Published in

Elsevier, Annals of Oncology, (31), p. S935-S936, 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.142

American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15_suppl(38), p. e24112-e24112, 2020

DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e24112

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Real-world implementation of serious illness care program (SICP) in cancer care.

Journal article published in 2020 by Safiya Karim, Sasha M. Lupichuk, Amy Tan, Aynharan Sinnarajah, Jessica Simon
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

e24112 Background: The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a system-based intervention, including a conversation guide, which facilitates improved advance care planning (ACP) conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients. A recent randomized control trial found the program reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety amongst oncology out-patients and improved process outcomes. We implemented the SICP in our center to determine if the effects of this program could be translated into the real world. Methods: Two outpatient oncology clinics implemented the SICP, each over a 16-week period. Patients were identified based on an answer of “no” to the question “would I be surprised if this patient died within the next year?”, or any patient with a diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic cancer, or symptom scores of > 7 on more than three categories of the patient reported outcome dashboard. Physicians were trained on how to conduct the SICP conversation. One patient per week was identified and prepared to have the SICP conversation with the goal of at least 12 conversations in each 16-week period. Rates of SICP conversation documentation on our system’s “ACP and goals of care designation (GCD) Tracking Record” and GCD orders were recorded. Patient satisfaction after each conversation and physician comfort level over time were assessed. Results: 16 patients were identified (8 patients in each 16-week period). One patient was lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 15 patients who had the SICP conversation, 14 (93%) had documentation on the Tracking Record and 8 (53%) had a GCD order. This was a major improvement over baseline rates of documentation (e.g. < 1 % Tracking Record use and 16% GCD for patients with GI cancers). 14 patients completed satisfaction surveys, of which 12 (86%) felt “completely” or “quite a bit” more heard or understood. Physician comfort level increased from 3.6 to 4.8 and from 4.8 to 5 out of 5, respectively over each 16-week period. Conclusions: SICP implementation resulted in high rates of documentation of goals and preferences. Patients felt heard and understood by their healthcare team, and comfort in these conversations improved over time for physicians. The goal number of conversations was not met, but otherwise the SICP was feasible to implement in the real world. Further study is required to identify the appropriate triggers and barriers to routine SICP conversations.