Abstract

BackgroundSerious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics (“nudges”) that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion—either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers—may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer.MethodsWe will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity.DiscussionThis will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04867850. Registered on April 30, 2021.FundingNational Cancer Institute P50CA244690

Highlights

  • Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes

  • We demonstrated the effectiveness of a clinician-directed nudge designed to counteract optimism bias and aid clinicians in identifying patients at high risk of predicted 180-day mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm

  • Study aims The main objective of this four-arm cluster randomized pragmatic trial is to test the independent effects of multilevel behavioral economic implementation strategies involving nudges to clinicians, nudges to patients, or nudges to both, as compared to usual care, on serious illness conversation (SIC) completion for patients predicted to be at high risk of 6month mortality

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics (“nudges”) that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. Serious illness conversations (SICs) that elicit patients’ values, goals, and care preferences, earlier in the disease trajectory, are an evidence-based practice that improves patient mood and quality of life [7,8,9,10,11,12] and are recommended by national guidelines, including those of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Academies of Medicine [13,14,15]. Even after formal SICP training, medical oncology clinicians at our large academic cancer center documented SICs for fewer than 5% of patients with cancer seen in medical oncology practices [24]

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call