Robert M. Arnold, MD

Admission to a hospital can be a stressful event,^1,2 and patients report having many concerns at the time of hospital admission.³ Over the last 20 years, the United States has widely adopted the hospitalist model of inpatient care. Although this model has clear benefits, it also has the potential to contribute to patient stress, as hospitalized patients generally lack preexisting relationships with their inpatient physicians.^4,5 In this changing hospital environment, defining and promoting effective medical communication has become an essential goal of both individual practitioners and medical centers.

Successful communication and strong therapeutic relationships with physicians support patients’ coping with illness-associated stress^6,7 as well as promote adherence to medical treatment plans.⁸ Empathy serves as an important building block of patient-centered communication and encourages a strong therapeutic alliance.⁹ Studies from primary care, oncology, and intensive care unit (ICU) settings indicate that physician empathy is associated with decreased emotional distress,^10,11 improved ratings of communication,¹² and even better medical outcomes.¹³

Prior work has shown that hospitalists, like other clinicians, underutilize empathy as a tool in their daily interactions with patients.^14-16 Our prior qualitative analysis of audio-recorded hospitalist-patient admission encounters indicated that how hospitalists respond to patient expressions of negative emotion influences relationships with patients and alignment around care plans.¹⁷ To determine whether empathic communication is associated with patient-reported outcomes in the hospitalist model, we quantitatively analyzed coded admission encounters and survey data to examine the association between hospitalists’ responses to patient expressions of negative emotion (anxiety, sadness, and anger) and patient anxiety and ratings of communication. Given the often-limited time hospitalists have to complete admission encounters, we also examined the association between response to emotion and encounter length.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected as part of an observational study of hospitalist-patient communication during hospital admission encounters¹⁴ to assess the association between the way physicians responded to patient expressions of negative emotion and patient anxiety, ratings of communication in the encounter, and encounter length. We collected data between August 2008 and March 2009 on the general medical service at 2 urban hospitals that are part of an academic medical center. Participants were attending hospitalists (not physician trainees), and patients admitted under participating hospitalists’ care who were able to communicate verbally in English and provide informed consent for the study. The institutional review board at the University of California, San Francisco approved the study; physician and patient participants provided written informed consent.

Enrollment and data collection has been described previously.¹⁷ Our cohort for this analysis included 76 patients of 27 physicians who completed encounter audio recordings and pre- and postencounter surveys. Following enrollment, patients completed a preencounter survey to collect demographic information and to measure their baseline anxiety via the State Anxiety Scale (STAI-S), which assesses transient anxious mood using 20 items answered on a 4-point scale for a final score range of 20 to 80.^10,18,19 We timed and audio-recorded admission encounters. Encounter recordings were obtained solely from patient interactions with attending hospitalists and did not take into account the time patients may have spent with other physicians, including trainees. After the encounter, patients completed postencounter surveys, which included the STAI-S and patients’ ratings of communication during the encounter. To rate communication, patients responded to 7 items on a 0- to 10-point scale that were derived from previous work (Table 1)^12,20,21; the anchors were “not at all” and “completely.” To identify patients with serious illness, which we used as a covariate in regression models, we asked physicians on a postencounter survey whether or not they “would be surprised by this patient’s death or admission to the ICU in the next year.”²²

As previously described, we professionally transcribed and coded the audio recordings.¹⁷ Following past work,^15,16,23-25 we identified patient expressions of negative emotion and categorized the initial hospitalist response to each expression. Table 2 shows examples to illustrate the coding scheme. We considered an empathic response to be one that directed further discussion toward a patient’s expressed negative emotion. A neutral response was one that directed discussion neither towards nor away from the expressed emotion, while a nonempathic physician response directed further discussion away from the patient’s emotion.¹⁵ To assess reliability, 2 coders independently coded a randomly selected 20% of encounters (n = 15); kappa statistics were 0.76 for patient expressions of emotion and 0.85 for physician responses, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement.²⁶

We used regression models to assess the association between the number of each type of physician response (empathic, neutral, nonempathic) in an encounter and the following variables: (1) the change in the patient’s anxiety level, defined as the difference between the post- and preencounter STAI-S score (using linear regression); (2) patient ratings of the physician and encounter (using Poisson regression); and (3) encounter length (using linear regression). To assess each patient rating item, we utilized a single model that included frequencies for each type of physician response. For ratings of their encounters, most patients gave high ratings, resulting in a preponderance of 10/10 scores for several items. Thus, we focused on trying to understand “negativity,” meaning the minority of less than completely positive reactions. To do this, we analyzed reflected outcomes (defined as 10 minus the patient’s response) using zero-inflated Poisson regression models. This approach allowed us to distinguish between degrees of dissatisfaction and to determine whether additional change in ratings resulted from additional physician responses. Encounter length also demonstrated right skewness, which we addressed through log transformation; results for this are reported as percent change in the encounter length per physician response.

We considered physician as a clustering variable in the calculation of robust standard errors for all models. In addition, we included in each model covariates that were associated with the outcome at P ≤ 0.10, including patient gender, patient age, serious illness,²² preencounter anxiety, encounter length, and hospital. We considered P values < 0.05 to be statistically significant. We used Stata SE 13 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) for all statistical analyses.

 

RESULTS

We analyzed data from admission encounters with 76 patients (consent rate 63%) and 27 hospitalists (consent rate 91%). Their characteristics are shown in Table 3. Median encounter length was 19 minutes (mean 21 minutes, range 3-68). Patients expressed negative emotion in 190 instances across all encounters; median number of expressions per encounter was 1 (range 0-14). Hospitalists responded empathically to 32% (n = 61) of the patient expressions, neutrally to 43% (n = 81), and nonempathically to 25% (n = 48).

The STAI-S was normally distributed. The mean preencounter STAI-S score was 39 (standard deviation [SD] 8.9). Mean postencounter STAI-S score was 38 (SD 10.7). Mean change in anxiety over the course of the encounter, calculated as the postencounter minus preencounter mean was −1.2 (SD 7.6). Table 1 shows summary statistics for the patient ratings of communication items. All items were rated highly. Across the items, between 51% and 78% of patients rated the highest score of 10.

Across the range of frequencies of emotional expressions per encounter in our data set (0-14 expressions), each additional empathic hospitalist response was associated with a 1.65-point decrease in the STAI-S (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-2.82). We did not find significant associations between changes in the STAI-S and the number of neutral hospitalist responses (−0.65 per response; 95% CI, −1.67-0.37) or nonempathic hospitalist responses (0.61 per response; 95% CI, −0.88-2.10).

The Figure shows the adjusted relative effects (aREs) and 95% CIs from zero-inflated multivariate Poisson regression models of the association between physician response to patient expressions of negative emotion and reflected patient ratings of the encounters, defined as 10 minus the patient’s response. Empathic hospitalist responses to patient expressions of emotion were associated with less negative patient ratings of communication in the encounter for 4 of 7 items: covering points of interest, the doctor listening, the doctor caring, and trusting the doctor. For example, for the item “I felt this doctor cared about me,” each empathic hospitalist response was associated with an approximate 77% reduction in negative patient ratings (aRE: 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.85).

In addition, nonempathic responses were associated with more negative ratings of communication for 5 of the 7 items: ease of understanding information, covering points of interest, the doctor listening, the doctor caring, and trusting the doctor. For example, for the item “I felt this doctor cared about me,” each nonempathic hospitalist response was associated with a more than doubling of negative patient ratings (aRE: 2.3; 95% CI, 1.32-4.16). Neutral physician responses to patient expressions of negative emotion were associated with less negative patient ratings for 2 of the items: covering points of interest (aRE 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90) and trusting the doctor (aRE: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99).

We did not find a statistical association between encounter length and the number of empathic hospitalist responses in the encounter (percent change in encounter length per response [PC]: 1%; 95% CI, −8%-10%) or the number of nonempathic responses (PC: 18%; 95% CI, −2%-42%). We did find a statistically significant association between the number of neutral responses and encounter length (PC: 13%; 95% CI, 3%-24%), corresponding to 2.5 minutes of additional encounter time per neutral response for the median encounter length of 19 minutes.

DISCUSSION

Our study set out to measure how hospitalists responded to expressions of negative emotion during admission encounters with patients and how those responses correlated with patient anxiety, ratings of communication, and encounter length. We found that empathic responses were associated with diminishing patient anxiety after the visit, as well as with better ratings of several domains of hospitalist communication. Moreover, nonempathic responses to negative emotion were associated with more strongly negative ratings of hospitalist communication. Finally, while clinicians may worry that encouraging patients to speak further about emotion will result in excessive visit lengths, we did not find a statistical association between empathic responses and encounter duration. To our knowledge, this is the first study to indicate an association between empathy and patient anxiety and communication ratings within the hospitalist model, which is rapidly becoming the predominant model for providing inpatient care in the United States.^4,5

As in oncologic care, anxiety is an emotion commonly confronted by clinicians meeting admitted medical patients for the first time. Studies show that not only do patient anxiety levels remain high throughout a hospital course, patients who experience higher levels of anxiety tend to stay longer in the hospital.^1,2,27-30 But unlike oncologic care or other therapy provided in an outpatient setting, the hospitalist model does not facilitate “continuity” of care, or the ability to care for the same patients over a long period of time. This reality of inpatient care makes rapid, effective rapport-building critical to establishing strong physician-patient relationships. In this setting, a simple communication tool that is potentially able to reduce inpatients’ anxiety could have a meaningful impact on hospitalist-provided care and patient outcomes.

In terms of the magnitude of the effect of empathic responses, the clinical significance of a 1.65-point decrease in the STAI-S anxiety score is not precisely clear. A prior study that examined the effect of music therapy on anxiety levels in patients with cancer found an average anxiety reduction of approximately 9.5 units on the STAIS-S scale after sensitivity analysis, suggesting a rather large meaningful effect size.³¹ Given we found a reduction of 1.65 points for each empathic response, however, with a range of 0-14 negative emotions expressed over a median 19-minute encounter, there is opportunity for hospitalists to achieve a clinically significant decrease in patient anxiety during an admission encounter. The potential to reduce anxiety is extended further when we consider that the impact of an empathic response may apply not just to the admission encounter alone but also to numerous other patient-clinician interactions over the course of a hospitalization.

A healthy body of communication research supports the associations we found in our study between empathy and patient ratings of communication and physicians. Families in ICU conferences rate communication more positively when physicians express empathy,¹² and a number of studies indicate an association between empathy and patient satisfaction in outpatient settings.⁸ Given the associations we found with negative ratings on the items in our study, promoting empathic responses to expressions of emotion and, more importantly, stressing avoidance of nonempathic responses may be relevant efforts in working to improve patient satisfaction scores on surveys reporting “top box” percentages, such as Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). More notably, evidence indicates that empathy has positive impacts beyond satisfaction surveys, such as adherence, better diagnostic and clinical outcomes, and strengthening of patient enablement.⁸Not all hospitalist responses to emotion were associated with patient ratings across the 7 communication items we assessed. For example, we did not find an association between how physicians responded to patient expressions of negative emotion and patient perception that enough time was spent in the visit or the degree to which talking with the doctor met a patient’s overall needs. It follows logically, and other research supports, that empathy would influence patient ratings of physician caring and trust,³² whereas other communication factors we were unable to measure (eg, physician body language, tone, and use of jargon and patient health literacy and primary language) may have a more significant association with patient ratings of the other items we assessed.

In considering the clinical application of our results, it is important to note that communication skills, including responding empathically to patient expressions of negative emotion, can be imparted through training in the same way as abdominal examination or electrocardiogram interpretation skills.^33-35 However, training of hospitalists in communication skills requires time and some financial investment on the part of the physician, their hospital or group, or, ideally, both. Effective training methods, like those for other skill acquisition, involve learner-centered teaching and practicing skills with role-play and feedback.³⁶ Given the importance of a learner-centered approach, learning would likely be better received and more effective if it was tailored to the specific needs and patient scenarios commonly encountered by hospitalist physicians. As these programs are developed, it will be important to assess the impact of any training on the patient-reported outcomes we assessed in this observational study, along with clinical outcomes.

Our study has several limitations. First, we were only able to evaluate whether hospitalists verbally responded to patient emotion and were thus not able to account for nonverbal empathy such as facial expressions, body language, or voice tone. Second, given our patient consent rate of 63%, patients who agreed to participate in the study may have had different opinions than those who declined to participate. Also, hospitalists and patients may have behaved differently as a result of being audio recorded. We only included patients who spoke English, and our patient population was predominately non-Hispanic white. Patients who spoke other languages or came from other cultural backgrounds may have had different responses. Third, we did not use a single validated scale for patient ratings of communication, and multiple analyses increase our risk of finding statistically significant associations by chance. The skewing of the communication rating items toward high scores may also have led to our results being driven by outliers, although the model we chose for analysis does penalize for this. Furthermore, our sample size was small, leading to wide CIs and potential for lack of statistical associations due to insufficient power. Our findings warrant replication in larger studies. Fourth, the setting of our study in an academic center may affect generalizability. Finally, the age of our data (collected between 2008 and 2009) is also a limitation. Given a recent focus on communication and patient experience since the initiation of HCAHPS feedback, a similar analysis of empathy and communication methods now may result in different outcomes.

In conclusion, our results suggest that enhancing hospitalists’ empathic responses to patient expressions of negative emotion could decrease patient anxiety and improve patients’ perceptions of (and thus possibly their relationships with) hospitalists, without sacrificing efficiency. Future work should focus on tailoring and implementing communication skills training programs for hospitalists and evaluating the impact of training on patient outcomes.

 

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their sincere thanks to the patients and physicians who participated in this study. Dr. Anderson was funded by the National Palliative Care Research Center and the University of California, San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute Career Development Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant number 5 KL2 RR024130-04. Project costs were funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco Academic Senate.

Disclosure

 All coauthors have seen and agree with the contents of this manuscript. This submission is not under review by any other publication. Wendy Anderson received funding for this project from the National Palliative Care Research Center, University of California San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NIH grant number 5KL2RR024130-04), and the University of San Francisco Academic Senate [From Section 2 of Author Disclosure Form]. Andy Auerbach has a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute research grant in development [From Section 3 of the Author Disclosure Form].

Admission to a hospital can be a stressful event,^1,2 and patients report having many concerns at the time of hospital admission.³ Over the last 20 years, the United States has widely adopted the hospitalist model of inpatient care. Although this model has clear benefits, it also has the potential to contribute to patient stress, as hospitalized patients generally lack preexisting relationships with their inpatient physicians.^4,5 In this changing hospital environment, defining and promoting effective medical communication has become an essential goal of both individual practitioners and medical centers.

Successful communication and strong therapeutic relationships with physicians support patients’ coping with illness-associated stress^6,7 as well as promote adherence to medical treatment plans.⁸ Empathy serves as an important building block of patient-centered communication and encourages a strong therapeutic alliance.⁹ Studies from primary care, oncology, and intensive care unit (ICU) settings indicate that physician empathy is associated with decreased emotional distress,^10,11 improved ratings of communication,¹² and even better medical outcomes.¹³

Prior work has shown that hospitalists, like other clinicians, underutilize empathy as a tool in their daily interactions with patients.^14-16 Our prior qualitative analysis of audio-recorded hospitalist-patient admission encounters indicated that how hospitalists respond to patient expressions of negative emotion influences relationships with patients and alignment around care plans.¹⁷ To determine whether empathic communication is associated with patient-reported outcomes in the hospitalist model, we quantitatively analyzed coded admission encounters and survey data to examine the association between hospitalists’ responses to patient expressions of negative emotion (anxiety, sadness, and anger) and patient anxiety and ratings of communication. Given the often-limited time hospitalists have to complete admission encounters, we also examined the association between response to emotion and encounter length.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected as part of an observational study of hospitalist-patient communication during hospital admission encounters¹⁴ to assess the association between the way physicians responded to patient expressions of negative emotion and patient anxiety, ratings of communication in the encounter, and encounter length. We collected data between August 2008 and March 2009 on the general medical service at 2 urban hospitals that are part of an academic medical center. Participants were attending hospitalists (not physician trainees), and patients admitted under participating hospitalists’ care who were able to communicate verbally in English and provide informed consent for the study. The institutional review board at the University of California, San Francisco approved the study; physician and patient participants provided written informed consent.

Enrollment and data collection has been described previously.¹⁷ Our cohort for this analysis included 76 patients of 27 physicians who completed encounter audio recordings and pre- and postencounter surveys. Following enrollment, patients completed a preencounter survey to collect demographic information and to measure their baseline anxiety via the State Anxiety Scale (STAI-S), which assesses transient anxious mood using 20 items answered on a 4-point scale for a final score range of 20 to 80.^10,18,19 We timed and audio-recorded admission encounters. Encounter recordings were obtained solely from patient interactions with attending hospitalists and did not take into account the time patients may have spent with other physicians, including trainees. After the encounter, patients completed postencounter surveys, which included the STAI-S and patients’ ratings of communication during the encounter. To rate communication, patients responded to 7 items on a 0- to 10-point scale that were derived from previous work (Table 1)^12,20,21; the anchors were “not at all” and “completely.” To identify patients with serious illness, which we used as a covariate in regression models, we asked physicians on a postencounter survey whether or not they “would be surprised by this patient’s death or admission to the ICU in the next year.”²²

As previously described, we professionally transcribed and coded the audio recordings.¹⁷ Following past work,^15,16,23-25 we identified patient expressions of negative emotion and categorized the initial hospitalist response to each expression. Table 2 shows examples to illustrate the coding scheme. We considered an empathic response to be one that directed further discussion toward a patient’s expressed negative emotion. A neutral response was one that directed discussion neither towards nor away from the expressed emotion, while a nonempathic physician response directed further discussion away from the patient’s emotion.¹⁵ To assess reliability, 2 coders independently coded a randomly selected 20% of encounters (n = 15); kappa statistics were 0.76 for patient expressions of emotion and 0.85 for physician responses, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement.²⁶

We used regression models to assess the association between the number of each type of physician response (empathic, neutral, nonempathic) in an encounter and the following variables: (1) the change in the patient’s anxiety level, defined as the difference between the post- and preencounter STAI-S score (using linear regression); (2) patient ratings of the physician and encounter (using Poisson regression); and (3) encounter length (using linear regression). To assess each patient rating item, we utilized a single model that included frequencies for each type of physician response. For ratings of their encounters, most patients gave high ratings, resulting in a preponderance of 10/10 scores for several items. Thus, we focused on trying to understand “negativity,” meaning the minority of less than completely positive reactions. To do this, we analyzed reflected outcomes (defined as 10 minus the patient’s response) using zero-inflated Poisson regression models. This approach allowed us to distinguish between degrees of dissatisfaction and to determine whether additional change in ratings resulted from additional physician responses. Encounter length also demonstrated right skewness, which we addressed through log transformation; results for this are reported as percent change in the encounter length per physician response.

We considered physician as a clustering variable in the calculation of robust standard errors for all models. In addition, we included in each model covariates that were associated with the outcome at P ≤ 0.10, including patient gender, patient age, serious illness,²² preencounter anxiety, encounter length, and hospital. We considered P values < 0.05 to be statistically significant. We used Stata SE 13 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) for all statistical analyses.

 

RESULTS

We analyzed data from admission encounters with 76 patients (consent rate 63%) and 27 hospitalists (consent rate 91%). Their characteristics are shown in Table 3. Median encounter length was 19 minutes (mean 21 minutes, range 3-68). Patients expressed negative emotion in 190 instances across all encounters; median number of expressions per encounter was 1 (range 0-14). Hospitalists responded empathically to 32% (n = 61) of the patient expressions, neutrally to 43% (n = 81), and nonempathically to 25% (n = 48).

The STAI-S was normally distributed. The mean preencounter STAI-S score was 39 (standard deviation [SD] 8.9). Mean postencounter STAI-S score was 38 (SD 10.7). Mean change in anxiety over the course of the encounter, calculated as the postencounter minus preencounter mean was −1.2 (SD 7.6). Table 1 shows summary statistics for the patient ratings of communication items. All items were rated highly. Across the items, between 51% and 78% of patients rated the highest score of 10.

Across the range of frequencies of emotional expressions per encounter in our data set (0-14 expressions), each additional empathic hospitalist response was associated with a 1.65-point decrease in the STAI-S (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-2.82). We did not find significant associations between changes in the STAI-S and the number of neutral hospitalist responses (−0.65 per response; 95% CI, −1.67-0.37) or nonempathic hospitalist responses (0.61 per response; 95% CI, −0.88-2.10).

The Figure shows the adjusted relative effects (aREs) and 95% CIs from zero-inflated multivariate Poisson regression models of the association between physician response to patient expressions of negative emotion and reflected patient ratings of the encounters, defined as 10 minus the patient’s response. Empathic hospitalist responses to patient expressions of emotion were associated with less negative patient ratings of communication in the encounter for 4 of 7 items: covering points of interest, the doctor listening, the doctor caring, and trusting the doctor. For example, for the item “I felt this doctor cared about me,” each empathic hospitalist response was associated with an approximate 77% reduction in negative patient ratings (aRE: 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.85).

In addition, nonempathic responses were associated with more negative ratings of communication for 5 of the 7 items: ease of understanding information, covering points of interest, the doctor listening, the doctor caring, and trusting the doctor. For example, for the item “I felt this doctor cared about me,” each nonempathic hospitalist response was associated with a more than doubling of negative patient ratings (aRE: 2.3; 95% CI, 1.32-4.16). Neutral physician responses to patient expressions of negative emotion were associated with less negative patient ratings for 2 of the items: covering points of interest (aRE 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90) and trusting the doctor (aRE: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99).

We did not find a statistical association between encounter length and the number of empathic hospitalist responses in the encounter (percent change in encounter length per response [PC]: 1%; 95% CI, −8%-10%) or the number of nonempathic responses (PC: 18%; 95% CI, −2%-42%). We did find a statistically significant association between the number of neutral responses and encounter length (PC: 13%; 95% CI, 3%-24%), corresponding to 2.5 minutes of additional encounter time per neutral response for the median encounter length of 19 minutes.

DISCUSSION

Our study set out to measure how hospitalists responded to expressions of negative emotion during admission encounters with patients and how those responses correlated with patient anxiety, ratings of communication, and encounter length. We found that empathic responses were associated with diminishing patient anxiety after the visit, as well as with better ratings of several domains of hospitalist communication. Moreover, nonempathic responses to negative emotion were associated with more strongly negative ratings of hospitalist communication. Finally, while clinicians may worry that encouraging patients to speak further about emotion will result in excessive visit lengths, we did not find a statistical association between empathic responses and encounter duration. To our knowledge, this is the first study to indicate an association between empathy and patient anxiety and communication ratings within the hospitalist model, which is rapidly becoming the predominant model for providing inpatient care in the United States.^4,5

As in oncologic care, anxiety is an emotion commonly confronted by clinicians meeting admitted medical patients for the first time. Studies show that not only do patient anxiety levels remain high throughout a hospital course, patients who experience higher levels of anxiety tend to stay longer in the hospital.^1,2,27-30 But unlike oncologic care or other therapy provided in an outpatient setting, the hospitalist model does not facilitate “continuity” of care, or the ability to care for the same patients over a long period of time. This reality of inpatient care makes rapid, effective rapport-building critical to establishing strong physician-patient relationships. In this setting, a simple communication tool that is potentially able to reduce inpatients’ anxiety could have a meaningful impact on hospitalist-provided care and patient outcomes.

In terms of the magnitude of the effect of empathic responses, the clinical significance of a 1.65-point decrease in the STAI-S anxiety score is not precisely clear. A prior study that examined the effect of music therapy on anxiety levels in patients with cancer found an average anxiety reduction of approximately 9.5 units on the STAIS-S scale after sensitivity analysis, suggesting a rather large meaningful effect size.³¹ Given we found a reduction of 1.65 points for each empathic response, however, with a range of 0-14 negative emotions expressed over a median 19-minute encounter, there is opportunity for hospitalists to achieve a clinically significant decrease in patient anxiety during an admission encounter. The potential to reduce anxiety is extended further when we consider that the impact of an empathic response may apply not just to the admission encounter alone but also to numerous other patient-clinician interactions over the course of a hospitalization.

A healthy body of communication research supports the associations we found in our study between empathy and patient ratings of communication and physicians. Families in ICU conferences rate communication more positively when physicians express empathy,¹² and a number of studies indicate an association between empathy and patient satisfaction in outpatient settings.⁸ Given the associations we found with negative ratings on the items in our study, promoting empathic responses to expressions of emotion and, more importantly, stressing avoidance of nonempathic responses may be relevant efforts in working to improve patient satisfaction scores on surveys reporting “top box” percentages, such as Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). More notably, evidence indicates that empathy has positive impacts beyond satisfaction surveys, such as adherence, better diagnostic and clinical outcomes, and strengthening of patient enablement.⁸Not all hospitalist responses to emotion were associated with patient ratings across the 7 communication items we assessed. For example, we did not find an association between how physicians responded to patient expressions of negative emotion and patient perception that enough time was spent in the visit or the degree to which talking with the doctor met a patient’s overall needs. It follows logically, and other research supports, that empathy would influence patient ratings of physician caring and trust,³² whereas other communication factors we were unable to measure (eg, physician body language, tone, and use of jargon and patient health literacy and primary language) may have a more significant association with patient ratings of the other items we assessed.

In considering the clinical application of our results, it is important to note that communication skills, including responding empathically to patient expressions of negative emotion, can be imparted through training in the same way as abdominal examination or electrocardiogram interpretation skills.^33-35 However, training of hospitalists in communication skills requires time and some financial investment on the part of the physician, their hospital or group, or, ideally, both. Effective training methods, like those for other skill acquisition, involve learner-centered teaching and practicing skills with role-play and feedback.³⁶ Given the importance of a learner-centered approach, learning would likely be better received and more effective if it was tailored to the specific needs and patient scenarios commonly encountered by hospitalist physicians. As these programs are developed, it will be important to assess the impact of any training on the patient-reported outcomes we assessed in this observational study, along with clinical outcomes.

Our study has several limitations. First, we were only able to evaluate whether hospitalists verbally responded to patient emotion and were thus not able to account for nonverbal empathy such as facial expressions, body language, or voice tone. Second, given our patient consent rate of 63%, patients who agreed to participate in the study may have had different opinions than those who declined to participate. Also, hospitalists and patients may have behaved differently as a result of being audio recorded. We only included patients who spoke English, and our patient population was predominately non-Hispanic white. Patients who spoke other languages or came from other cultural backgrounds may have had different responses. Third, we did not use a single validated scale for patient ratings of communication, and multiple analyses increase our risk of finding statistically significant associations by chance. The skewing of the communication rating items toward high scores may also have led to our results being driven by outliers, although the model we chose for analysis does penalize for this. Furthermore, our sample size was small, leading to wide CIs and potential for lack of statistical associations due to insufficient power. Our findings warrant replication in larger studies. Fourth, the setting of our study in an academic center may affect generalizability. Finally, the age of our data (collected between 2008 and 2009) is also a limitation. Given a recent focus on communication and patient experience since the initiation of HCAHPS feedback, a similar analysis of empathy and communication methods now may result in different outcomes.

In conclusion, our results suggest that enhancing hospitalists’ empathic responses to patient expressions of negative emotion could decrease patient anxiety and improve patients’ perceptions of (and thus possibly their relationships with) hospitalists, without sacrificing efficiency. Future work should focus on tailoring and implementing communication skills training programs for hospitalists and evaluating the impact of training on patient outcomes.

 

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their sincere thanks to the patients and physicians who participated in this study. Dr. Anderson was funded by the National Palliative Care Research Center and the University of California, San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute Career Development Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant number 5 KL2 RR024130-04. Project costs were funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco Academic Senate.

Disclosure

 All coauthors have seen and agree with the contents of this manuscript. This submission is not under review by any other publication. Wendy Anderson received funding for this project from the National Palliative Care Research Center, University of California San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NIH grant number 5KL2RR024130-04), and the University of San Francisco Academic Senate [From Section 2 of Author Disclosure Form]. Andy Auerbach has a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute research grant in development [From Section 3 of the Author Disclosure Form].

Admission to a hospital can be a stressful event,^1,2 and patients report having many concerns at the time of hospital admission.³ Over the last 20 years, the United States has widely adopted the hospitalist model of inpatient care. Although this model has clear benefits, it also has the potential to contribute to patient stress, as hospitalized patients generally lack preexisting relationships with their inpatient physicians.^4,5 In this changing hospital environment, defining and promoting effective medical communication has become an essential goal of both individual practitioners and medical centers.

Successful communication and strong therapeutic relationships with physicians support patients’ coping with illness-associated stress^6,7 as well as promote adherence to medical treatment plans.⁸ Empathy serves as an important building block of patient-centered communication and encourages a strong therapeutic alliance.⁹ Studies from primary care, oncology, and intensive care unit (ICU) settings indicate that physician empathy is associated with decreased emotional distress,^10,11 improved ratings of communication,¹² and even better medical outcomes.¹³

Prior work has shown that hospitalists, like other clinicians, underutilize empathy as a tool in their daily interactions with patients.^14-16 Our prior qualitative analysis of audio-recorded hospitalist-patient admission encounters indicated that how hospitalists respond to patient expressions of negative emotion influences relationships with patients and alignment around care plans.¹⁷ To determine whether empathic communication is associated with patient-reported outcomes in the hospitalist model, we quantitatively analyzed coded admission encounters and survey data to examine the association between hospitalists’ responses to patient expressions of negative emotion (anxiety, sadness, and anger) and patient anxiety and ratings of communication. Given the often-limited time hospitalists have to complete admission encounters, we also examined the association between response to emotion and encounter length.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected as part of an observational study of hospitalist-patient communication during hospital admission encounters¹⁴ to assess the association between the way physicians responded to patient expressions of negative emotion and patient anxiety, ratings of communication in the encounter, and encounter length. We collected data between August 2008 and March 2009 on the general medical service at 2 urban hospitals that are part of an academic medical center. Participants were attending hospitalists (not physician trainees), and patients admitted under participating hospitalists’ care who were able to communicate verbally in English and provide informed consent for the study. The institutional review board at the University of California, San Francisco approved the study; physician and patient participants provided written informed consent.

Enrollment and data collection has been described previously.¹⁷ Our cohort for this analysis included 76 patients of 27 physicians who completed encounter audio recordings and pre- and postencounter surveys. Following enrollment, patients completed a preencounter survey to collect demographic information and to measure their baseline anxiety via the State Anxiety Scale (STAI-S), which assesses transient anxious mood using 20 items answered on a 4-point scale for a final score range of 20 to 80.^10,18,19 We timed and audio-recorded admission encounters. Encounter recordings were obtained solely from patient interactions with attending hospitalists and did not take into account the time patients may have spent with other physicians, including trainees. After the encounter, patients completed postencounter surveys, which included the STAI-S and patients’ ratings of communication during the encounter. To rate communication, patients responded to 7 items on a 0- to 10-point scale that were derived from previous work (Table 1)^12,20,21; the anchors were “not at all” and “completely.” To identify patients with serious illness, which we used as a covariate in regression models, we asked physicians on a postencounter survey whether or not they “would be surprised by this patient’s death or admission to the ICU in the next year.”²²

As previously described, we professionally transcribed and coded the audio recordings.¹⁷ Following past work,^15,16,23-25 we identified patient expressions of negative emotion and categorized the initial hospitalist response to each expression. Table 2 shows examples to illustrate the coding scheme. We considered an empathic response to be one that directed further discussion toward a patient’s expressed negative emotion. A neutral response was one that directed discussion neither towards nor away from the expressed emotion, while a nonempathic physician response directed further discussion away from the patient’s emotion.¹⁵ To assess reliability, 2 coders independently coded a randomly selected 20% of encounters (n = 15); kappa statistics were 0.76 for patient expressions of emotion and 0.85 for physician responses, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement.²⁶

We used regression models to assess the association between the number of each type of physician response (empathic, neutral, nonempathic) in an encounter and the following variables: (1) the change in the patient’s anxiety level, defined as the difference between the post- and preencounter STAI-S score (using linear regression); (2) patient ratings of the physician and encounter (using Poisson regression); and (3) encounter length (using linear regression). To assess each patient rating item, we utilized a single model that included frequencies for each type of physician response. For ratings of their encounters, most patients gave high ratings, resulting in a preponderance of 10/10 scores for several items. Thus, we focused on trying to understand “negativity,” meaning the minority of less than completely positive reactions. To do this, we analyzed reflected outcomes (defined as 10 minus the patient’s response) using zero-inflated Poisson regression models. This approach allowed us to distinguish between degrees of dissatisfaction and to determine whether additional change in ratings resulted from additional physician responses. Encounter length also demonstrated right skewness, which we addressed through log transformation; results for this are reported as percent change in the encounter length per physician response.

We considered physician as a clustering variable in the calculation of robust standard errors for all models. In addition, we included in each model covariates that were associated with the outcome at P ≤ 0.10, including patient gender, patient age, serious illness,²² preencounter anxiety, encounter length, and hospital. We considered P values < 0.05 to be statistically significant. We used Stata SE 13 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) for all statistical analyses.

 

RESULTS

We analyzed data from admission encounters with 76 patients (consent rate 63%) and 27 hospitalists (consent rate 91%). Their characteristics are shown in Table 3. Median encounter length was 19 minutes (mean 21 minutes, range 3-68). Patients expressed negative emotion in 190 instances across all encounters; median number of expressions per encounter was 1 (range 0-14). Hospitalists responded empathically to 32% (n = 61) of the patient expressions, neutrally to 43% (n = 81), and nonempathically to 25% (n = 48).

The STAI-S was normally distributed. The mean preencounter STAI-S score was 39 (standard deviation [SD] 8.9). Mean postencounter STAI-S score was 38 (SD 10.7). Mean change in anxiety over the course of the encounter, calculated as the postencounter minus preencounter mean was −1.2 (SD 7.6). Table 1 shows summary statistics for the patient ratings of communication items. All items were rated highly. Across the items, between 51% and 78% of patients rated the highest score of 10.

Across the range of frequencies of emotional expressions per encounter in our data set (0-14 expressions), each additional empathic hospitalist response was associated with a 1.65-point decrease in the STAI-S (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-2.82). We did not find significant associations between changes in the STAI-S and the number of neutral hospitalist responses (−0.65 per response; 95% CI, −1.67-0.37) or nonempathic hospitalist responses (0.61 per response; 95% CI, −0.88-2.10).

The Figure shows the adjusted relative effects (aREs) and 95% CIs from zero-inflated multivariate Poisson regression models of the association between physician response to patient expressions of negative emotion and reflected patient ratings of the encounters, defined as 10 minus the patient’s response. Empathic hospitalist responses to patient expressions of emotion were associated with less negative patient ratings of communication in the encounter for 4 of 7 items: covering points of interest, the doctor listening, the doctor caring, and trusting the doctor. For example, for the item “I felt this doctor cared about me,” each empathic hospitalist response was associated with an approximate 77% reduction in negative patient ratings (aRE: 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.85).

In addition, nonempathic responses were associated with more negative ratings of communication for 5 of the 7 items: ease of understanding information, covering points of interest, the doctor listening, the doctor caring, and trusting the doctor. For example, for the item “I felt this doctor cared about me,” each nonempathic hospitalist response was associated with a more than doubling of negative patient ratings (aRE: 2.3; 95% CI, 1.32-4.16). Neutral physician responses to patient expressions of negative emotion were associated with less negative patient ratings for 2 of the items: covering points of interest (aRE 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90) and trusting the doctor (aRE: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99).

We did not find a statistical association between encounter length and the number of empathic hospitalist responses in the encounter (percent change in encounter length per response [PC]: 1%; 95% CI, −8%-10%) or the number of nonempathic responses (PC: 18%; 95% CI, −2%-42%). We did find a statistically significant association between the number of neutral responses and encounter length (PC: 13%; 95% CI, 3%-24%), corresponding to 2.5 minutes of additional encounter time per neutral response for the median encounter length of 19 minutes.

DISCUSSION

Our study set out to measure how hospitalists responded to expressions of negative emotion during admission encounters with patients and how those responses correlated with patient anxiety, ratings of communication, and encounter length. We found that empathic responses were associated with diminishing patient anxiety after the visit, as well as with better ratings of several domains of hospitalist communication. Moreover, nonempathic responses to negative emotion were associated with more strongly negative ratings of hospitalist communication. Finally, while clinicians may worry that encouraging patients to speak further about emotion will result in excessive visit lengths, we did not find a statistical association between empathic responses and encounter duration. To our knowledge, this is the first study to indicate an association between empathy and patient anxiety and communication ratings within the hospitalist model, which is rapidly becoming the predominant model for providing inpatient care in the United States.^4,5

As in oncologic care, anxiety is an emotion commonly confronted by clinicians meeting admitted medical patients for the first time. Studies show that not only do patient anxiety levels remain high throughout a hospital course, patients who experience higher levels of anxiety tend to stay longer in the hospital.^1,2,27-30 But unlike oncologic care or other therapy provided in an outpatient setting, the hospitalist model does not facilitate “continuity” of care, or the ability to care for the same patients over a long period of time. This reality of inpatient care makes rapid, effective rapport-building critical to establishing strong physician-patient relationships. In this setting, a simple communication tool that is potentially able to reduce inpatients’ anxiety could have a meaningful impact on hospitalist-provided care and patient outcomes.

In terms of the magnitude of the effect of empathic responses, the clinical significance of a 1.65-point decrease in the STAI-S anxiety score is not precisely clear. A prior study that examined the effect of music therapy on anxiety levels in patients with cancer found an average anxiety reduction of approximately 9.5 units on the STAIS-S scale after sensitivity analysis, suggesting a rather large meaningful effect size.³¹ Given we found a reduction of 1.65 points for each empathic response, however, with a range of 0-14 negative emotions expressed over a median 19-minute encounter, there is opportunity for hospitalists to achieve a clinically significant decrease in patient anxiety during an admission encounter. The potential to reduce anxiety is extended further when we consider that the impact of an empathic response may apply not just to the admission encounter alone but also to numerous other patient-clinician interactions over the course of a hospitalization.

A healthy body of communication research supports the associations we found in our study between empathy and patient ratings of communication and physicians. Families in ICU conferences rate communication more positively when physicians express empathy,¹² and a number of studies indicate an association between empathy and patient satisfaction in outpatient settings.⁸ Given the associations we found with negative ratings on the items in our study, promoting empathic responses to expressions of emotion and, more importantly, stressing avoidance of nonempathic responses may be relevant efforts in working to improve patient satisfaction scores on surveys reporting “top box” percentages, such as Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). More notably, evidence indicates that empathy has positive impacts beyond satisfaction surveys, such as adherence, better diagnostic and clinical outcomes, and strengthening of patient enablement.⁸Not all hospitalist responses to emotion were associated with patient ratings across the 7 communication items we assessed. For example, we did not find an association between how physicians responded to patient expressions of negative emotion and patient perception that enough time was spent in the visit or the degree to which talking with the doctor met a patient’s overall needs. It follows logically, and other research supports, that empathy would influence patient ratings of physician caring and trust,³² whereas other communication factors we were unable to measure (eg, physician body language, tone, and use of jargon and patient health literacy and primary language) may have a more significant association with patient ratings of the other items we assessed.

In considering the clinical application of our results, it is important to note that communication skills, including responding empathically to patient expressions of negative emotion, can be imparted through training in the same way as abdominal examination or electrocardiogram interpretation skills.^33-35 However, training of hospitalists in communication skills requires time and some financial investment on the part of the physician, their hospital or group, or, ideally, both. Effective training methods, like those for other skill acquisition, involve learner-centered teaching and practicing skills with role-play and feedback.³⁶ Given the importance of a learner-centered approach, learning would likely be better received and more effective if it was tailored to the specific needs and patient scenarios commonly encountered by hospitalist physicians. As these programs are developed, it will be important to assess the impact of any training on the patient-reported outcomes we assessed in this observational study, along with clinical outcomes.

Our study has several limitations. First, we were only able to evaluate whether hospitalists verbally responded to patient emotion and were thus not able to account for nonverbal empathy such as facial expressions, body language, or voice tone. Second, given our patient consent rate of 63%, patients who agreed to participate in the study may have had different opinions than those who declined to participate. Also, hospitalists and patients may have behaved differently as a result of being audio recorded. We only included patients who spoke English, and our patient population was predominately non-Hispanic white. Patients who spoke other languages or came from other cultural backgrounds may have had different responses. Third, we did not use a single validated scale for patient ratings of communication, and multiple analyses increase our risk of finding statistically significant associations by chance. The skewing of the communication rating items toward high scores may also have led to our results being driven by outliers, although the model we chose for analysis does penalize for this. Furthermore, our sample size was small, leading to wide CIs and potential for lack of statistical associations due to insufficient power. Our findings warrant replication in larger studies. Fourth, the setting of our study in an academic center may affect generalizability. Finally, the age of our data (collected between 2008 and 2009) is also a limitation. Given a recent focus on communication and patient experience since the initiation of HCAHPS feedback, a similar analysis of empathy and communication methods now may result in different outcomes.

In conclusion, our results suggest that enhancing hospitalists’ empathic responses to patient expressions of negative emotion could decrease patient anxiety and improve patients’ perceptions of (and thus possibly their relationships with) hospitalists, without sacrificing efficiency. Future work should focus on tailoring and implementing communication skills training programs for hospitalists and evaluating the impact of training on patient outcomes.

 

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their sincere thanks to the patients and physicians who participated in this study. Dr. Anderson was funded by the National Palliative Care Research Center and the University of California, San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute Career Development Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant number 5 KL2 RR024130-04. Project costs were funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco Academic Senate.

Disclosure

 All coauthors have seen and agree with the contents of this manuscript. This submission is not under review by any other publication. Wendy Anderson received funding for this project from the National Palliative Care Research Center, University of California San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NIH grant number 5KL2RR024130-04), and the University of San Francisco Academic Senate [From Section 2 of Author Disclosure Form]. Andy Auerbach has a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute research grant in development [From Section 3 of the Author Disclosure Form].

From the Department of Neurology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (Dr. McFarlin), the Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Dr. Tulsky), Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dr. Back), and Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA (Dr. Arnold).

 

Abstract

• Objective: To describe the use of a cognitive map for navigating family meetings with surrogate decision makers of patients in an intensive care unit.
•  Methods: Descriptive report and discussion using an illustrative case to outline the steps in the cognitive map.
• Results: The use of cognitive maps has improved the ability of physicians to efficiently perform a specific communication skill. During a “goals of care” conversation, the cognitive map follows these steps: (1) Gather the clinical team for a pre-meeting, (2) Introduce everyone, (3) Use the “ask-tell-ask” strategy to communicate information, (4) Respond to emotion, (5) Highlight the patient’s voice, (6) Plan next steps, (7) Reflect on the meeting with the team. Providing this map of key communication skills will help faculty teach learners the core components of a family meeting.
• Conclusion: Practicing the behaviors demonstrated in the cognitive map may increase clinician skill during difficult conversations. Improving communication with surrogate decision makers will increase the support we offer to critically ill patients and their loved ones.

Key words: intensive care unit; communication; family meeting; critical illness; decision making; end of life care.

 

Family members of patients in the ICU value high-quality communication with the medical team. In fact, family members report that physicians’ communication skills are often more important than their medical skills [1]. Multiple professional societies, including the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, define communication with families as a key component of high-quality critical care. Effective physician-patient communication improves measureable outcomes including decreased ICU length of stay [2] and may reduce distress amongst patients’ families [3]. The American College of Chest Physicians position statement on Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Patients with Cardiopulmonary Diseases urges physicians to develop curricula that incorporate interpersonal communication skills into training [4].

Unfortunately, such high-quality communication is not the norm. Surrogate decision makers are often displeased with the frequency of communication, the limited availability of attending physicians, and report feeling excluded from discussions [5]. When family meetings do occur, surrogate decision makers report inadequate understanding of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment plans [6].

Physicians also find family meetings difficult. Intensivists worry that high-quality family meetings are time consuming and difficult to do in a busy ICU [7]. Critical care fellows report not feeling adequately trained to conduct family meetings [8]. It makes sense that untrained clinicians would want to avoid a conversation that is emotionally charged, particularly if one is unsure how to respond effectively.

In this paper, we provide a cognitive map for navigating family meetings when patients are doing poorly and decisions need to be made about next steps (often called “goals of care” meetings). The use of cognitive (or “talking”) maps has improved the ability of physicians to efficiently perform a specific communication skill such as breaking bad news [9]. Laying out the component communication skills also helps faculty teach learners. Much like the steps of any medical procedure (eg, inserting a central line), a talking map provides a guide physicians can use during family conferences. To supplement the map (Table 1), we provide examples of specific things a physician may say during a family meeting in the ICU. An illustrative case provides a framework for incorporating the use of a talking map into family meetings with surrogate decision makers.

The Case of Mr. A

Thomas A. is a 79-year-old man admitted to the medical intensive care unit 7 days earlier with a large left middle cerebral artery territory infarction. Given his decreased mental status, on admission he was intubated for airway protection. He is awake but aphasic and unable to follow any commands or move his right side. The neurology consultants do not feel this will improve. He has significant secretions and episodes of hypoxia. He has also developed acute on chronic kidney injury and may need to start dialysis. The social worker explains that his need for dialysis limits his placement options and that he will not be able to be discharged to home. Given his lack of improvement the team is concerned he will need a tracheostomy and feeding tube placed in order to safely continue this level of care. A family meeting is arranged to understand Mr. A’s goals of care.

Talking Map Basics

Before each step is discussed in detail, some definitions are needed. “Family” can be defined as anyone important enough, biologically related or not, to be present at a conversation with a clinician [10]. Second, a “family meeting” is a planned event between the family and interdisciplinary members of the ICU team as well as any other health care providers who have been involved in the patient’s care. The meeting takes place in a private space and at a time that is scheduled with the families’ needs in mind. Thus it is different from having families present on rounds or one-off meetings with particular clinicians.

Goals of care meetings are typically held when, in the clinicians’ view, the current treatments are not achieving the previously stated goals. Thus, the meeting has 2 purposes: first, to give the family the bad news that the current plan is not working and second, to develop a new plan based on the patient’s values. The family’s job, as surrogate decision maker, is to provide information about what would be most important to the patient. The clinician’s job is to suggest treatment plans that have the best probability of matching the patient’s values.

Not all of these tasks need be done at once. Some families will not be able to move from hearing bad news to making a decision without having time to first reflect and grieve. Others will need to confer with other family members privately before deciding on a plan. In many cases, a time-limited trial may be the right option with a plan for subsequent meetings. Given this, we recommend checking in with the family between each step to ensure that they feel safe moving ahead. For example, one might ask “Is it OK if we talk about what happens next?”

Talking Map Steps in Detail

1. Gather the Clinical Team for a Pre-Meeting

ICU care involves a large interdisciplinary care team. A “meeting before the meeting” with the entire clinical team is an opportunity to reach consensus on prognosis and therapeutic options, share prior interactions with family, and determine goals for the family meeting. It is also helpful to clarify team members’ roles at the meeting and to choose a primary facilitator. All of this helps to ensure that the family receives a consistent message during the meeting. The pre-meeting is also an opportunity to ask a team member to observe the communication skills of the facilitator and be prepared to give feedback after the meeting.

At this time, the team should also create the proper environment for the family meeting. This includes a quiet room free of interruptions with ample seating, available tissues, and transferred pagers and cell phones.

The intensivist and bedside nurse should always be present at the family meeting, and it is best when the same attending can be at subsequent family meetings Their consistent dual presence provides the uniform communication from the team, can reduce anxiety in family members and the collaboration reduces ICU nurse and physician burnout [11]. For illnesses that involve a specific disease or organ system, it is important to have the specialist at the meeting who can provide the appropriate expertise.

The Pre-Meeting

A family meeting was scheduled in the family meeting room for 3 pm, after morning rounds. Thirty minutes prior to the meeting the medical team, including the MICU intensivist, the bedside nurse, the neurology attending who has been involved in the care, the case manager and 2 residents sat to discuss Mr. A’s care. The neurology team confirmed that this stroke was considered very large and would result in a level of disability that could only be cared for in a nursing home and would require both a tracheostomy and feeding tube for safe care. The bedside nurse relayed that the family had asked if Mr. A. would ever recover enough to get back to his home. The neurology team shared they did not expect much improvement at all. Given the worsening renal failure and need for dialysis the case manager reminded the team that Mr. A’s nursing home placements were limited. The team decided that the intensivist would lead the meeting as she had updated various family members on rounds for the past 4 days and would be on service for another week. The team decided that their goal for the meeting was to make sure the family understands that Mr. A’s several medical illnesses portend a poor prognosis. They recognized this may be breaking bad news to the family. They also wanted to better understand what Mr. A would have thought given this situation. The residents were asked to watch for the family’s responses when the team delivered the news.

2. Introduce Everyone

Each meeting should start with formal introductions. Even if most providers know most family members it is a polite way to start the meeting. Introducing each family member present and how they know the patient provides insight into how the family is constructed and makes decisions. For example, the entire family may defer to the daughter who introduces herself as a nurse. In other situations, although there is one legal decision maker, the family may explain that they make decisions by consensus.

Each member of the treating team should also introduce themselves. Even if the clinician has been working with the family, it is polite to be formal and give your name and role. Given the number of people the family sees every day, one should not assume that the family remembers all of the clinicians.

In teaching hospitals, providers should also help the family understand their level of training. Surrogates do not always understand the different roles or level of training between students, residents and fellows, advanced practice providers, consultants and their attending physicians. Uncertainty about the roles can lead to family members feeling as though they are receiving contradictory information. Family satisfaction decreases when multiple attending physicians are involved in a patient’s care [12]. When possible, a consistent presence among providers at family meetings is always best.

 

3. Ask the Family's Understanding of the Situation (Ask-Tell-Ask)

Most family meetings in the ICU will require the transmission of a large amount of medical information. Using a specific communication strategy, Ask-Tell-Ask (Table 2), allows for the information to be calibrated based on what the family knows and wants to know.

Asking the family to explain the situation in their own language reveals how well they understand the medical facts and helps the medical team determine what information will be most helpful to the family. An opening statement might be “We have all seen your dad and talked to many of his providers. It would help us all be on the same page if you can you tell me what the doctors are telling you?” Starting with the family’s understanding builds trust with the medical team as it creates an opportunity for the family to lead the meeting and indicates that the team is available to listen to their concerns. Asking surrogates for their understanding allows them to tell their story and not hear a reiteration of things they already know. Providing time for the family to share their perspective of the care elicits family’s concerns.

In a large meeting, ensure that all members of the family have an opportunity to communicate their concerns. Does a particular person do all of the talking? Are there individuals that do not speak at all? One way to further understand unspoken concerns during the meeting is to ask “I notice you have been quiet, what questions do you have that I can answer?” There may be several rounds of “asking” in order to ensure all the family members’ concerns are heard. Letting the family tell what they have heard helps the clinicians get a better idea of their health literacy. Do they explain information using technical data or jargon? Finally, as the family talks the clinicians can determine how surprising the “serious news” will be to them. For example, if the family says they know their dad is doing much worse and may die, the information to be delivered can be truncated. However if family incorrectly thinks their dad is doing better or is uncertain they will be much more surprised by the serious news.

After providing time for the family to express their understanding, tell them the information the team needs to communicate. When delivering serious news it is important to focus on the key 1 to 2 points you want the family to take away from the meeting. Typically when health care professionals talk to each other, they talk about every medical detail. Families find this amount of information overwhelming and are not sure what is most important, asking “So what does that mean?” Focusing on the “headline” helps the family focus on what you think the most important piece of information is. Studies suggest that what families most want to know is what the information means for the patient’s future and what treatments are possible. After delivering the new information, stop to allow the family space to think about what you said. If you are giving serious news, you will know they have heard what you said as they will get emotional (see next step).

Checking for understanding is the final “ask” in Ask-Tell-Ask. Begin by asking “What questions do you have?” Data in primary care has shown that patients are more likely to ask questions if you ask “what questions do you have” rather than “do you have any questions?” It is important to continue to ask this question until the family has asked all their questions. Often the family’s tough questions do not come until they get more comfortable and confident in the health care team. In cases where one family member is dominant it might also help to say “What questions do others have?” Next, using techniques like the “teach back” model the physician should check in to see what the family is taking away from the conversation. If a family understands, they can “teach back” the information accurately. This “ask” can be done in a way that does not make the family feel they are being tested: “I am not always clear when I communicate. Do you mind telling me back in your own words what you thought I said so I know we are on the same page?” This also provides an opportunity to answer any new questions that arise. Hearing the information directly from the family can allow the team to clarify any misconceptions and give insight into any emotional responses that the family might have.

4. Respond to Emotion

Discussing serious news in the ICU setting naturally leads to an emotional reaction. The clinician’s ability to notice emotional cues and respond with empathy is a key communication skill in family meetings [13]. Emotional reactions impede individual’s ability to process cognitive information and make it hard to think cognitively about what should be done next.

Physicians miss opportunities to respond to emotion in family meetings [14]. Missed opportunities lead to decreased family satisfaction and may lead to treatment decisions not consistent with the wishes of their loved ones. Empathic responses improve the family-clinician relationship and helps build trust and rapport [15]. Well- placed empathic statements may help surrogates disclose concerns that help the physician better understand the goals and values of the family and patient. Families also can more fully process cognitive information when their emotional responses have been attended to.

Physicians can develop the capacity to recognize and respond to the emotional cues family members are delivering. Intensivists should actively look for the emotions, the empathic opportunity, that are displayed by the family. This emotion is the “data” that will help lead to an empathic response. A family that just received bad news typically responds by showing emotion. Clues that emotions are present include: the family asking the same questions multiple times; using emotional words such as “sad” or “frustrated;” existential questions that do not have a cognitive answer such as “Why did God let this happen?;” or non-verbal cues like tears and hand wringing.

Sometimes the emotional responses are more difficult to recognize. Families may continue to ask for more cognitive information after hearing bad news. Someone keeps asking “Why did his kidney function worsen?” or “I thought the team said the chest x-ray looked better.” It is tempting to start answering these questions with more medical facts. However, if the question comes after bad news, it is usually an expression of frustration or sadness rather than a request for more information. Rather than giving information, it might help to acknowledge this by saying “I imagine this new is overwhelming.”

NURSE is a helpful mnemonic for different ways to respond to emotion [16]. NURSE stands for 5 separate skills that can be used in these situations: name, understand, respect, support, and explore. Table 3 provides guidance on using NURSE and offers examples of NURSE statements.

5. Highlight the Patient’s Voice

Family meetings are often used to develop new treatment plans (given that the old plans are not working). In these situations, it is essential to understand what the incapacitated patient would say if they were part of the family meeting. The surrogate’s primary role is to represent the patient’s voice. To do this, surrogates need assistance in applying their critically ill loved one’s thoughts and values to complex, possibly life limiting, situations. Surrogate decision makers struggle with the decisions’ emotional impact, as well as how to reconcile their desires with their loved one’s wishes [18]. This can lead them to make decisions that conflict with the loved one’s values [19] as well as emotional sequelae such as PTSD and depression [20].

Clinicians have a responsibility to attend to surrogates’ emotions, to help educate surrogates regarding their role, and to explore the patient’s values. One way to focus on the values of the patient is “highlighting the patient’s voice.” This requires asking questions that help the surrogate focus on the patient, her values and her attitude toward serious illness. There are many questions a provider can use to elicit a critically ill patient’s values (Table 4). You may have to use a variety of different questions to understand what is most important to the patient.

As families reflect on their loved one’s values, conflicting desires will arise. For example, someone may have wanted to live as long as possible and also values independence. Or someone may value their ability to think clearly more than being physically well but would not want to be physically dependent on artificial life support. Exploring which values would be more important can help resolve these conflicts.

Clinicians should check for understanding while family members are identifying the values of their loved ones. Providing the family with a summary of what you have heard will help ensure a more accurate understanding of these crucial issues. A summary statement might be, “It sounds like you are saying your dad really valued his independence. He enjoyed being able to take care of his loved ones and himself. Is that right?”

 

6. Plan Next Steps

The family meeting serves to attend to family emotion and allow space to elicit patients’ values. Following a family meeting surrogate decision makers may be able to begin to consider the next steps in their loved one’s care. If bad news was delivered they may need space to adjust to a different future than they expected. Using an empathic statement of support “We will continue to make sure we communicate with you as we work together to plan next steps” will reassure a family that they have time and space to plan for the future.

Families vary regarding how much physician input they desire in planning next steps [21]. You can explicitly ask how the team can best help the family with decisions: “Some families like to hear the options for next steps from the team and make a decision, other families like to hear a recommendation from the team. What would be the most helpful for you?” Throughout the course of an illness a surrogate’s preference for decision making may change and clinicians should be responsive to those changing needs.

If the surrogate wants a clinician’s recommendation, 3 points are worth stressing. First, the recommendation should be personalized to this patient and his values. The goal is to reveal how the understanding of the patient’s values led to the treatment plan offered. Second, the recommendation should focus primarily on what will be done to achieve the patient’s values. Focusing on what the clinicians will do may help the family feel that the clinicians are still “trying” and not abandoning their loved one. In this case, the team will continue medical care that will help the patient regain/maintain independence. Only after talking about what will be done should the clinician point out that certain interventions will not achieve the patient’s goals and thus will not be done:

“It sounds like your father really valued his independence and that this illness has really taken that away. Knowing this, would it be helpful for me to make a recommendation for next steps?” “I think we should continue providing excellent medical care for your father in hopes he can get better and go home. One the other hand, if he gets worse, we should not use therapies such as CPR or dialysis that are unlikely to help him regain his independence.”

Finally, be concrete when planning next steps. If a time-limited trial of a therapy is proposed, make sure the family understands what a successful and unsuccessful trial will look like. Make plans to meet again on a specific date in order to ensure the family understands the progress being made. If a transition to comfort care is agreed upon, ensure support of the entire family during the next hours to days and offer services such as chaplaincy or child life specialists.

A family may not agree with the recommendation and back and forth discussion can help create a plan that is in line with their understanding of the illness. Rather than convincing, a clinician should keep an open mind about why they and the surrogate disagree. Do they have different views about the patient’s future? Did the medical team misunderstand the patient’s values? Are there emotional factors that inhibit the surrogate’s ability to attend to the discussion? It is only by learning where the disagreement is that a clinician can move the conversation forward.

A surrogate may ask about a therapy that is not beneficial or may increase distress to the patient. The use of “I wish” or “I worry” statements can be helpful at these points. These specific phrases recognize the surrogate’s desire to do more but also imply that the therapies are not helpful.

“I wish that his ability to communicate and tell you what he wants would get better with a little more time as well.”

“I worry that waiting 2 more weeks for improvement will actually cause complications to occur.”

 

7. Reflect

Family meetings have an impact on both the family and the medical team. Following the meeting, a short debriefing with the clinical team can be helpful. Summarizing the events of the meeting ensures clarity about the treatment plan going forward. It provides team members a chance to discuss conflicts that may have arisen. It allows the participants in the meeting to reflect on what communication skills they used and how they can improve their skills going forward.

Conclusion

Family meetings with surrogate decision makers must navigate multiple agendas of the family and providers. The goal of excellent communication with surrogates in an ICU should be to understand the patient’s goals and values and seek to make treatment plans that align with their perspective. This talking map provides a conceptual framework for physicians to guide a family through these conversations. The framework creates an opportunity to focus on the patient’s values and preferences for care while allowing space to attend to emotional responses to reduce the distress inherent in surrogate decision-making. Practicing the behaviors demonstrated in the talking map may increase clinician skill during difficult conversations. Improving communication with surrogate decision makers will increase the support we offer to critically ill patients and their loved ones.

 

Corresponding author: Jessica McFarlin, MD, jessmcfarlin@gmail.com.

Funding/support: Dr. Arnold receives support though the Leo H. Criep Chair in Patient Care.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Neurology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (Dr. McFarlin), the Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Dr. Tulsky), Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dr. Back), and Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA (Dr. Arnold).

 

Abstract

• Objective: To describe the use of a cognitive map for navigating family meetings with surrogate decision makers of patients in an intensive care unit.
•  Methods: Descriptive report and discussion using an illustrative case to outline the steps in the cognitive map.
• Results: The use of cognitive maps has improved the ability of physicians to efficiently perform a specific communication skill. During a “goals of care” conversation, the cognitive map follows these steps: (1) Gather the clinical team for a pre-meeting, (2) Introduce everyone, (3) Use the “ask-tell-ask” strategy to communicate information, (4) Respond to emotion, (5) Highlight the patient’s voice, (6) Plan next steps, (7) Reflect on the meeting with the team. Providing this map of key communication skills will help faculty teach learners the core components of a family meeting.
• Conclusion: Practicing the behaviors demonstrated in the cognitive map may increase clinician skill during difficult conversations. Improving communication with surrogate decision makers will increase the support we offer to critically ill patients and their loved ones.

Key words: intensive care unit; communication; family meeting; critical illness; decision making; end of life care.

 

Family members of patients in the ICU value high-quality communication with the medical team. In fact, family members report that physicians’ communication skills are often more important than their medical skills [1]. Multiple professional societies, including the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, define communication with families as a key component of high-quality critical care. Effective physician-patient communication improves measureable outcomes including decreased ICU length of stay [2] and may reduce distress amongst patients’ families [3]. The American College of Chest Physicians position statement on Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Patients with Cardiopulmonary Diseases urges physicians to develop curricula that incorporate interpersonal communication skills into training [4].

Unfortunately, such high-quality communication is not the norm. Surrogate decision makers are often displeased with the frequency of communication, the limited availability of attending physicians, and report feeling excluded from discussions [5]. When family meetings do occur, surrogate decision makers report inadequate understanding of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment plans [6].

Physicians also find family meetings difficult. Intensivists worry that high-quality family meetings are time consuming and difficult to do in a busy ICU [7]. Critical care fellows report not feeling adequately trained to conduct family meetings [8]. It makes sense that untrained clinicians would want to avoid a conversation that is emotionally charged, particularly if one is unsure how to respond effectively.

In this paper, we provide a cognitive map for navigating family meetings when patients are doing poorly and decisions need to be made about next steps (often called “goals of care” meetings). The use of cognitive (or “talking”) maps has improved the ability of physicians to efficiently perform a specific communication skill such as breaking bad news [9]. Laying out the component communication skills also helps faculty teach learners. Much like the steps of any medical procedure (eg, inserting a central line), a talking map provides a guide physicians can use during family conferences. To supplement the map (Table 1), we provide examples of specific things a physician may say during a family meeting in the ICU. An illustrative case provides a framework for incorporating the use of a talking map into family meetings with surrogate decision makers.

The Case of Mr. A

Thomas A. is a 79-year-old man admitted to the medical intensive care unit 7 days earlier with a large left middle cerebral artery territory infarction. Given his decreased mental status, on admission he was intubated for airway protection. He is awake but aphasic and unable to follow any commands or move his right side. The neurology consultants do not feel this will improve. He has significant secretions and episodes of hypoxia. He has also developed acute on chronic kidney injury and may need to start dialysis. The social worker explains that his need for dialysis limits his placement options and that he will not be able to be discharged to home. Given his lack of improvement the team is concerned he will need a tracheostomy and feeding tube placed in order to safely continue this level of care. A family meeting is arranged to understand Mr. A’s goals of care.

Talking Map Basics

Before each step is discussed in detail, some definitions are needed. “Family” can be defined as anyone important enough, biologically related or not, to be present at a conversation with a clinician [10]. Second, a “family meeting” is a planned event between the family and interdisciplinary members of the ICU team as well as any other health care providers who have been involved in the patient’s care. The meeting takes place in a private space and at a time that is scheduled with the families’ needs in mind. Thus it is different from having families present on rounds or one-off meetings with particular clinicians.

Goals of care meetings are typically held when, in the clinicians’ view, the current treatments are not achieving the previously stated goals. Thus, the meeting has 2 purposes: first, to give the family the bad news that the current plan is not working and second, to develop a new plan based on the patient’s values. The family’s job, as surrogate decision maker, is to provide information about what would be most important to the patient. The clinician’s job is to suggest treatment plans that have the best probability of matching the patient’s values.

Not all of these tasks need be done at once. Some families will not be able to move from hearing bad news to making a decision without having time to first reflect and grieve. Others will need to confer with other family members privately before deciding on a plan. In many cases, a time-limited trial may be the right option with a plan for subsequent meetings. Given this, we recommend checking in with the family between each step to ensure that they feel safe moving ahead. For example, one might ask “Is it OK if we talk about what happens next?”

Talking Map Steps in Detail

1. Gather the Clinical Team for a Pre-Meeting

ICU care involves a large interdisciplinary care team. A “meeting before the meeting” with the entire clinical team is an opportunity to reach consensus on prognosis and therapeutic options, share prior interactions with family, and determine goals for the family meeting. It is also helpful to clarify team members’ roles at the meeting and to choose a primary facilitator. All of this helps to ensure that the family receives a consistent message during the meeting. The pre-meeting is also an opportunity to ask a team member to observe the communication skills of the facilitator and be prepared to give feedback after the meeting.

At this time, the team should also create the proper environment for the family meeting. This includes a quiet room free of interruptions with ample seating, available tissues, and transferred pagers and cell phones.

The intensivist and bedside nurse should always be present at the family meeting, and it is best when the same attending can be at subsequent family meetings Their consistent dual presence provides the uniform communication from the team, can reduce anxiety in family members and the collaboration reduces ICU nurse and physician burnout [11]. For illnesses that involve a specific disease or organ system, it is important to have the specialist at the meeting who can provide the appropriate expertise.

The Pre-Meeting

A family meeting was scheduled in the family meeting room for 3 pm, after morning rounds. Thirty minutes prior to the meeting the medical team, including the MICU intensivist, the bedside nurse, the neurology attending who has been involved in the care, the case manager and 2 residents sat to discuss Mr. A’s care. The neurology team confirmed that this stroke was considered very large and would result in a level of disability that could only be cared for in a nursing home and would require both a tracheostomy and feeding tube for safe care. The bedside nurse relayed that the family had asked if Mr. A. would ever recover enough to get back to his home. The neurology team shared they did not expect much improvement at all. Given the worsening renal failure and need for dialysis the case manager reminded the team that Mr. A’s nursing home placements were limited. The team decided that the intensivist would lead the meeting as she had updated various family members on rounds for the past 4 days and would be on service for another week. The team decided that their goal for the meeting was to make sure the family understands that Mr. A’s several medical illnesses portend a poor prognosis. They recognized this may be breaking bad news to the family. They also wanted to better understand what Mr. A would have thought given this situation. The residents were asked to watch for the family’s responses when the team delivered the news.

2. Introduce Everyone

Each meeting should start with formal introductions. Even if most providers know most family members it is a polite way to start the meeting. Introducing each family member present and how they know the patient provides insight into how the family is constructed and makes decisions. For example, the entire family may defer to the daughter who introduces herself as a nurse. In other situations, although there is one legal decision maker, the family may explain that they make decisions by consensus.

Each member of the treating team should also introduce themselves. Even if the clinician has been working with the family, it is polite to be formal and give your name and role. Given the number of people the family sees every day, one should not assume that the family remembers all of the clinicians.

In teaching hospitals, providers should also help the family understand their level of training. Surrogates do not always understand the different roles or level of training between students, residents and fellows, advanced practice providers, consultants and their attending physicians. Uncertainty about the roles can lead to family members feeling as though they are receiving contradictory information. Family satisfaction decreases when multiple attending physicians are involved in a patient’s care [12]. When possible, a consistent presence among providers at family meetings is always best.

 

3. Ask the Family's Understanding of the Situation (Ask-Tell-Ask)

Most family meetings in the ICU will require the transmission of a large amount of medical information. Using a specific communication strategy, Ask-Tell-Ask (Table 2), allows for the information to be calibrated based on what the family knows and wants to know.

Asking the family to explain the situation in their own language reveals how well they understand the medical facts and helps the medical team determine what information will be most helpful to the family. An opening statement might be “We have all seen your dad and talked to many of his providers. It would help us all be on the same page if you can you tell me what the doctors are telling you?” Starting with the family’s understanding builds trust with the medical team as it creates an opportunity for the family to lead the meeting and indicates that the team is available to listen to their concerns. Asking surrogates for their understanding allows them to tell their story and not hear a reiteration of things they already know. Providing time for the family to share their perspective of the care elicits family’s concerns.

In a large meeting, ensure that all members of the family have an opportunity to communicate their concerns. Does a particular person do all of the talking? Are there individuals that do not speak at all? One way to further understand unspoken concerns during the meeting is to ask “I notice you have been quiet, what questions do you have that I can answer?” There may be several rounds of “asking” in order to ensure all the family members’ concerns are heard. Letting the family tell what they have heard helps the clinicians get a better idea of their health literacy. Do they explain information using technical data or jargon? Finally, as the family talks the clinicians can determine how surprising the “serious news” will be to them. For example, if the family says they know their dad is doing much worse and may die, the information to be delivered can be truncated. However if family incorrectly thinks their dad is doing better or is uncertain they will be much more surprised by the serious news.

After providing time for the family to express their understanding, tell them the information the team needs to communicate. When delivering serious news it is important to focus on the key 1 to 2 points you want the family to take away from the meeting. Typically when health care professionals talk to each other, they talk about every medical detail. Families find this amount of information overwhelming and are not sure what is most important, asking “So what does that mean?” Focusing on the “headline” helps the family focus on what you think the most important piece of information is. Studies suggest that what families most want to know is what the information means for the patient’s future and what treatments are possible. After delivering the new information, stop to allow the family space to think about what you said. If you are giving serious news, you will know they have heard what you said as they will get emotional (see next step).

Checking for understanding is the final “ask” in Ask-Tell-Ask. Begin by asking “What questions do you have?” Data in primary care has shown that patients are more likely to ask questions if you ask “what questions do you have” rather than “do you have any questions?” It is important to continue to ask this question until the family has asked all their questions. Often the family’s tough questions do not come until they get more comfortable and confident in the health care team. In cases where one family member is dominant it might also help to say “What questions do others have?” Next, using techniques like the “teach back” model the physician should check in to see what the family is taking away from the conversation. If a family understands, they can “teach back” the information accurately. This “ask” can be done in a way that does not make the family feel they are being tested: “I am not always clear when I communicate. Do you mind telling me back in your own words what you thought I said so I know we are on the same page?” This also provides an opportunity to answer any new questions that arise. Hearing the information directly from the family can allow the team to clarify any misconceptions and give insight into any emotional responses that the family might have.

4. Respond to Emotion

Discussing serious news in the ICU setting naturally leads to an emotional reaction. The clinician’s ability to notice emotional cues and respond with empathy is a key communication skill in family meetings [13]. Emotional reactions impede individual’s ability to process cognitive information and make it hard to think cognitively about what should be done next.

Physicians miss opportunities to respond to emotion in family meetings [14]. Missed opportunities lead to decreased family satisfaction and may lead to treatment decisions not consistent with the wishes of their loved ones. Empathic responses improve the family-clinician relationship and helps build trust and rapport [15]. Well- placed empathic statements may help surrogates disclose concerns that help the physician better understand the goals and values of the family and patient. Families also can more fully process cognitive information when their emotional responses have been attended to.

Physicians can develop the capacity to recognize and respond to the emotional cues family members are delivering. Intensivists should actively look for the emotions, the empathic opportunity, that are displayed by the family. This emotion is the “data” that will help lead to an empathic response. A family that just received bad news typically responds by showing emotion. Clues that emotions are present include: the family asking the same questions multiple times; using emotional words such as “sad” or “frustrated;” existential questions that do not have a cognitive answer such as “Why did God let this happen?;” or non-verbal cues like tears and hand wringing.

Sometimes the emotional responses are more difficult to recognize. Families may continue to ask for more cognitive information after hearing bad news. Someone keeps asking “Why did his kidney function worsen?” or “I thought the team said the chest x-ray looked better.” It is tempting to start answering these questions with more medical facts. However, if the question comes after bad news, it is usually an expression of frustration or sadness rather than a request for more information. Rather than giving information, it might help to acknowledge this by saying “I imagine this new is overwhelming.”

NURSE is a helpful mnemonic for different ways to respond to emotion [16]. NURSE stands for 5 separate skills that can be used in these situations: name, understand, respect, support, and explore. Table 3 provides guidance on using NURSE and offers examples of NURSE statements.

5. Highlight the Patient’s Voice

Family meetings are often used to develop new treatment plans (given that the old plans are not working). In these situations, it is essential to understand what the incapacitated patient would say if they were part of the family meeting. The surrogate’s primary role is to represent the patient’s voice. To do this, surrogates need assistance in applying their critically ill loved one’s thoughts and values to complex, possibly life limiting, situations. Surrogate decision makers struggle with the decisions’ emotional impact, as well as how to reconcile their desires with their loved one’s wishes [18]. This can lead them to make decisions that conflict with the loved one’s values [19] as well as emotional sequelae such as PTSD and depression [20].

Clinicians have a responsibility to attend to surrogates’ emotions, to help educate surrogates regarding their role, and to explore the patient’s values. One way to focus on the values of the patient is “highlighting the patient’s voice.” This requires asking questions that help the surrogate focus on the patient, her values and her attitude toward serious illness. There are many questions a provider can use to elicit a critically ill patient’s values (Table 4). You may have to use a variety of different questions to understand what is most important to the patient.

As families reflect on their loved one’s values, conflicting desires will arise. For example, someone may have wanted to live as long as possible and also values independence. Or someone may value their ability to think clearly more than being physically well but would not want to be physically dependent on artificial life support. Exploring which values would be more important can help resolve these conflicts.

Clinicians should check for understanding while family members are identifying the values of their loved ones. Providing the family with a summary of what you have heard will help ensure a more accurate understanding of these crucial issues. A summary statement might be, “It sounds like you are saying your dad really valued his independence. He enjoyed being able to take care of his loved ones and himself. Is that right?”

 

6. Plan Next Steps

The family meeting serves to attend to family emotion and allow space to elicit patients’ values. Following a family meeting surrogate decision makers may be able to begin to consider the next steps in their loved one’s care. If bad news was delivered they may need space to adjust to a different future than they expected. Using an empathic statement of support “We will continue to make sure we communicate with you as we work together to plan next steps” will reassure a family that they have time and space to plan for the future.

Families vary regarding how much physician input they desire in planning next steps [21]. You can explicitly ask how the team can best help the family with decisions: “Some families like to hear the options for next steps from the team and make a decision, other families like to hear a recommendation from the team. What would be the most helpful for you?” Throughout the course of an illness a surrogate’s preference for decision making may change and clinicians should be responsive to those changing needs.

If the surrogate wants a clinician’s recommendation, 3 points are worth stressing. First, the recommendation should be personalized to this patient and his values. The goal is to reveal how the understanding of the patient’s values led to the treatment plan offered. Second, the recommendation should focus primarily on what will be done to achieve the patient’s values. Focusing on what the clinicians will do may help the family feel that the clinicians are still “trying” and not abandoning their loved one. In this case, the team will continue medical care that will help the patient regain/maintain independence. Only after talking about what will be done should the clinician point out that certain interventions will not achieve the patient’s goals and thus will not be done:

“It sounds like your father really valued his independence and that this illness has really taken that away. Knowing this, would it be helpful for me to make a recommendation for next steps?” “I think we should continue providing excellent medical care for your father in hopes he can get better and go home. One the other hand, if he gets worse, we should not use therapies such as CPR or dialysis that are unlikely to help him regain his independence.”

Finally, be concrete when planning next steps. If a time-limited trial of a therapy is proposed, make sure the family understands what a successful and unsuccessful trial will look like. Make plans to meet again on a specific date in order to ensure the family understands the progress being made. If a transition to comfort care is agreed upon, ensure support of the entire family during the next hours to days and offer services such as chaplaincy or child life specialists.

A family may not agree with the recommendation and back and forth discussion can help create a plan that is in line with their understanding of the illness. Rather than convincing, a clinician should keep an open mind about why they and the surrogate disagree. Do they have different views about the patient’s future? Did the medical team misunderstand the patient’s values? Are there emotional factors that inhibit the surrogate’s ability to attend to the discussion? It is only by learning where the disagreement is that a clinician can move the conversation forward.

A surrogate may ask about a therapy that is not beneficial or may increase distress to the patient. The use of “I wish” or “I worry” statements can be helpful at these points. These specific phrases recognize the surrogate’s desire to do more but also imply that the therapies are not helpful.

“I wish that his ability to communicate and tell you what he wants would get better with a little more time as well.”

“I worry that waiting 2 more weeks for improvement will actually cause complications to occur.”

 

7. Reflect

Family meetings have an impact on both the family and the medical team. Following the meeting, a short debriefing with the clinical team can be helpful. Summarizing the events of the meeting ensures clarity about the treatment plan going forward. It provides team members a chance to discuss conflicts that may have arisen. It allows the participants in the meeting to reflect on what communication skills they used and how they can improve their skills going forward.

Conclusion

Family meetings with surrogate decision makers must navigate multiple agendas of the family and providers. The goal of excellent communication with surrogates in an ICU should be to understand the patient’s goals and values and seek to make treatment plans that align with their perspective. This talking map provides a conceptual framework for physicians to guide a family through these conversations. The framework creates an opportunity to focus on the patient’s values and preferences for care while allowing space to attend to emotional responses to reduce the distress inherent in surrogate decision-making. Practicing the behaviors demonstrated in the talking map may increase clinician skill during difficult conversations. Improving communication with surrogate decision makers will increase the support we offer to critically ill patients and their loved ones.

 

Corresponding author: Jessica McFarlin, MD, jessmcfarlin@gmail.com.

Funding/support: Dr. Arnold receives support though the Leo H. Criep Chair in Patient Care.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Neurology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (Dr. McFarlin), the Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Dr. Tulsky), Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dr. Back), and Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA (Dr. Arnold).

 

Abstract

• Objective: To describe the use of a cognitive map for navigating family meetings with surrogate decision makers of patients in an intensive care unit.
•  Methods: Descriptive report and discussion using an illustrative case to outline the steps in the cognitive map.
• Results: The use of cognitive maps has improved the ability of physicians to efficiently perform a specific communication skill. During a “goals of care” conversation, the cognitive map follows these steps: (1) Gather the clinical team for a pre-meeting, (2) Introduce everyone, (3) Use the “ask-tell-ask” strategy to communicate information, (4) Respond to emotion, (5) Highlight the patient’s voice, (6) Plan next steps, (7) Reflect on the meeting with the team. Providing this map of key communication skills will help faculty teach learners the core components of a family meeting.
• Conclusion: Practicing the behaviors demonstrated in the cognitive map may increase clinician skill during difficult conversations. Improving communication with surrogate decision makers will increase the support we offer to critically ill patients and their loved ones.

Key words: intensive care unit; communication; family meeting; critical illness; decision making; end of life care.

 

Family members of patients in the ICU value high-quality communication with the medical team. In fact, family members report that physicians’ communication skills are often more important than their medical skills [1]. Multiple professional societies, including the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, define communication with families as a key component of high-quality critical care. Effective physician-patient communication improves measureable outcomes including decreased ICU length of stay [2] and may reduce distress amongst patients’ families [3]. The American College of Chest Physicians position statement on Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Patients with Cardiopulmonary Diseases urges physicians to develop curricula that incorporate interpersonal communication skills into training [4].

Unfortunately, such high-quality communication is not the norm. Surrogate decision makers are often displeased with the frequency of communication, the limited availability of attending physicians, and report feeling excluded from discussions [5]. When family meetings do occur, surrogate decision makers report inadequate understanding of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment plans [6].

Physicians also find family meetings difficult. Intensivists worry that high-quality family meetings are time consuming and difficult to do in a busy ICU [7]. Critical care fellows report not feeling adequately trained to conduct family meetings [8]. It makes sense that untrained clinicians would want to avoid a conversation that is emotionally charged, particularly if one is unsure how to respond effectively.

In this paper, we provide a cognitive map for navigating family meetings when patients are doing poorly and decisions need to be made about next steps (often called “goals of care” meetings). The use of cognitive (or “talking”) maps has improved the ability of physicians to efficiently perform a specific communication skill such as breaking bad news [9]. Laying out the component communication skills also helps faculty teach learners. Much like the steps of any medical procedure (eg, inserting a central line), a talking map provides a guide physicians can use during family conferences. To supplement the map (Table 1), we provide examples of specific things a physician may say during a family meeting in the ICU. An illustrative case provides a framework for incorporating the use of a talking map into family meetings with surrogate decision makers.

The Case of Mr. A

Thomas A. is a 79-year-old man admitted to the medical intensive care unit 7 days earlier with a large left middle cerebral artery territory infarction. Given his decreased mental status, on admission he was intubated for airway protection. He is awake but aphasic and unable to follow any commands or move his right side. The neurology consultants do not feel this will improve. He has significant secretions and episodes of hypoxia. He has also developed acute on chronic kidney injury and may need to start dialysis. The social worker explains that his need for dialysis limits his placement options and that he will not be able to be discharged to home. Given his lack of improvement the team is concerned he will need a tracheostomy and feeding tube placed in order to safely continue this level of care. A family meeting is arranged to understand Mr. A’s goals of care.

Talking Map Basics

Before each step is discussed in detail, some definitions are needed. “Family” can be defined as anyone important enough, biologically related or not, to be present at a conversation with a clinician [10]. Second, a “family meeting” is a planned event between the family and interdisciplinary members of the ICU team as well as any other health care providers who have been involved in the patient’s care. The meeting takes place in a private space and at a time that is scheduled with the families’ needs in mind. Thus it is different from having families present on rounds or one-off meetings with particular clinicians.

Goals of care meetings are typically held when, in the clinicians’ view, the current treatments are not achieving the previously stated goals. Thus, the meeting has 2 purposes: first, to give the family the bad news that the current plan is not working and second, to develop a new plan based on the patient’s values. The family’s job, as surrogate decision maker, is to provide information about what would be most important to the patient. The clinician’s job is to suggest treatment plans that have the best probability of matching the patient’s values.

Not all of these tasks need be done at once. Some families will not be able to move from hearing bad news to making a decision without having time to first reflect and grieve. Others will need to confer with other family members privately before deciding on a plan. In many cases, a time-limited trial may be the right option with a plan for subsequent meetings. Given this, we recommend checking in with the family between each step to ensure that they feel safe moving ahead. For example, one might ask “Is it OK if we talk about what happens next?”

Talking Map Steps in Detail

1. Gather the Clinical Team for a Pre-Meeting

ICU care involves a large interdisciplinary care team. A “meeting before the meeting” with the entire clinical team is an opportunity to reach consensus on prognosis and therapeutic options, share prior interactions with family, and determine goals for the family meeting. It is also helpful to clarify team members’ roles at the meeting and to choose a primary facilitator. All of this helps to ensure that the family receives a consistent message during the meeting. The pre-meeting is also an opportunity to ask a team member to observe the communication skills of the facilitator and be prepared to give feedback after the meeting.

At this time, the team should also create the proper environment for the family meeting. This includes a quiet room free of interruptions with ample seating, available tissues, and transferred pagers and cell phones.

The intensivist and bedside nurse should always be present at the family meeting, and it is best when the same attending can be at subsequent family meetings Their consistent dual presence provides the uniform communication from the team, can reduce anxiety in family members and the collaboration reduces ICU nurse and physician burnout [11]. For illnesses that involve a specific disease or organ system, it is important to have the specialist at the meeting who can provide the appropriate expertise.

The Pre-Meeting

A family meeting was scheduled in the family meeting room for 3 pm, after morning rounds. Thirty minutes prior to the meeting the medical team, including the MICU intensivist, the bedside nurse, the neurology attending who has been involved in the care, the case manager and 2 residents sat to discuss Mr. A’s care. The neurology team confirmed that this stroke was considered very large and would result in a level of disability that could only be cared for in a nursing home and would require both a tracheostomy and feeding tube for safe care. The bedside nurse relayed that the family had asked if Mr. A. would ever recover enough to get back to his home. The neurology team shared they did not expect much improvement at all. Given the worsening renal failure and need for dialysis the case manager reminded the team that Mr. A’s nursing home placements were limited. The team decided that the intensivist would lead the meeting as she had updated various family members on rounds for the past 4 days and would be on service for another week. The team decided that their goal for the meeting was to make sure the family understands that Mr. A’s several medical illnesses portend a poor prognosis. They recognized this may be breaking bad news to the family. They also wanted to better understand what Mr. A would have thought given this situation. The residents were asked to watch for the family’s responses when the team delivered the news.

2. Introduce Everyone

Each meeting should start with formal introductions. Even if most providers know most family members it is a polite way to start the meeting. Introducing each family member present and how they know the patient provides insight into how the family is constructed and makes decisions. For example, the entire family may defer to the daughter who introduces herself as a nurse. In other situations, although there is one legal decision maker, the family may explain that they make decisions by consensus.

Each member of the treating team should also introduce themselves. Even if the clinician has been working with the family, it is polite to be formal and give your name and role. Given the number of people the family sees every day, one should not assume that the family remembers all of the clinicians.

In teaching hospitals, providers should also help the family understand their level of training. Surrogates do not always understand the different roles or level of training between students, residents and fellows, advanced practice providers, consultants and their attending physicians. Uncertainty about the roles can lead to family members feeling as though they are receiving contradictory information. Family satisfaction decreases when multiple attending physicians are involved in a patient’s care [12]. When possible, a consistent presence among providers at family meetings is always best.

 

3. Ask the Family's Understanding of the Situation (Ask-Tell-Ask)

Most family meetings in the ICU will require the transmission of a large amount of medical information. Using a specific communication strategy, Ask-Tell-Ask (Table 2), allows for the information to be calibrated based on what the family knows and wants to know.

Asking the family to explain the situation in their own language reveals how well they understand the medical facts and helps the medical team determine what information will be most helpful to the family. An opening statement might be “We have all seen your dad and talked to many of his providers. It would help us all be on the same page if you can you tell me what the doctors are telling you?” Starting with the family’s understanding builds trust with the medical team as it creates an opportunity for the family to lead the meeting and indicates that the team is available to listen to their concerns. Asking surrogates for their understanding allows them to tell their story and not hear a reiteration of things they already know. Providing time for the family to share their perspective of the care elicits family’s concerns.

In a large meeting, ensure that all members of the family have an opportunity to communicate their concerns. Does a particular person do all of the talking? Are there individuals that do not speak at all? One way to further understand unspoken concerns during the meeting is to ask “I notice you have been quiet, what questions do you have that I can answer?” There may be several rounds of “asking” in order to ensure all the family members’ concerns are heard. Letting the family tell what they have heard helps the clinicians get a better idea of their health literacy. Do they explain information using technical data or jargon? Finally, as the family talks the clinicians can determine how surprising the “serious news” will be to them. For example, if the family says they know their dad is doing much worse and may die, the information to be delivered can be truncated. However if family incorrectly thinks their dad is doing better or is uncertain they will be much more surprised by the serious news.

After providing time for the family to express their understanding, tell them the information the team needs to communicate. When delivering serious news it is important to focus on the key 1 to 2 points you want the family to take away from the meeting. Typically when health care professionals talk to each other, they talk about every medical detail. Families find this amount of information overwhelming and are not sure what is most important, asking “So what does that mean?” Focusing on the “headline” helps the family focus on what you think the most important piece of information is. Studies suggest that what families most want to know is what the information means for the patient’s future and what treatments are possible. After delivering the new information, stop to allow the family space to think about what you said. If you are giving serious news, you will know they have heard what you said as they will get emotional (see next step).

Checking for understanding is the final “ask” in Ask-Tell-Ask. Begin by asking “What questions do you have?” Data in primary care has shown that patients are more likely to ask questions if you ask “what questions do you have” rather than “do you have any questions?” It is important to continue to ask this question until the family has asked all their questions. Often the family’s tough questions do not come until they get more comfortable and confident in the health care team. In cases where one family member is dominant it might also help to say “What questions do others have?” Next, using techniques like the “teach back” model the physician should check in to see what the family is taking away from the conversation. If a family understands, they can “teach back” the information accurately. This “ask” can be done in a way that does not make the family feel they are being tested: “I am not always clear when I communicate. Do you mind telling me back in your own words what you thought I said so I know we are on the same page?” This also provides an opportunity to answer any new questions that arise. Hearing the information directly from the family can allow the team to clarify any misconceptions and give insight into any emotional responses that the family might have.

4. Respond to Emotion

Discussing serious news in the ICU setting naturally leads to an emotional reaction. The clinician’s ability to notice emotional cues and respond with empathy is a key communication skill in family meetings [13]. Emotional reactions impede individual’s ability to process cognitive information and make it hard to think cognitively about what should be done next.

Physicians miss opportunities to respond to emotion in family meetings [14]. Missed opportunities lead to decreased family satisfaction and may lead to treatment decisions not consistent with the wishes of their loved ones. Empathic responses improve the family-clinician relationship and helps build trust and rapport [15]. Well- placed empathic statements may help surrogates disclose concerns that help the physician better understand the goals and values of the family and patient. Families also can more fully process cognitive information when their emotional responses have been attended to.

Physicians can develop the capacity to recognize and respond to the emotional cues family members are delivering. Intensivists should actively look for the emotions, the empathic opportunity, that are displayed by the family. This emotion is the “data” that will help lead to an empathic response. A family that just received bad news typically responds by showing emotion. Clues that emotions are present include: the family asking the same questions multiple times; using emotional words such as “sad” or “frustrated;” existential questions that do not have a cognitive answer such as “Why did God let this happen?;” or non-verbal cues like tears and hand wringing.

Sometimes the emotional responses are more difficult to recognize. Families may continue to ask for more cognitive information after hearing bad news. Someone keeps asking “Why did his kidney function worsen?” or “I thought the team said the chest x-ray looked better.” It is tempting to start answering these questions with more medical facts. However, if the question comes after bad news, it is usually an expression of frustration or sadness rather than a request for more information. Rather than giving information, it might help to acknowledge this by saying “I imagine this new is overwhelming.”

NURSE is a helpful mnemonic for different ways to respond to emotion [16]. NURSE stands for 5 separate skills that can be used in these situations: name, understand, respect, support, and explore. Table 3 provides guidance on using NURSE and offers examples of NURSE statements.

5. Highlight the Patient’s Voice

Family meetings are often used to develop new treatment plans (given that the old plans are not working). In these situations, it is essential to understand what the incapacitated patient would say if they were part of the family meeting. The surrogate’s primary role is to represent the patient’s voice. To do this, surrogates need assistance in applying their critically ill loved one’s thoughts and values to complex, possibly life limiting, situations. Surrogate decision makers struggle with the decisions’ emotional impact, as well as how to reconcile their desires with their loved one’s wishes [18]. This can lead them to make decisions that conflict with the loved one’s values [19] as well as emotional sequelae such as PTSD and depression [20].

Clinicians have a responsibility to attend to surrogates’ emotions, to help educate surrogates regarding their role, and to explore the patient’s values. One way to focus on the values of the patient is “highlighting the patient’s voice.” This requires asking questions that help the surrogate focus on the patient, her values and her attitude toward serious illness. There are many questions a provider can use to elicit a critically ill patient’s values (Table 4). You may have to use a variety of different questions to understand what is most important to the patient.

As families reflect on their loved one’s values, conflicting desires will arise. For example, someone may have wanted to live as long as possible and also values independence. Or someone may value their ability to think clearly more than being physically well but would not want to be physically dependent on artificial life support. Exploring which values would be more important can help resolve these conflicts.

Clinicians should check for understanding while family members are identifying the values of their loved ones. Providing the family with a summary of what you have heard will help ensure a more accurate understanding of these crucial issues. A summary statement might be, “It sounds like you are saying your dad really valued his independence. He enjoyed being able to take care of his loved ones and himself. Is that right?”

 

6. Plan Next Steps

The family meeting serves to attend to family emotion and allow space to elicit patients’ values. Following a family meeting surrogate decision makers may be able to begin to consider the next steps in their loved one’s care. If bad news was delivered they may need space to adjust to a different future than they expected. Using an empathic statement of support “We will continue to make sure we communicate with you as we work together to plan next steps” will reassure a family that they have time and space to plan for the future.

Families vary regarding how much physician input they desire in planning next steps [21]. You can explicitly ask how the team can best help the family with decisions: “Some families like to hear the options for next steps from the team and make a decision, other families like to hear a recommendation from the team. What would be the most helpful for you?” Throughout the course of an illness a surrogate’s preference for decision making may change and clinicians should be responsive to those changing needs.

If the surrogate wants a clinician’s recommendation, 3 points are worth stressing. First, the recommendation should be personalized to this patient and his values. The goal is to reveal how the understanding of the patient’s values led to the treatment plan offered. Second, the recommendation should focus primarily on what will be done to achieve the patient’s values. Focusing on what the clinicians will do may help the family feel that the clinicians are still “trying” and not abandoning their loved one. In this case, the team will continue medical care that will help the patient regain/maintain independence. Only after talking about what will be done should the clinician point out that certain interventions will not achieve the patient’s goals and thus will not be done:

“It sounds like your father really valued his independence and that this illness has really taken that away. Knowing this, would it be helpful for me to make a recommendation for next steps?” “I think we should continue providing excellent medical care for your father in hopes he can get better and go home. One the other hand, if he gets worse, we should not use therapies such as CPR or dialysis that are unlikely to help him regain his independence.”

Finally, be concrete when planning next steps. If a time-limited trial of a therapy is proposed, make sure the family understands what a successful and unsuccessful trial will look like. Make plans to meet again on a specific date in order to ensure the family understands the progress being made. If a transition to comfort care is agreed upon, ensure support of the entire family during the next hours to days and offer services such as chaplaincy or child life specialists.

A family may not agree with the recommendation and back and forth discussion can help create a plan that is in line with their understanding of the illness. Rather than convincing, a clinician should keep an open mind about why they and the surrogate disagree. Do they have different views about the patient’s future? Did the medical team misunderstand the patient’s values? Are there emotional factors that inhibit the surrogate’s ability to attend to the discussion? It is only by learning where the disagreement is that a clinician can move the conversation forward.

A surrogate may ask about a therapy that is not beneficial or may increase distress to the patient. The use of “I wish” or “I worry” statements can be helpful at these points. These specific phrases recognize the surrogate’s desire to do more but also imply that the therapies are not helpful.

“I wish that his ability to communicate and tell you what he wants would get better with a little more time as well.”

“I worry that waiting 2 more weeks for improvement will actually cause complications to occur.”

 

7. Reflect

Family meetings have an impact on both the family and the medical team. Following the meeting, a short debriefing with the clinical team can be helpful. Summarizing the events of the meeting ensures clarity about the treatment plan going forward. It provides team members a chance to discuss conflicts that may have arisen. It allows the participants in the meeting to reflect on what communication skills they used and how they can improve their skills going forward.

Conclusion

Family meetings with surrogate decision makers must navigate multiple agendas of the family and providers. The goal of excellent communication with surrogates in an ICU should be to understand the patient’s goals and values and seek to make treatment plans that align with their perspective. This talking map provides a conceptual framework for physicians to guide a family through these conversations. The framework creates an opportunity to focus on the patient’s values and preferences for care while allowing space to attend to emotional responses to reduce the distress inherent in surrogate decision-making. Practicing the behaviors demonstrated in the talking map may increase clinician skill during difficult conversations. Improving communication with surrogate decision makers will increase the support we offer to critically ill patients and their loved ones.

 

Corresponding author: Jessica McFarlin, MD, jessmcfarlin@gmail.com.

Funding/support: Dr. Arnold receives support though the Leo H. Criep Chair in Patient Care.

Financial disclosures: None.