Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research article

Serious illness care Programme UK: assessing the ‘face validity’, applicability and relevance of the serious illness conversation guide for use within the UK health care setting

Authors: Tamsin McGlinchey, Stephen Mason, Alison Coackley, Anita Roberts, Maria Maguire, Justin Sanders, Francine Maloney, Susan Block, John Ellershaw, Peter Kirkbride

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

When doctors have honest conversations with patients about their illness and involve them in decisions about their care, patients express greater satisfaction with care and lowered anxiety and depression. The Serious Illness Care Programme (the Programme), originally developed in the United States (U.S), promotes meaningful, realistic and focused conversations about patient’s wishes, fears and worries for the future with their illness. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (the guide) provides a framework to structure these conversations. The aim of this paper is to present findings from a study to examine the ‘face validity’, acceptability and relevance of the Guide for use within the United Kingdom (UK) health care setting.

Methods

A multi-stage approach was undertaken, using three separate techniques:
1.
Nominal Group Technique with clinician ‘expert groups’ to review the Serious Illness Conversation Guide: 14 ‘experts’ in Oncology, Palliative Care and Communication Skills;
 
2.
Cognitive Interviews with 6 patient and public representatives, using the ‘think aloud technique’; to explore the cognitive processes involved in answering the questions in the guide, including appropriateness of language, question wording and format
 
3.
Final stakeholder review and consensus.
 

Results

Nominal Group Technique
Unanimous agreement the conversation guide could provide a useful support to clinicians. Amendments are required but should be informed directly from the cognitive interviews. Training highlighted as key to underpin the use of the guide.
Cognitive interviews
The ‘holistic’ attention to the person as a whole was valued rather than a narrow focus on their disease. Some concern was raised regarding the ‘formality’ of some wording however and suggestions for amendments were made.
Final stakeholder review
Stakeholders agreed amendments to 5/13 prompts and unanimously agreed the UK guide should be implemented as a part of the pilot implementation of the Serious Illness Care Programme UK.

Conclusion

Use of the guide has the potential to benefit patients, facilitating a ‘person-centred’ approach to these important conversations, and providing a framework to promote shared decision making and care planning. Further research is ongoing, to understand the impact of these conversations on patients, families and clinicians and on concordance of care delivery with expressed patient wishes.
Literature
5.
go back to reference Hagerty RG, et al. Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients' views on the disclosure of prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(6):1278–88.CrossRef Hagerty RG, et al. Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients' views on the disclosure of prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(6):1278–88.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Moore PM, et al. Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2013, 3):p. Cd003751. Moore PM, et al. Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2013, 3):p. Cd003751.
7.
go back to reference Lussier M-T, Claude R. Complaints and legal actions: role of doctor-patient communication. Can Fam Physician. 2005;51(1):37–9.PubMedPubMedCentral Lussier M-T, Claude R. Complaints and legal actions: role of doctor-patient communication. Can Fam Physician. 2005;51(1):37–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Fallowfield L, et al. Psychiatric morbidity and its recognition by doctors in patients with cancer. Br J Cancer. 2001;84(8):1011–5.CrossRef Fallowfield L, et al. Psychiatric morbidity and its recognition by doctors in patients with cancer. Br J Cancer. 2001;84(8):1011–5.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lloyd-Williams M, Friedman T. Depression in palliative care patients--a prospective study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2001;10(4):270–4.CrossRef Lloyd-Williams M, Friedman T. Depression in palliative care patients--a prospective study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2001;10(4):270–4.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Passik SD, et al. Oncologists' recognition of depression in their patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(4):1594–600.CrossRef Passik SD, et al. Oncologists' recognition of depression in their patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(4):1594–600.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bernacki R, et al. Development of the serious illness care program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10). Bernacki R, et al. Development of the serious illness care program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10).
16.
go back to reference Bernacki, R., et al., Delivering more, earlier, and better goals-of-care conversations to seriously ill oncology patients. J Clin Oncol, 2015. 33(29_suppl): p. 39–39. Bernacki, R., et al., Delivering more, earlier, and better goals-of-care conversations to seriously ill oncology patients. J Clin Oncol, 2015. 33(29_suppl): p. 39–39.
17.
go back to reference Paladino, J., et al., Effect of conversations about values and goals on anxiety in patients. J Clin Oncol, 2015. 33(29_suppl): p. 9–9. Paladino, J., et al., Effect of conversations about values and goals on anxiety in patients. J Clin Oncol, 2015. 33(29_suppl): p. 9–9.
18.
go back to reference Lakin JR, et al. A systematic intervention to improve serious illness communication in primary care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1258–64.CrossRef Lakin JR, et al. A systematic intervention to improve serious illness communication in primary care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1258–64.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci. 1971;7(4):466–92.CrossRef Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci. 1971;7(4):466–92.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Van De Ven, and D.H. Gustafson, Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Management applications series. 1975: Glenview (Ill.) : Scott, Foresman, 1975. Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Van De Ven, and D.H. Gustafson, Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Management applications series. 1975: Glenview (Ill.) : Scott, Foresman, 1975.
23.
go back to reference Presser S, et al. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions. The Public Opinion Quarterly. 2004;(1):109. Presser S, et al. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions. The Public Opinion Quarterly. 2004;(1):109.
24.
go back to reference Campanelli P. Testing survey questions: new directions in cognitive interviewing. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique. 1997;55(1):5–17.CrossRef Campanelli P. Testing survey questions: new directions in cognitive interviewing. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique. 1997;55(1):5–17.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Malterud K, et al. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.CrossRef Malterud K, et al. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(3):229–38.CrossRef Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(3):229–38.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Oliver DG, Serovich JM, Mason TL. Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: towards reflection in qualitative research. Soc Forces. 2005;84(2):1273–89.CrossRef Oliver DG, Serovich JM, Mason TL. Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: towards reflection in qualitative research. Soc Forces. 2005;84(2):1273–89.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Parker GD, et al. Assessing attitudinal barriers toward end-of-life care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2012;29(6):438–42.CrossRef Parker GD, et al. Assessing attitudinal barriers toward end-of-life care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2012;29(6):438–42.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Back AL, et al. Communication about cancer near the end of life. Cancer. 2008:113. Back AL, et al. Communication about cancer near the end of life. Cancer. 2008:113.
30.
go back to reference Smith, T.J., et al., Giving honest information to patients with advanced cancer maintains hope. Oncology (Williston Park), 2010. 24(6): p. 521–5. Smith, T.J., et al., Giving honest information to patients with advanced cancer maintains hope. Oncology (Williston Park), 2010. 24(6): p. 521–5.
31.
go back to reference Smith TJ, et al. A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced Cancer. The journal of supportive oncology. 2011;9(2):79–86.CrossRef Smith TJ, et al. A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced Cancer. The journal of supportive oncology. 2011;9(2):79–86.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Mack JW, Cronin A, Keating NL. Associations between end-of-life discussion characteristics and care received near death: a prospective cohort study. American Society of Clinical Oncology: United States p. 2012:4387. Mack JW, Cronin A, Keating NL. Associations between end-of-life discussion characteristics and care received near death: a prospective cohort study. American Society of Clinical Oncology: United States p. 2012:4387.
Metadata
Title
Serious illness care Programme UK: assessing the ‘face validity’, applicability and relevance of the serious illness conversation guide for use within the UK health care setting
Authors
Tamsin McGlinchey
Stephen Mason
Alison Coackley
Anita Roberts
Maria Maguire
Justin Sanders
Francine Maloney
Susan Block
John Ellershaw
Peter Kirkbride
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4209-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Health Services Research 1/2019 Go to the issue