Serious Illness Communication in a Randomized Trial of a Nurse and Social Worker Palliative Telecare Team.

Allison V Lange, William J Feser, Edward Hess, Anna E Barón, Jessica E Ma, David B Bekelman
{"title":"Serious Illness Communication in a Randomized Trial of a Nurse and Social Worker Palliative Telecare Team.","authors":"Allison V Lange, William J Feser, Edward Hess, Anna E Barón, Jessica E Ma, David B Bekelman","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early serious illness communication (SIC) has numerous benefits for patients with cardiopulmonary illnesses, yet engaging patients in this complex, iterative communication process is challenging due to constraints on clinician time, limited clinician training in these conversations, and a lack of patient readiness. This study reports secondary SIC outcomes of a previously reported clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized clinical trial of a nurse and social worker palliative telecare team, one visit with the nurse and/or social worker focused on SIC using a protocolized guide. Participants were at high risk of hospitalization or death, had poor health status, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or heart failure or interstitial lung disease. Documented SIC, advance directive (AD) completion, and the four-item readiness to engage in advance care planning scale (ACP-4) were measured at baseline and 6 months. Differences in change between intervention and usual care were analyzed using linear models and linear mixed models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 306 participants were on average 68.9 years, 90.2% male, 80.1% White, with multiple comorbidities (mean of 7.6). All outcomes were similar at baseline. ACP-4 increased more in the intervention group at 6 months compared to usual care (difference in change scores: 0.49; 95% CI 0.22-0.66, p < 0.001). Documented SIC at 6 months was higher in the intervention group compared to usual care (122/154, 79.2% vs. 7/152, 4.6%); adjusted difference in proportions 74.6% (95% CI 67.3-81.9, p < 0.001). The difference in proportion of participants with an AD at 6 months was not significant; adjusted difference in proportions, 0.01%, (95% CI -0.04-0.07, p = 0.64).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After participation in a telephonic, protocolized SIC intervention, documented SIC increased, and readiness to engage in ACP increased. Future research should evaluate how documented SIC is used and the effect of SIC on downstream outcomes of healthcare decisions and patient well-being.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02713347, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02713347.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Early serious illness communication (SIC) has numerous benefits for patients with cardiopulmonary illnesses, yet engaging patients in this complex, iterative communication process is challenging due to constraints on clinician time, limited clinician training in these conversations, and a lack of patient readiness. This study reports secondary SIC outcomes of a previously reported clinical trial.

Methods: In a randomized clinical trial of a nurse and social worker palliative telecare team, one visit with the nurse and/or social worker focused on SIC using a protocolized guide. Participants were at high risk of hospitalization or death, had poor health status, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or heart failure or interstitial lung disease. Documented SIC, advance directive (AD) completion, and the four-item readiness to engage in advance care planning scale (ACP-4) were measured at baseline and 6 months. Differences in change between intervention and usual care were analyzed using linear models and linear mixed models.

Results: The 306 participants were on average 68.9 years, 90.2% male, 80.1% White, with multiple comorbidities (mean of 7.6). All outcomes were similar at baseline. ACP-4 increased more in the intervention group at 6 months compared to usual care (difference in change scores: 0.49; 95% CI 0.22-0.66, p < 0.001). Documented SIC at 6 months was higher in the intervention group compared to usual care (122/154, 79.2% vs. 7/152, 4.6%); adjusted difference in proportions 74.6% (95% CI 67.3-81.9, p < 0.001). The difference in proportion of participants with an AD at 6 months was not significant; adjusted difference in proportions, 0.01%, (95% CI -0.04-0.07, p = 0.64).

Conclusions: After participation in a telephonic, protocolized SIC intervention, documented SIC increased, and readiness to engage in ACP increased. Future research should evaluate how documented SIC is used and the effect of SIC on downstream outcomes of healthcare decisions and patient well-being.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02713347, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02713347.

一个护士和社工姑息治疗远程团队的随机试验中的重病沟通。
背景:早期严重疾病沟通(SIC)对心肺疾病患者有许多好处,但由于临床医生时间的限制,临床医生在这些对话中的培训有限,以及患者缺乏准备,使患者参与这种复杂的,迭代的沟通过程具有挑战性。本研究报告了先前报道的一项临床试验的继发性SIC结果。方法:在一个护士和社工的姑息治疗远程团队的随机临床试验中,护士和/或社工的一次访问使用协议化指南专注于SIC。参与者住院或死亡的风险较高,健康状况不佳,患有慢性阻塞性肺病和/或心力衰竭或间质性肺病。在基线和6个月时测量记录的SIC、预先指示(AD)完成情况和参与预先护理计划量表(ACP-4)的四项准备情况。采用线性模型和线性混合模型分析干预与常规护理的差异。结果:306名参与者平均年龄68.9岁,男性90.2%,白人80.1%,有多种合并症(平均7.6)。所有结果在基线时相似。干预组ACP-4在6个月时较常规护理组增加更多(变化评分差异:0.49;95% CI 0.22-0.66, p结论:参与电话、协议化SIC干预后,记录的SIC增加,参与ACP的准备增加。未来的研究应该评估记录的SIC是如何使用的,以及SIC对医疗保健决策和患者福祉的下游结果的影响。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02713347, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02713347。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信