Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people (Review)

Rebecca E Ryan; Michael Connolly; Natalie K Bradford; Simon Henderson; Anthony Herbert; Lina Schonfeld; Jeanine Young; Josephine I Bothroyd; Amanda Henderson

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013116.pub2

Background: Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes. Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re‐run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing. Selection criteria: This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi‐randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life, we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision‐making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes. Data collection and analysis: Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies. Main results: Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review’s purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low‐certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials. Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient‐centredness, involvement preferences, doctor‐patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low‐certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient‐specific feedback sheet on quality of communication. Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low‐ or very low‐certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations. Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low‐certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life. Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low‐certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low‐certainty evidence), or on patients' self‐rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low‐certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse‐led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear. Authors' conclusions: Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co‐design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people (Review)

Files and links (2)

Abstract

Details

Metrics

InCites Highlights

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)