Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34406399›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Clinicians' Perspectives After Implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program: A Qualitative Study.

Andrew Lagrotteria, Marilyn Swinton, Jessica Simon, Seema King, Gwenn Boryski, Irene Wai Yan Ma, Fiona Dunne, Japteg Singh, Rachelle E Bernacki, John J You

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Experience implementing the serious illness care program through virtual training of multidisciplinary teams at a regional cancer centre.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Advance care planning in patients with respiratory failure.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Andrew LagrotteriaTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marilyn SwintonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jessica SimonDepartment of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Seema KingDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Gwenn BoryskiiCAN ACP Research Program, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Irene Wai Yan MaDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Fiona DunneDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Japteg SinghDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rachelle E BernackiDepartment of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
John J YouDivision of General Internal and Hospitalist Medicine, Department of Medicine, Trillium Health Partners, Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Discussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations. Objective: To explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020. Exposures: The SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP. Results: Among 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAlbertaAttitude of Health PersonnelCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPatient-Centered CarePatient PreferencePractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID34406399
PMCPMC8374609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.