Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
JCO Oncol Pract. 2022 Apr;18(4):e495-e503. doi: 10.1200/OP.21.00024. Epub 2021 Nov 12.
Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) are structured conversations between clinicians and patients about prognosis, treatment goals, and end-of-life preferences. Although behavioral interventions may prompt earlier or more frequent SICs, their impact on the quality of SICs is unclear.
This was a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (NCT03984773) among 78 clinicians and 14,607 patients with cancer testing the impact of an automated mortality prediction with behavioral nudges to clinicians to prompt more SICs. We analyzed 318 randomly selected SICs matched 1:1 by clinicians (159 control and 159 intervention) to compare the quality of intervention vs. control conversations using a validated codebook. Comprehensiveness of SIC documentation was used as a measure of quality, with higher integer numbers of documented conversation domains corresponding to higher quality conversations. A conversation was classified as high-quality if its score was ≥ 8 of a maximum of 10. Using a noninferiority design, mixed effects regression models with clinician-level random effects were used to assess SIC quality in intervention vs. control groups, concluding noninferiority if the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was not significantly < 0.9.
Baseline characteristics of the control and intervention groups were similar. Intervention SICs were noninferior to control conversations (aOR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09). The intervention increased the likelihood of addressing patient-clinician relationship (aOR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.27; < .01) and decreased the likelihood of addressing family involvement (aOR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.90; < .05).
A behavioral intervention that increased SIC frequency did not decrease their quality. Behavioral prompts may increase SIC frequency without sacrificing quality.
严重疾病对话(SIC)是临床医生和患者之间关于预后、治疗目标和临终偏好的结构化对话。尽管行为干预可能会促使更早或更频繁地进行 SIC,但它们对 SIC 质量的影响尚不清楚。
这是一项针对 78 名临床医生和 14607 名癌症患者的随机临床试验(NCT03984773)的二次分析,该试验测试了一种自动化死亡率预测与行为提示相结合的方法对临床医生的影响,以促使更多的 SIC。我们分析了 318 次随机选择的 SIC,这些 SIC 由临床医生 1:1 匹配(159 次对照和 159 次干预),使用经过验证的编码簿比较干预组和对照组对话的质量。SIC 记录的全面性被用作质量的衡量标准,记录的对话领域的整数越高,对应于更高质量的对话。如果得分≥10 分中的 8 分,则将对话归类为高质量。使用非劣效性设计,使用具有临床医生水平随机效应的混合效应回归模型评估干预组和对照组中的 SIC 质量,如果调整后的优势比(aOR)没有显著<0.9,则得出非劣效性结论。
对照组和干预组的基线特征相似。干预组的 SIC 不劣于对照组(aOR 0.99;95%CI,0.91 至 1.09)。干预增加了讨论医患关系的可能性(aOR=1.99;95%CI,1.23 至 3.27;<0.01),降低了讨论家庭参与的可能性(aOR=0.56;95%CI,0.34 至 0.90;<0.05)。
增加 SIC 频率的行为干预并没有降低其质量。行为提示可以增加 SIC 的频率,而不会牺牲质量。