Katharine L Cheung1, Samantha Smoger2, Manjula Kurella Tamura3, Renee D Stapleton4, Terry Rabinowitz5, Michael A LaMantia6, Robert Gramling7. 1. Divisions of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 2. Department of Biology, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 3. Division of Nephrology, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, USA. 4. Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care, and Department of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Larner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 6. Divisions of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 7. Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Abstract
Background: Little is known about the content of communication in palliative care telehealth conversations in the dialysis population. Understanding the content and process of these conversations may lead to insights about how palliative care improves quality of life. Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of video recordings obtained during a pilot palliative teleconsultation program. We recruited patients receiving dialysis from five facilities affiliated with an academic medical center. Palliative care clinicians conducted teleconsultation using a wall-mounted screen with a camera mounted on a pole and positioned mid-screen in the line of sight to facilitate direct eye contact. Patients used an iPad that was attached to an IV pole positioned next to the dialysis chair. Conversations were coded using a preexisting framework of themes and content from the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Renal. Results: We recruited 39 patients to undergo a telepalliative care consultation while receiving dialysis, 34 of whom completed the teleconsultation. Specialty palliative care clinicians (3 physicians and 1 nurse practitioner) conducted 35 visits with 34 patients. Median (interquartile range) duration of conversation was 42 (28-57) minutes. Most frequently discussed content included sources of strength (91%), critical abilities (88%), illness understanding (85%), fears and worries (85%), what family knows (85%), fatigue (77%), and pain (65%). Process features such as summarizing statements (85%) and making a recommendation (82%) were common, whereas connectional silence (56%), and emotion expression (21%) occurred less often. Conclusions: Unscripted palliative care conversations in outpatient dialysis units through telemedicine exhibited many domains recommended by the SICG, with less frequent discussion of symptoms. Emotion expression was uncommon for these conversations that occurred in an open setting.
Background: Little is known about the content of communication in palliative care telehealth conversations in the dialysis population. Understanding the content and process of these conversations may lead to insights about how palliative care improves quality of life. Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of video recordings obtained during a pilot palliative teleconsultation program. We recruited patients receiving dialysis from five facilities affiliated with an academic medical center. Palliative care clinicians conducted teleconsultation using a wall-mounted screen with a camera mounted on a pole and positioned mid-screen in the line of sight to facilitate direct eye contact. Patients used an iPad that was attached to an IV pole positioned next to the dialysis chair. Conversations were coded using a preexisting framework of themes and content from the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Renal. Results: We recruited 39 patients to undergo a telepalliative care consultation while receiving dialysis, 34 of whom completed the teleconsultation. Specialty palliative care clinicians (3 physicians and 1 nurse practitioner) conducted 35 visits with 34 patients. Median (interquartile range) duration of conversation was 42 (28-57) minutes. Most frequently discussed content included sources of strength (91%), critical abilities (88%), illness understanding (85%), fears and worries (85%), what family knows (85%), fatigue (77%), and pain (65%). Process features such as summarizing statements (85%) and making a recommendation (82%) were common, whereas connectional silence (56%), and emotion expression (21%) occurred less often. Conclusions: Unscripted palliative care conversations in outpatient dialysis units through telemedicine exhibited many domains recommended by the SICG, with less frequent discussion of symptoms. Emotion expression was uncommon for these conversations that occurred in an open setting.
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Gallagher; Sonal Admane; Vicki A Jackson; Constance M Dahlin; Craig D Blinderman; Juliet Jacobsen; William F Pirl; J Andrew Billings; Thomas J Lynch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olaf P Geerse; Daniela J Lamas; Justin J Sanders; Joanna Paladino; Jane Kavanagh; Natalie J Henrich; Annette J Berendsen; Thijo J N Hiltermann; Erik K Fromme; Rachelle E Bernacki; Susan D Block Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Rachel Feldman; Nathaniel Berman; M Cary Reid; Jordan Roberts; Rouzi Shengelia; Kaylan Christianer; Brian Eiss; Ronald D Adelman Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Stewart C Alexander; Susan Ladwig; Sally A Norton; David Gramling; J Kelly Davis; Maureen Metzger; Jane DeLuca; Robert Gramling Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Katharine L Cheung; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Renee D Stapleton; Terry Rabinowitz; Michael A LaMantia; Robert Gramling Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 2.947