Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

E-Poster Display

1516P - Real world implementation of Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in cancer care

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

End-of-Life Care

Tumour Site

Presenters

Safiya Karim

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S874-S880. 10.1016/annonc/annonc264

Authors

S. Karim1, S. Lupichuk1, A. Tan2, A. Sinnarajah3, J. Simon3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Oncology, University of Calgary, T2N 4N2 - Calgary/CA
  • 2 Family Medicine, University of Calgary, T2N 4N1 - Calgary/CA
  • 3 Palliative Care, University of Calgary, T2N 4N2 - Calgary/CA

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1516P

Background

The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a system-based intervention and a conversation guide, which facilitates improved advance care planning (ACP) conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients. The randomized control trial found the program reduced symptoms of depression/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 to 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 in the SICP conversation. 1 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 documentation on our system’s “ACP and goals of care designation (GCD) Tracking Record” and GCD orders were recorded. Patient satisfaction 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). 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.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Chief Medical Office (CMO)/Calgary Zone Medical Affairs (MA) Quality Improvement Initiative.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.