Validation of a checklist to facilitate serious illness conversations in adult emergency in China: a single-centre pilot study

Abstract

Abstract Background Advances in emergency and critical care have improved outcomes, but gaps in communication and decision-making persist, especially in the emergency department (ED), prompting the development of a checklist to aid in serious illness conversations (SIC) in China. Methods This was a single-centre prospective interventional study on the quality improvement of SIC for life-sustaining treatment (LST). The study recruited patients consecutively for both its observational baseline and interventional stages until its conclusion. Eligible participants were adults over 18 years old admitted to the Emergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU) of a tertiary teaching hospital, possessing full decisional capacity or having a legal proxy. Exclusions were made for pregnant women, patients deceased upon arrival, those who refused participation, and individuals with incomplete data for analysis. First, a two-round Delphi process was organized to identify major elements and generate a standard process through a checklist. Subsequently, the efficacy of SIC in adult patients admitted to the EICU was compared using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) score before (baseline group) and after (intervention group) implementing the checklist. Results The study participants presented with the most common comorbidities, such as diabetes, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, moderate-to-severe renal disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic pulmonary disease. The median Charlson Index did not differ between the baseline and intervention cohorts. The median length of hospital stay was 11.0 days, and 82.9% of patients survived until hospital discharge. The total DCS score was lower in the intervention group than in the baseline group. Three subscales, including the informed, values clarity, and support subscales, demonstrated significant differences between the intervention and baseline groups. Fewer intervention group patients agreed with and changed their minds about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) compared to the baseline group. Conclusion The use of a SIC checklist in the EICU reduced the DCS score by increasing medical information disclosure, patient value awareness, and decision-making support.

Keywords

• Emergency medicine
• Serious illness conversations
• Decisional Conflict Scale
• Checklist