciens.

BackgroundPoor communication with hospitalized patients facing serious, life-limiting illnesses can result in care that is not consistent with patients’ values and goals. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a communication intervention originally designed for the outpatient oncology setting that could address this practice gap. MethodsA multihospital quality improvement initiative adapted and implemented the SICP on the medical wards of four teaching hospitals in Calgary, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Montreal. The SICP consists of three main components: tools (including the Serious Illness Conversation Guide for clinicians), training for frontline clinicians to practice using the Guide, and system change to trigger and support serious illness conversations in practice. Implementation of the SICP at each site followed a phased approach: (1) Building a Foundation; (2) Planning; (3) Implementation; and (4) Sustainability. To assess the success of implementation and its impact, we developed an evaluation framework that includes process measures (e.g., number and proportion of eligible clinicians trained, number and proportion of eligible patients who received a serious illness conversation), patient-reported outcomes (including a validated, single-item “Feeling Heard and Understood” question), and clinician-reported outcomes. ConclusionBased on our adaptation and implementation efforts to date, we have found that the SICP is readily adaptable to an inpatient medical ward setting. Future manuscripts will report on the fidelity of implementation, impact on patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, and lessons learned about how to implement and sustain the program. RésuméContexteUne mauvaise communication avec les patients hospitalisés atteints d’une maladie grave qui limite leur espérance de vie peut se traduire par des soins qui ne correspondent pas à leurs valeurs et à leurs objectifs. Le Programme de soins dans le cas de maladies graves (PSMG) est une intervention de communication conçue à l’origine pour l’oncologie externe qui pourrait remédier à cette lacune dans la pratique. MéthodologieUne initiative multihospitalière visant l’amélioration de la qualité a adapté et mis en œuvre le PSMG dans les unités de soins de quatre hôpitaux universitaires situés à Calgary, à Hamilton, à Ottawa et à Montréal. Le PSMG comprend trois principaux éléments : des outils (dont le guide de conversation sur les maladies graves à l’intention des cliniciens), de la formation pour que les cliniciens de première ligne puissent s’exercer à l’aide du guide et un changement de système pour entamer et faciliter les conversations sur les maladies graves dans la pratique. À chaque endroit, la mise en œuvre du PSMG a suivi une approche progressive : 1) l’établissement d’une base; 2) la planification; 3) la mise en œuvre; 4) la durabilité. Pour évaluer le succès de la mise en œuvre et ses répercussions, nous avons créé un cadre d’évaluation qui comprend des mesures de processus (p. ex., le nombre et la proportion de cliniciens admissibles formés, le nombre et la proportion de patients admissibles qui ont eu une conversation sur les maladies graves), des résultats rapportés par les patients (dont une question validée à un seul élément « se sentir écouté et compris ») et des résultats rapportés par les cliniciens.ConclusionÀ la lumière de nos activités d’adaptation et de mise en œuvre réalisées jusqu’à maintenant, nous constatons que le PSMG est facilement adaptable à un contexte d’unité de soins pour les patients hospitalisés. Les prochains manuscrits porteront sur la fidélité de la mise en œuvre, les répercussions sur les résultats rapportés par les patients et les cliniciens et les leçons apprises sur la façon de mettre en œuvre et de maintenir le programme.

Many seriously ill hospitalized patients have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as part of their care plan, but CPR is unlikely to achieve the goals of many seriously ill hospitalized patients. To determine if a multicomponent decision support intervention changes documented orders for CPR in the medical record, compared to usual care. Open-label randomized controlled trial. Patients on internal medicine and neurology wards at two tertiary care teaching hospitals who had a 1-year mortality greater than 10% as predicted with a validated model and whose care plan included CPR, if needed. Both the control and intervention groups received usual communication about CPR at the discretion of their care team. The intervention group participated in a values clarification exercise and watched a CPR video decision aid. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a no-CPR order at 14 days after enrollment. We recruited 200 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. Mean age was 77 years. There was no difference between the groups in no-CPR orders 14 days after enrollment (17/100 (17%) intervention vs 17/99 (17%) control, risk difference, − 0.2%) (95% confidence interval − 11 to 10%; p = 0.98). In addition, there were no differences between groups in decisional conflict summary score or satisfaction with decision-making. Patients in the intervention group had less conflict about understanding treatment options (decisional conflict knowledge subscale score mean (SD), 17.5 (26.5) intervention arm vs 40.4 (38.1) control; scale range 0–100 with lower scores reflecting less conflict). Among seriously ill hospitalized patients who had CPR as part of their care plan, this decision support intervention did not increase the likelihood of no-CPR orders compared to usual care. Canadian Frailty Network, The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization.

This paper reports findings from a modified World Café conducted at a palliative care professional conference in 2019, where input on tools to support advance care planning (ACP) was solicited from healthcare practitioners, managers and family members of patients. Barriers to ACP tool use included insufficient structures and resources in healthcare, death-avoidance culture and inadequate patient and family member engagement. Recommendations for tool use included clarification of roles and processes, training, mandates and monitoring, leadership support, greater reflection of diversity in tools and methods for public engagement. This paper illuminates factors to consider when implementing ACP tools in healthcare.