Are Safety-Net Primary Care Physicians Prepared to Engage in Serious Illness Conversations?

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-03 DOI:10.1177/10499091231190354
Deborah Swiderski, Rodrigo Ng Taniguchi, Elizabeth Chuang
{"title":"Are Safety-Net Primary Care Physicians Prepared to Engage in Serious Illness Conversations?","authors":"Deborah Swiderski, Rodrigo Ng Taniguchi, Elizabeth Chuang","doi":"10.1177/10499091231190354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance Care Planning (ACP) has not reliably improved care for patients at end-of-life. Serious Illness Conversations when patients are in the late stages of chronic illness might be more effective to address patients' goals. The Serious Illness Conversation (SIC) Guide has been helpful but was not developed for use in safety-net settings serving racial and ethnic minority populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Physicians were recruited to complete a needs assessment survey prior to training in the use of the SIC Guide.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 44 physician participants, most were female (82%) and white, non-Hispanic (62%). Less than half of respondents rated themselves as skilled or very skilled in basic serious illness communication related tasks such as setting up goals of care discussions (44%), assessing informational preferences (42%), sharing prognosis (38%), exploring goals for future care (49%) and managing family dynamics (44%). Respondents reported lower skill levels in conducting goals of care conversations via telehealth and establishing trust in racially discordant provider/patient pairs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most participants expressed the need for further training in critical end-of-life communications skills, including help with encounters with racial and/or language discordance. This may help to explain the failure of ACP discussions to reliably result in appropriate end-of-life care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"486-491"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231190354","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advance Care Planning (ACP) has not reliably improved care for patients at end-of-life. Serious Illness Conversations when patients are in the late stages of chronic illness might be more effective to address patients' goals. The Serious Illness Conversation (SIC) Guide has been helpful but was not developed for use in safety-net settings serving racial and ethnic minority populations.

Methods: Physicians were recruited to complete a needs assessment survey prior to training in the use of the SIC Guide.

Results: Of the 44 physician participants, most were female (82%) and white, non-Hispanic (62%). Less than half of respondents rated themselves as skilled or very skilled in basic serious illness communication related tasks such as setting up goals of care discussions (44%), assessing informational preferences (42%), sharing prognosis (38%), exploring goals for future care (49%) and managing family dynamics (44%). Respondents reported lower skill levels in conducting goals of care conversations via telehealth and establishing trust in racially discordant provider/patient pairs.

Conclusions: Most participants expressed the need for further training in critical end-of-life communications skills, including help with encounters with racial and/or language discordance. This may help to explain the failure of ACP discussions to reliably result in appropriate end-of-life care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安全网初级保健医生是否做好了参与重病对话的准备?
背景:临终关怀计划(ACP)并不能可靠地改善临终患者的护理。在患者处于慢性病晚期时进行重病对话可能会更有效地实现患者的目标。重病对话(SIC)指南》很有帮助,但并不是为服务于少数种族和少数族裔人群的安全网环境而开发的:方法:在培训使用《重症疾病对话指南》之前,招募医生完成需求评估调查:在 44 名参与调查的医生中,大多数为女性(82%)和非西班牙裔白人(62%)。不到一半的受访者认为自己在与重病沟通相关的基本任务方面熟练掌握或非常熟练,如建立护理目标讨论(44%)、评估信息偏好(42%)、分享预后(38%)、探讨未来护理目标(49%)和管理家庭动态(44%)。受访者表示,通过远程医疗进行护理目标对话以及在种族不和的医疗提供者/患者对中建立信任的技能水平较低:结论:大多数参与者表示需要进一步接受临终沟通关键技能的培训,包括在遇到种族和/或语言不一致时提供帮助。这可能有助于解释为什么 ACP 讨论未能可靠地产生适当的临终关怀。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Perceptions of Families and Nurses After Signing a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order for Patients in Respiratory Care Wards Differences in Timely Goals of Care Discussions in Nursing Homes Among Black Residents A Way Forward for Comprehensive Cancer Caregiver Support Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity Antibiotics at End of Life: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? A Narrative Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1