Joshua R Lakin1, Susan D Block2, J Andrew Billings3, Luca A Koritsanszky4, Rebecca Cunningham5, Lisa Wichmann6, Doreen Harvey6, Jan Lamey7, Rachelle E Bernacki8. 1. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts2Division of Palliative Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts3Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts4Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts2Division of Palliative Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts3Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts4Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts5Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts6Division of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 4. Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Care Coordination, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Medical Management, Brigham and Women's Physicians Organization, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts2Division of Palliative Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts3Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts4Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts9Division of Aging, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The Institute of Medicine recently called for systematic improvements in clinician-led conversations about goals, values, and care preferences for patients with serious and life-threatening illnesses. Studies suggest that these conversations are associated with improved outcomes for patients and their families, enhanced clinician satisfaction, and lower health care costs; however, the role of primary care clinicians in driving conversations about goals and priorities in serious illness is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To present a review of a structured search of the evidence base about communication in serious illness in primary care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE was searched, via PubMed, on January 19, 2016, finding 911 articles; 126 articles were reviewed and selected titles were added from bibliography searches. FINDINGS: Review of the literature informed 2 major topic areas: the role of primary care in communication about serious illness and clinician barriers and system failures that interfere with effective communication. Literature regarding the role that primary care plays in communication focused primarily on the ambiguity about whether primary care clinicians or specialists are responsible for initiating conversations, the benefits of primary care clinicians and specialists conducting conversations, and the quantity and quality of discussions. Timely and effective communication about serious illness in primary care is hampered by key clinician barriers, which include deficits in knowledge, skills, and attitudes; discomfort with prognostication; and lack of clarity about the appropriate timing and initiation of conversations. Finally, system failures in coordination, documentation, feedback, and quality improvement contribute to lack of conversations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinician and system barriers will challenge primary care clinicians and institutions to meet the needs of patients with serious illness. Ensuring that conversations about goals and values occur at the appropriate time for seriously ill patients will require improved training, validation, and dissemination of patient selection tools, systems for conducting and revisiting conversations, accessible documentation, and incentives for measurement, feedback, and continuous improvement.
IMPORTANCE: The Institute of Medicine recently called for systematic improvements in clinician-led conversations about goals, values, and care preferences for patients with serious and life-threatening illnesses. Studies suggest that these conversations are associated with improved outcomes for patients and their families, enhanced clinician satisfaction, and lower health care costs; however, the role of primary care clinicians in driving conversations about goals and priorities in serious illness is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To present a review of a structured search of the evidence base about communication in serious illness in primary care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE was searched, via PubMed, on January 19, 2016, finding 911 articles; 126 articles were reviewed and selected titles were added from bibliography searches. FINDINGS: Review of the literature informed 2 major topic areas: the role of primary care in communication about serious illness and clinician barriers and system failures that interfere with effective communication. Literature regarding the role that primary care plays in communication focused primarily on the ambiguity about whether primary care clinicians or specialists are responsible for initiating conversations, the benefits of primary care clinicians and specialists conducting conversations, and the quantity and quality of discussions. Timely and effective communication about serious illness in primary care is hampered by key clinician barriers, which include deficits in knowledge, skills, and attitudes; discomfort with prognostication; and lack of clarity about the appropriate timing and initiation of conversations. Finally, system failures in coordination, documentation, feedback, and quality improvement contribute to lack of conversations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinician and system barriers will challenge primary care clinicians and institutions to meet the needs of patients with serious illness. Ensuring that conversations about goals and values occur at the appropriate time for seriously ill patients will require improved training, validation, and dissemination of patient selection tools, systems for conducting and revisiting conversations, accessible documentation, and incentives for measurement, feedback, and continuous improvement.
Authors: Kathleen E Bickel; Cari Levy; Edward R MacPhee; Keri Brenner; Jennifer S Temel; Joanna J Arch; Joseph A Greer Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Joshua R Lakin; Margaret G Robinson; Ziad Obermeyer; Brian W Powers; Susan D Block; Rebecca Cunningham; Joseph M Tumblin; Christine Vogeli; Rachelle E Bernacki Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Patricia Dykes; Lipika Samal; Kelly McNally; Eli Mlaver; Cathy S Yoon; Stuart R Lipsitz; David W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kei Ouchi; Naomi George; Jeremiah D Schuur; Emily L Aaronson; Charlotta Lindvall; Edward Bernstein; Rebecca L Sudore; Mara A Schonberg; Susan D Block; James A Tulsky Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Justin A Yu; Yael Schenker; Scott H Maurer; Stacey C Cook; Dio Kavlieratos; Amy Houtrow Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 1.950
Authors: Huzaifah Salat; Andrei Javier; Edward D Siew; Rocio Figueroa; Loren Lipworth; Edmond Kabagambe; Aihua Bian; Thomas G Stewart; Maie H El-Sourady; Mohana Karlekar; Cesar Y Cardona; T Alp Ikizler; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Richard E Leiter; Miryam Yusufov; Mohammad Adrian Hasdianda; Lauren A Fellion; Audrey C Reust; Susan D Block; James A Tulsky; Kei Ouchi Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 3.612