IMPORTANCE High-quality conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients about values and goals are associated with improved outcomes but occur infrequently. OBJECTIVE To examine feasibility, acceptability, and effect of a communication quality-improvement intervention (Serious Illness Care Program) on patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cluster randomized clinical trial of the Serious Illness Care Program in an outpatient oncology setting was conducted. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 278) and oncology clinicians (n = 91) participated between September 1, 2012, and June 30, 2016. Data analysis was performed from September 1, 2016, to December 27, 2018. All analyses were conducted based on intention to treat. INTERVENTIONS Tools, training, and system changes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The coprimary outcomes included goal-concordant care (Life Priorities) and peacefulness (Peace, Equanimity, and Acceptance in the Cancer Experience questionnaire) at the end of life. Secondary outcomes included therapeutic alliance (Human Connection Scale), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 scale), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9), and survival. Uptake and effectiveness of clinician training, clinician use of the conversation tool, and conversation duration were evaluated. RESULTS Data from 91 clinicians in 41 clusters (72.9% participation; intervention, n = 48; control, n = 43; 52 [57.1%] women) and 278 patients (45.8% participation; intervention, n = 134; control, n = 144; 148 [53.2%] women) were analyzed. Forty-seven clinicians (97.9%) rated the training as effective (mean [SD] score, 4.3 [0.7] of 5.0 possible); of 39 who received a reminder, 34 (87.2%) completed at least 1 conversation (median duration, 19 minutes; range, 5-70). Peacefulness, therapeutic alliance, anxiety, and depression did not differ at baseline. The coprimary outcomes were evaluated in 64 patients; no significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups. However, the trial demonstrated significant reductions in the proportion of patients with moderate to severe anxiety (10.2% vs 5.0%; P = .05) and depression symptoms (20.8% vs 10.6%; P = .04) in the intervention group at 14 weeks after baseline. Anxiety reduction was sustained at 24 weeks (10.4% vs 4.2%; P = .02), but depression reduction was not sustained (17.8% vs 12.5%; P = .31). Survival and therapeutic alliance did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this cluster randomized clinical trial were null with respect to the coprimary outcomes of goal-concordant care and peacefulness at the end of life. Methodologic challenges for the primary outcomes, including measure selection and sample size, limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. However, the significant reductions in anxiety and depression in the intervention group are clinically meaningful and require further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01786811

Improving serious illness care necessitates ensuring that high-quality communication has occurred and measuring its impact. Measuring patient experience and receipt of goal-concordant care should be our highest priority. We have the tools to measure both.

IMPORTANCE Earlier clinician-patient conversations about patients' values, goals, and preferences in serious illness (ie, serious illness conversations) are associated with better outcomes but occur inconsistently in cancer care. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of a communication quality-improvement intervention in improving the occurrence, timing, quality, and accessibility of documented serious illness conversations between oncology clinicians and patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS This cluster randomized clinical trial in outpatient oncology was conducted at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and included physicians, advanced-practice clinicians, and patients with cancer who were at high risk of death. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes (goal-concordant care and peacefulness at the end of life) are published elsewhere. Secondary outcomes are reported herein, including (1) documentation of at least 1 serious illness conversation before death, (2) timing of the initial conversation before death, (3) quality of conversations, and (4) their accessibility in the electronic medical record (EMR). RESULTS We enrolled 91 clinicians (48 intervention, 43 control) and 278 patients (134 intervention, 144 control). Of enrolled patients, 58% died during the study (n=161); mean age was 62.3 years (95% CI, 58.9-65.6 years); 55% were women (n=88). These patients were cared for by 76 of the 91 enrolled clinicians (37 intervention, 39 control); years in practice, 11.5 (95% CI, 9.2-13.8); 57% female (n=43). Medical record review after patients' death demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of intervention patients had a documented discussion compared with controls (96% vs 79%, P = .005) and intervention conversations occurred a median of 2.4 months earlier (median, 143 days vs 71 days, P < .001). Conversation documentation for intervention patients was significantly more comprehensive and patient centered, with a greater focus on values or goals (89% vs 44%, P < .001), prognosis or illness understanding (91% vs 48%, P < .001), and life-sustaining treatment preferences (63% vs 32%, P = .004). Documentation about end-of-life care planning did not differ between arms (80% intervention vs 68% control, P = .08). Significantly more intervention patients had documentation that was accessible in the EMR (61% vs 11%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This communication quality-improvement intervention resulted in more, earlier, better, and more accessible serious illness conversations documented in the EMR. To our knowledge, this is the first such study to demonstrate improvement in all 4 of these outcomes.

The multiple factors that impact ACP for AA are inter-related and may result in part from historical realities that shape contemporary experience. We know little from the data about how best to improve ACP in AA. That AA appear to prefer informal discussions about ACP to formal documentation of preferences suggests that future research should focus on improving ACP conversations among clinicians, patients, and their families in order to improve the receipt of goal-concordant care at EOL.

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 lifesustaining 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.

Background/objectiveOncology guidelines recommend earlier communication with patients about prognosis and goals‐of‐care in serious illness. However, current evidence leaves gaps in our understanding of the experience of these conversations. This analysis evaluates the patient and clinician experience of a conversation using a Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG).Design/settingSecondary analysis from a cluster‐randomized clinical trial in a northeastern cancer center.ParticipantsPhysicians, advanced practice clinicians, and patients with advanced cancer who received the intervention.InterventionSICG, clinician training, systems‐changes.Main outcomes and measuresThe patient questionnaire assessed perceptions of the conversation and impact on anxiety, hopefulness, peacefulness, sense of control over medical decisions, closeness with their clinician, and behaviors. The clinician questionnaire assessed feasibility, acceptability, and impact on satisfaction in their role.ResultsWe enrolled 54 clinicians and 163 patients; 41 clinicians and 118 patients had a SICG discussion. Most patients described the conversation as worthwhile (79%) and reported no change or improvement in their sense of peacefulness, hopefulness, and anxiety (on average 79%); 56% reported feeling closer with their clinician. Qualitative patient data described positive behavior changes, including enhanced planning for future care and increased focus on personal priorities. Nearly 90% of clinicians agreed that the SICG facilitated timely, effective conversations, and 70% reported increased satisfaction in their role.ConclusionConversations using a SICG were feasible, acceptable, and were associated with positive experiences for both patients and clinicians in oncology in ways that align with national recommendations for serious illness communication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01786811 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01786811.

No abstract

Qualitative study with health disparities experts (n = 5), community members (n = 9), and seriously ill African American patients and caregivers (n = 11). Using template analysis, interviews were coded to identify intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems-level themes in accordance with a social ecological framework.ResultParticipants identified seven primary factors that influence ACP for African Americans: religion and spirituality; trust and mistrust; family relationships and experiences; patient-clinician relationships; prognostic communication, care preferences, and preparation and control. These influences echo those described in the existing literature; however, our data highlight consistent differences by group in the degree to which these factors positively or negatively affect ACP. Expert participants reinforced common themes from the literature, for example, that African Americans were not interested in prognostic information because of mistrust and religion. Seriously ill patients were more likely to express trust in their clinicians and to desire prognostic communication; they and community members expressed a desire to prepare for and control the end of life. Religious belief did not appear to negate these desires.Significance of resultsThe literature on ACP in African Americans may not accurately reflect the experience of seriously ill African Americans. What are commonly understood as barriers to ACP may in fact not be. We propose reframing stereotypical barriers to ACP, such as religion and spirituality, or family, as cultural assets that should be engaged to enhance ACP. Although further research can inform best practices for engaging African American patients in ACP, findings suggest that respectful, rapport-building communication may facilitate ACP. Clinicians are encouraged to engage in early ACP using respectful and rapport building communication practices, including open-ended questions.