Nurse-physician Communication around Identifying Palliative Care Needs in Nursing Home Residents

Participants

Physicians and NPs practicing in nursing homes were invited to participate through nursing home administrations. With maximum variation sampling, we selected candidates based on diversity in gender, age, certification and the type of unit the participants practiced.

Procedures and interview guide

After acquiring informed consent, individual interviews were conducted face-to-face in the nursing home by EAJ, female medical intern. A topic list (Appendix 1) addressed determinants of interprofessional communication reported in the literature.^7,9,14-18 The list was also informed by studying a qualitative dataset with open-ended items from a survey among elderly care physicians on providing optimal palliative care with dementia.¹⁹ We started by asking about interdisciplinary communication in an open manner, continued with prompts from the topic list (e.g., mutual trust) and concluded asking what the physicians perceived as pleasant and unpleasant communication, and motivation to participate-to understand if this related to particular perceptions or experiences around nurse-physician communication. The interviewer made fieldnotes immediately following the interviews such as on perceived non-verbal hierarchical behavior.

Analysis

Interview audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim (not returned) and anonymized. Due to recording failure mid-way, one-half interview was immediately described in detail from memory. The transcripts were coded based on recurring themes, using ATLAS.ti version 7.5.18 (2012). Coding was both deductive based on the literature and the qualitative dataset, and inductive, developing new codes that emerged from the interviews. Using the ‘framework method,’ a model for managing and mapping qualitative data systematically,²⁰ we identified important themes regarding nurse-physician communication. A sample of two transcripts was analyzed independently from EAJ by NLD (anthropologist) and coding differences were discussed and resolved. During regular project team meetings with researchers with background in nursing, elderly care medicine, epidemiology, sociology and anthropology, intermediate findings were discussed. After 14 interviews, no new themes emerged. To increase confidence in the diversity of the sample related to the findings, we conducted three more interviews, with a very experienced elderly care physician and two non-specialized physicians.

Teamwork: Dealing with team structure and dynamics

Nursing staff mostly comprised nurse assistants and nurse aids. The physicians often did not know the exact size and structure of the care team they were working with. They regarded staff shortage, temporary staff, vacancies and high staff turnover as important barriers to communication on care needs. Staff shortage resulted in lack of time to communicate effectively including inadequate daily reporting (Table 2, quote a). Further, more acute matters would get priority and more gradual deterioration might go unnoticed or unreported. Lack of time was also believed to cause nursing staff to forget or stop following up physician’s orders, which caused frustration, less effective collaboration with physicians taking over to, for example, measure vital signs themselves.

Temporary workers to fill in vacancies would complicate communication because they would not know the residents, the care team and the physician. Temporary workers would not usually communicate with the physician. Also, they did not write reports when they were not familiar with the electronic record or were not authorized to access it. The physicians relied on team managers to assign experienced staff to work next to temporary workers. Some also noted the importance of continuity on part of the medical practitioners (quote b).

Teamwork: Quality of relationships

Knowing each other both professionally and personally would lead to efficient communication through a good working relationship based on understanding and trust (quote c). This would be facilitated by continuity within the team and by regular contact with all staff including outside of scheduled meetings. Explaining reasons for decisions and involving nursing staff in the decision-making process enhanced trusting working relationships.

Interviewees mentioned a threshold for nursing staff to consult the physician due to perceived hierarchical difference (quotes d,e). Knowing each other may help, but, if the threshold was too low, nursing staff consulted the physician for minor issues.

Disagreements within teams or family complicated communication around identifying care needs as it posed emotional burden on nursing staff (quote f), especially when it concerned residents they had known for long or had grown particularly fond of. When residents deteriorated gradually, it would be important that nursing staff discussed changes with each other and report to the physician. However, not all teams had recurring meetings for such evaluations. Ideally, nursing staff was on the same page regarding residents’ condition prior to consulting the physician, but physicians felt they could also help settle disagreements (quote g).

Teamwork: Clarity in hierarchical relationships

Clear leadership was seen as important by some physicians to make sure instructions such as performing regular measurements to detect gradual deterioration, are being followed up. Most physicians saw themselves as a supervisor rather than the leader (quote h), overseeing the multidisciplinary process and coaching the other disciplines if necessary. Some would see nursing staff to carry their own responsibilities, rather than being instructed by superiors, for them to perform their tasks with more dedication (with “more energy,” quote i), encouraging nursing staff in their role of identifying changes.

Continuity of information: Effective routes of communication

The participants raised four routes of consultation to communicate identified changes: face-to-face, by phone, by electronic health record and by email. Face-to-face contact was seen as the most effective route and often sought in response to communication via other routes. It was the primary route to communicate gradual deterioration. Phoning was possible at any time and therefore suitable to communicate acute decline or when direct actions were needed, for example when residents were uncomfortable. Consultation via email was seen as less desirable considering privacy legislations.

Also, emails and written reports in the electronic record were likely to be missed by the physician. Some disclosed that they did not read the reports as incomplete or mostly for the nursing staff themselves (quotes a,j,k). Reporting on care goals was believed to be unhelpful in this respect, because it would hinder reports on overall deterioration as this was not part of any care goal. To improve, the interviewees mentioned they explained the importance of objective and timely reporting on certain signals.

Continuity of information: Quality of communicating observations

Communication on identifying (palliative) care needs was mentioned to be partially about translating a ‘gutfeeling’ into words (quote l), particularly concerning residents with dementia. The physicians felt that most nursing staff are aware of a resident’s deterioration, but have difficulty recognizing and explaining the exact problems, causing hesitancy to consult the physician. Usually the nurses with more education communicated with the physicians directly. However, they may have heard about changing resident needs second-hand.

The physicians saw it as their responsibility to clarify what staff says. Better clinical reasoning skills, understanding of medical jargon and language, staying calm and being clear in complex situations, having prepared through measurements, and a sense of longstanding involvement with the resident increased the quality of communicating observations. Experience was also helpful to interpret and translate what staff had seen before when residents were dying (quote m). Both education and experience promoted a pro-active attitude. Cultural or religious differences among staff in urban areas were seen as not much important. Rather, the overall team culture would be crucial in identifying and sharing concerns about resident’s changing care needs. Table 3 provides recommendations based on directly reported (un)pleasant communication or analyses of the interviews.

Limitations and strengths

We examined views of physicians only. Physicians may perceive collaboration with nurses differently, or,²⁹ more favorably than nurses do. Most interviewees were motivated by contributing to good palliative care rather than by particular experiences with physician-nurse communication. They might have had an interest in a positive account, aiming to recruit the interviewer to become an elderly care physician and fill vacancies. However, those aware of the medical student not yet enrolled in a specialization program conducting the interviews did not appear more positive.