Search

Background: Patients with serious illness benefit from conversations to share prognosis and explore goals and values. To address this, we implemented Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) at Stanford Health Care. Objective: Improve quantity, timing, and quality of serious illness conversations. Methods: Initial implementation followed Ariadne Labs' SICP framework. We later incorporated a team-based approach that included nonphysician care team members. Outcomes included number of patients with documented conversations according to clinician role and practice location. Machine learning algorithms were used in some settings to identify eligible patients. Results: Ambulatory oncology and hospital medicine were our largest implementation sites, engaging 4707 and 642 unique patients in conversations, respectively. Clinicians across eight disciplines engaged in these conversations. Identified barriers that included leadership engagement, complex workflows, and patient identification. Conclusion: Several factors contributed to successful SICP implementation across clinical sites: innovative clinical workflows, machine learning based predictive algorithms, and nonphysician care team member engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Patients with metastatic cancer benefit from advance care planning (ACP) conversations. We aimed to improve ACP using a computer model to select high-risk patients, with shorter predicted survival, for conversations with providers and lay care coaches. Outcomes included ACP documentation frequency and end-oflife quality measures. METHODS In this study of a quality improvement initiative, providers in four medical oncology clinics received Serious Illness Care Program training. Two clinics (thoracic/genitourinary) participated in an intervention, and two (cutaneous/sarcoma) served as controls. ACP conversations were documented in a centralized form in the electronic medical record. In the intervention, providers and care coaches received weekly e-mails highlighting upcoming clinic patients with, 2 year computer-predicted survival and no prior prognosis documentation. Care coaches contacted these patients for an ACP conversation (excluding prognosis). Providers were asked to discuss and document prognosis. RESULTS In the four clinics, 4,968 clinic visits by 1,251 patients met inclusion criteria (metastatic cancer with no prognosis previously documented). In their first visit, 28% of patients were high-risk (< 2 year predicted survival). Preintervention, 3% of both intervention and control clinic patients had ACP documentation during a visit. By intervention end (February 2021), 35% of intervention clinic patients had ACP documentation compared with 3% of control clinic patients. Providers' prognosis documentation rate also increased in intervention clinics after the intervention (2%-27% in intervention clinics, P < .0001; 0%-1% in control clinics). End-of-life care intensity was similar in intervention versus control clinics, but patients ≥ with 1 provider ACP edit met fewer high-intensity care measures (P = .04). CONCLUSION Combining a computer prognosis model with care coaches increased ACP documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]