Kristin Levoy, Rebecca L Ashare, Niharika Ganta, Nina O'Connor, Salimah H Meghani
{"title":"Caregiver Engagement in Serious Illness Communication in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Setting.","authors":"Kristin Levoy, Rebecca L Ashare, Niharika Ganta, Nina O'Connor, Salimah H Meghani","doi":"10.1177/10499091231219799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Prolonged management of critical illnesses in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACH) makes serious illness communication (SIC), a clinical imperative. SIC in LTACH is challenging as clinicians often lack training and patients are typically unable to participate-making caregivers central.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This qualitative descriptive study characterized caregiver engagement in SIC encounters, while considering influencing factors, following the implementation of Ariadne Labs' SIC training at a LTACH in the Northeastern United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinicians' documented SIC notes (2019-2020) were analyzed using directed content analysis. Codes were grouped into four categories generated from two factors that influence SIC-evidence of prognostic understanding (yes/no) and documented preferences (yes/no)-and caregiver engagement themes identified within each category.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 125 patient cases, 251 SIC notes were analyzed. In the presence of prognostic understanding and documented preferences, caregivers acted as upholders of patients' wishes (29%). With prognostic understanding but undocumented preferences, caregivers were postponers of healthcare decision-making (34%). When lacking prognostic understanding but having documented preferences, caregivers tended to be searchers, intent on identifying continued treatment options (13%). With poor prognostic understanding and undocumented preferences, caregivers were strugglers, having difficulty with the clinicians or family unit over healthcare decision-making (21%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that two factors-prognostic understanding and documented preferences-are critical factors clinicians can leverage in tailoring SIC to meet caregivers' SIC needs in the LTACH setting. Such strategies shift attention away from SIC content alone toward factors that influence caregivers' ability to meaningfully engage in SIC to advance healthcare decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":94222,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231219799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: Prolonged management of critical illnesses in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACH) makes serious illness communication (SIC), a clinical imperative. SIC in LTACH is challenging as clinicians often lack training and patients are typically unable to participate-making caregivers central.
Objectives: This qualitative descriptive study characterized caregiver engagement in SIC encounters, while considering influencing factors, following the implementation of Ariadne Labs' SIC training at a LTACH in the Northeastern United States.
Methods: Clinicians' documented SIC notes (2019-2020) were analyzed using directed content analysis. Codes were grouped into four categories generated from two factors that influence SIC-evidence of prognostic understanding (yes/no) and documented preferences (yes/no)-and caregiver engagement themes identified within each category.
Results: Across 125 patient cases, 251 SIC notes were analyzed. In the presence of prognostic understanding and documented preferences, caregivers acted as upholders of patients' wishes (29%). With prognostic understanding but undocumented preferences, caregivers were postponers of healthcare decision-making (34%). When lacking prognostic understanding but having documented preferences, caregivers tended to be searchers, intent on identifying continued treatment options (13%). With poor prognostic understanding and undocumented preferences, caregivers were strugglers, having difficulty with the clinicians or family unit over healthcare decision-making (21%).
Conclusion: The findings suggest that two factors-prognostic understanding and documented preferences-are critical factors clinicians can leverage in tailoring SIC to meet caregivers' SIC needs in the LTACH setting. Such strategies shift attention away from SIC content alone toward factors that influence caregivers' ability to meaningfully engage in SIC to advance healthcare decision-making.
背景:长期急症护理医院(LTACH)对危重病的长期管理使得重病沟通(SIC)成为临床的当务之急。由于临床医生往往缺乏培训,而患者通常又无法参与,因此护理人员成为重症沟通的核心:这项定性描述性研究描述了美国东北部一家长期护理机构在实施 Ariadne Labs 的 SIC 培训后,护理人员参与 SIC 会诊的情况,同时考虑了影响因素:采用定向内容分析法对临床医生记录的 SIC 笔记(2019-2020 年)进行了分析。根据影响 SIC 的两个因素--预后理解证据(是/否)和记录的偏好(是/否)--以及每个类别中确定的护理人员参与主题,将代码分为四个类别:对125例患者的251份SIC记录进行了分析。在了解预后并记录了偏好的情况下,护理人员充当了患者意愿的支持者(29%)。在了解预后但未记录偏好的情况下,护理人员是医疗决策的推迟者(34%)。如果缺乏对预后的了解,但有记录在案的偏好,护理人员往往是搜索者,意图确定继续治疗的选择(13%)。如果对预后理解不深,又没有记录偏好,护理人员就会成为挣扎者,在医疗决策上与临床医生或家庭单位发生冲突(21%):研究结果表明,预后理解和有记录的偏好这两个因素是临床医生在LTACH环境下定制SIC以满足护理人员SIC需求的关键因素。这些策略将注意力从 SIC 内容转移到影响护理人员有意义地参与 SIC 以推进医疗决策的能力的因素上。