Myrna Katalina Serna, Catherine Yoon, Julie Fiskio, Joshua R Lakin, Anuj K Dalal, Jeffrey L Schnipper
{"title":"Using implementation science to encourage Serious Illness Conversations on general medicine inpatient services: An interrupted time series.","authors":"Myrna Katalina Serna, Catherine Yoon, Julie Fiskio, Joshua R Lakin, Anuj K Dalal, Jeffrey L Schnipper","doi":"10.1002/jhm.13537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) are not consistently integrated into existing inpatient workflows.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We assessed the implementation of multiple interventions aimed at encouraging SICs with hospitalized patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify determinants for conducting SICs by interviewing providers and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to develop a list of interventions. Adult patient encounters with a Readmission Risk Score (RRS) > 28% admitted to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 and without standardized SIC documentation in the prior year were included. A multivariable segmented logistic regression model, suitable for an interrupted time series analysis, was used to assess changes in the odds of standardized SIC documentation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Barriers included those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, such as extreme census. Facilitators included the presence of the Speaking About Goals and Expectations program and palliative care consultations. Key interventions included patient identification via the existing Quality and Safety Dashboard (QSD), weekly emails, in-person outreach, and training for faculty and trainees. There was no significant change in the odds of standardized SIC documentation despite interventions (change in temporal trend odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.98-1.39).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The lack of significant change in standardized SIC documentation may be attributed to insufficient or ineffective interventions and COVID-19-related challenges. Although patient identification is a known barrier to SICs, this issue was minimized with the use of the QSD and RRS. Further research is needed to enhance the implementation of SICs in inpatient settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13537","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: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) are not consistently integrated into existing inpatient workflows.
Objective: We assessed the implementation of multiple interventions aimed at encouraging SICs with hospitalized patients.
Methods: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify determinants for conducting SICs by interviewing providers and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to develop a list of interventions. Adult patient encounters with a Readmission Risk Score (RRS) > 28% admitted to a general medicine service from January 2019 to October 2021 and without standardized SIC documentation in the prior year were included. A multivariable segmented logistic regression model, suitable for an interrupted time series analysis, was used to assess changes in the odds of standardized SIC documentation.
Results: Barriers included those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, such as extreme census. Facilitators included the presence of the Speaking About Goals and Expectations program and palliative care consultations. Key interventions included patient identification via the existing Quality and Safety Dashboard (QSD), weekly emails, in-person outreach, and training for faculty and trainees. There was no significant change in the odds of standardized SIC documentation despite interventions (change in temporal trend odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.98-1.39).
Conclusion: The lack of significant change in standardized SIC documentation may be attributed to insufficient or ineffective interventions and COVID-19-related challenges. Although patient identification is a known barrier to SICs, this issue was minimized with the use of the QSD and RRS. Further research is needed to enhance the implementation of SICs in inpatient settings.