Palliative Care Population Management Project for Integrated Care Management Program for High-Risk Patients (iCMP)

October 9, 2019 updated by: Bernacki, Rachelle E.,M.D., Brigham and Women's Hospital
The hypothesis of the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is that adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) portion, the SIGC, will enhance patient understanding and allow control over their own decisions, relieve burdens of decision-making on family members, and help patients achieve a state of peace as they approach the end of life.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The aim of the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is to provide clinicians with an evidence-based structure for eliciting and documenting vital information about preferences for patient driven care of their serious illness. It is designed to help open the door for patients, families, and clinicians to talk and reflect on end-of-life issues in an ongoing way. The hypothesis of the Serious Illness Care Program is that adherence to the conversation guide portion, the SIGC, will enhance patient understanding and allow control over their own decisions, relieve burdens of decision-making on family members, and help patients achieve a state of peace as they approach the end of life. For this protocol specifically, the investigators are testing a pilot intervention of a quality improvement project; the investigators plan to train clinicians and assess the feasibility and impact of the Serious Illness Care Program, which includes patient identification, clinician training, "triggering" of clinicians to conduct the SICG conversation, and documentation, in the iCMP at the Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

194

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Massachusetts
      • Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02215
        • Brigham and Women's Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Clinician Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Brigham and Women's Hospital or Newton Wellesley Primary Care Clinician at one of the following practices: The Phyllis Jen Center for Primary Care, Faulkner Community Physicians, Brigham and Women's Physician Group, Brigham & Women's Primary Care Associates of Brookline, Brigham Circle Medical Associates, Faulkner
  2. Care for patients enrolled in Brigham and Women's Hospital integrated Care Management Program (iCMP)

Clinician Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Resident in Training
  2. Non-English Speaking Clinic (e.g. Spanish Clinic)

Patient Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Over 18 years of age
  2. English Speaker
  3. Patient at Brigham and Women's Hospital or Newton Wellesley Primary Care Clinician at one of the following practices: The Phyllis Jen Center for Primary Care, Faulkner Community Physicians, Brigham and Women's Physician Group, Brigham & Women's Primary Care Associates of Brookline, Brigham Circle Medical Associates, Faulkner
  4. Enrolled in Brigham and Women's Hospital integrated Care Management Program

Patient Exclusion Criteria:

1. Patient at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
  • Allocation: NON_RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Trained Clinicians
Training in Serious Illness Communication Guide
  1. Clinician training
  2. System for patient selection
  3. System of "triggering" and tracking conversations
  4. Training on how to use the Serious Illness Care Guide, a guide for patients about initiating conversations with family members about end-of-life goals and values
  5. Longitudinal Medical Record (LMR) documentation module to serve as a "Single source of truth" about advance care preferences in the LMR.
NO_INTERVENTION: Untrained Clinicians
No training in Serious Illness Communication Guide

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of eligible patients with documented goals of care conversations
Time Frame: from date of determination of eligibility to date of death death during the study period, assessed for up to 18 months
For patients whose death falls during the study period, the percentage of goals of care conversations completed and documented in the electronic medical record by clinicians in the intervention group and the control group. A completed conversation is defined by key elements being documented regarding goals of care in the patient's medical record.
from date of determination of eligibility to date of death death during the study period, assessed for up to 18 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Median number of days before death of first documented goals of care conversation
Time Frame: from date of determination of eligibility to date of death during the study period, assessed for up to 18 months
For all patients whose death falls during the study period, the median number of days from the date of the first documented goals of care conversation to date of death in both the intervention and the control group.
from date of determination of eligibility to date of death during the study period, assessed for up to 18 months
Percentage of eligible patients with more comprehensive documentation of goals of care before death
Time Frame: from date of determination of eligibility to date of death during study period, assessed for up to 18 months
For all patients whose death falls during the study period, the percentage of patients with more comprehensive goals of care documentation before death in both the intervention group and the control group. More comprehensive is defined as documentation of a goals of care conversation that addresses more than code status only and will be evaluated for completeness in containing more key elements of a Serious Illness Care Guide conversation.
from date of determination of eligibility to date of death during study period, assessed for up to 18 months

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Completion of eligible conversations
Time Frame: from date of clinician training study start to study end date, assessed for up to 18 months
Median percentage of eligible patients with completed conversations (will report for all intervention clinicians as a whole and also on individual clinician level)
from date of clinician training study start to study end date, assessed for up to 18 months
Length of conversation
Time Frame: from date of clinician training study start to study end date, assessed for up to 18 months
Median length of time per conversation in the intervention group as reported by clinician survey
from date of clinician training study start to study end date, assessed for up to 18 months
Clinician Confidence
Time Frame: at initial clinician training and end of study (an average of 18 months)
Clinicians who are trained to use the Guide will have improved confidence in carrying out end-of-life conversations, compared to untrained clinicians. Confidence will be evaluated before training and at end of study and measured using a 22-question survey asking clinicians to quantify their confidence on a scale of 1-7. This survey was designed by study investigators based on national surveys used to evaluate a sample of medical students, residents, and attending physicians' attitudes about end-of-life care, as well as the Harvard Medical School Center for Palliative Care's national faculty development program.
at initial clinician training and end of study (an average of 18 months)
Clinician Attitudes
Time Frame: at clinician training and end of study (an average of 18 months)
Clinicians who are trained to use the Guide will have improved attitudes in carrying out end-of-life conversations, compared to untrained clinicians. Confidence will be evaluated before training and at end of study and measured using an 11-question survey asking clinicians to quantify their confidence on a scale of 1-5. This survey was designed by study investigators based on national surveys used to evaluate a sample of medical students, residents, and attending physicians' attitudes about end-of-life care, as well as the Harvard Medical School Center for Palliative Care's national faculty development program.
at clinician training and end of study (an average of 18 months)
Utilization
Time Frame: at end of study (an average of 18 months)
Patients of clinicians who are trained to use the Guide will have higher rates of hospice usage, less health care utilization, and lower expenses near the end of life. We will measure utilization outcomes for those patients for whom we have claims data through risk contracts and the accountable care organization and will compare usage and trends between intervention and comparison patients.
at end of study (an average of 18 months)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Collaborators

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Rachelle E Bernacki, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  • Principal Investigator: Susan D Block, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  • Principal Investigator: Rebecca Cunningham, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Principal Investigator: Joshua R Lakin, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

March 1, 2014

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

December 1, 2017

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

December 1, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 7, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 22, 2016

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

August 25, 2016

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

October 11, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 9, 2019

Last Verified

October 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 2014P000211

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Failure to Thrive

Clinical Trials on Training

Subscribe