Efficacy of a Communication-Priming Intervention on Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions in Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Open accessAbstract
Importance: High-quality goals-of-care communication is critical to delivering goal-concordant, patient-centered care to hospitalized patients with chronic life-limiting illness. However, implementation and documentation of goals-of-care discussions remain important shortcomings in many health systems. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care communication for patients hospitalized with serious illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from November 6, 2018, to February 18, 2020. The setting was 2 hospitals in an academic health care system in Seattle, Washington. Participants included hospitalized adults with chronic life-limiting illness, aged 65 years or older and with markers of frailty, or aged 80 years or older. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to August 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to usual care with baseline questionnaires (control) vs the Jumpstart communication-priming intervention. Patients or surrogates in the intervention group and their clinicians received patient-specific Jumpstart Guides populated with data from questionnaires and the electronic health records (EHRs) that were designed to prompt and guide a goals-of-care discussion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion between randomization and hospital discharge. Additional outcomes included patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions, patient-reported or surrogate-reported quality of communication, and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Results: Of 428 eligible patients, this study enrolled 150 patients (35% enrollment rate; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [13.6] years; 66 women [44%]; 132 [88%] by patient consent and 18 [12%] by surrogate consent). Seventy-five patients each were randomized to the intervention and control groups. Compared with the control group, the cumulative incidence of EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions between randomization and hospital discharge was higher in the intervention group (16 of 75 patients [21%] vs 6 of 75 patients [8%]; risk difference, 13% [95% CI, 2%-24%]; risk ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.10-6.44]; P = .04). Patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions did not differ significantly between groups (30 of 66 patients [45%] vs 36 of 66 patients [55%]), although the intrarater consistency of patient and surrogate reports was poor. Patient-rated or surrogate-rated quality of communication did not differ significantly between groups. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients, surrogates, and clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication priming intervention for seriously ill, hospitalized patients promoted EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions before discharge with good feasibility and acceptability. Communication-priming interventions should be reexamined in a larger randomized clinical trial to better understand their effectiveness in the inpatient setting. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03746392.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The interventions tested in all three trials did not alter existing clinician EHR documentation processes or templates for documentation of goals-of-care discussions.
“The interventions tested in all three trials (variants of the Jumpstart Guide) did not alter existing clinician EHR documentation processes or templates for documentation of goals-of-care discussions.21,28,29”
From Assessment of a Zero-Shot Large Language Model in Measuring Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions (2026) · cites this paper as [28]
The Methods > Intervention section describes this trial’s Jumpstart Guides as paper guides and guides delivered electronically to clinicians, without describing a change to EHR documentation. It does not explicitly establish that existing documentation processes or templates were unchanged, and this paper’s account of its own trial cannot establish that point for all three trials. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 44
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [35]Goodman DC, Esty AR, Fisher ES, Chang CH. Trends and variation in end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries with severe chronic illness: a report of the Dartmouth Atlas Project. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. April 12, 2011. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://data.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/EOL_Trend_Report_0411.pdf 36516285
- [37]Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Goodman DC,. Tracking the Care of Patients with Severe Chronic Illness. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice; 2008. 36378804
- Authors
- Lee, R. Y., Kross, E. K., Downey, L., Paul, S. R., Heywood, J., Nielsen, E. L., Okimoto, K., Brumback, L. C., Merel, S. E., Engelberg, R. A., & Curtis, J. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Curtis, J. Randall
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Network Open
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2022-04-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e225088
- ISSN
- 2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8976242
- OpenAlex
- W4223899041
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 7.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002319)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K12HL137940)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- goals of care discussions, serious illness, hospitalized patients, life-limiting illness, electronic health record documentation, communication quality, surrogate decision-making, patient-centered care, frailty, intervention feasibility and acceptability, end-of-life care, advance care planning, quality improvement intervention, hospitalized older adults
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Female, Goals, Humans, Inpatients, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Electronic Health Records
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review