Background Ariadne Labs’ Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), inclusive of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), has been adapted for use in a variety of settings and among diverse population groups. Explicating the core elements of serious illness conversations could support the inclusion or exclusion of certain components in future iterations of the programme and the guide. Aim This integrative systematic review aimed to identify and describe core elements of serious illness conversations in relation to the SICP and/or SICG. Design Literature published between 1 January 2014 and 20 March 2023 was searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed. All articles were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines. Data were analysed with thematic synthesis. Results A total of 64 articles met the inclusion criteria. Three themes were revealed: (1) serious illness conversations serve different functions that are reflected in how they are conveyed; (2) serious illness conversations endeavour to discover what matters to patients and (3) serious illness conversations seek to align what patients want in their life and care. Conclusions Core elements of serious illness conversations included explicating the intention, framing, expectations and directions for the conversation. This encompassed discussing current and possible trajectories with a view towards uncovering matters of importance to the patient as a person. Preferences and priorities could be used to inform future preparation and recommendations. Serious illness conversation elements could be adapted and altered depending on the intended purpose of the conversation.

Background: One challenge for healthcare professionals when delivering palliative care can be their lack of confidence. The Self-efficacy in Palliative Care Scale (SEPC) is considered a valid and reliable assessment scale to evaluate confidence when delivering palliative care. Currently, there is not a reliable instrument aimed to measure healthcare professionals’ confidence in palliative care in Swedish. Therefore, this study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the SEPC-scale for use in a Swedish healthcare context. Methods: This study applied the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines for translating and adapting instruments, using forward and back-translation, an expert panel, and cognitive interviews. Swedish experts in palliative care (n = 6) assessed the Swedish version of the SEPC-scale based on its relevance, understandability, clarity, and sensitivity on a Likert scale. Methods involved calculation of content validity index (CVI) with modified kappa statistics and cognitive interviewing with healthcare professionals (n = 10) according to the “think-aloud” method. Results: Calculation of I-CVI (Item-CVI) showed that the Swedish SEPC-scale was considered relevant but needed some modifications to improve its understandability and clarity. The experts recognized an absence of precision in some items that affected clarity and understanding. Likewise, the healthcare professionals highlighted some challenges with understandability and clarity. They indicated that the scale was relevant, but a few items needed adjustment to fit a broader range of healthcare professionals. Items that referred to death and dying could be sensitive but were considered relevant. Conclusions: The SEPC-scale is considered valid for use in Swedish healthcare practice, for a broad range of healthcare professionals, and for diagnoses other than cancer. This study shows that cultural adaptation is necessary for establishing relevance and enabling acceptance to various healthcare professionals and contexts in the target country.

Background: The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a model developed for structured communication, identifying patients, and training physicians to use a structured guide for conversations with patients and family members. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the sustainable implementation of this conversation model. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers during the implementation of the SICP in hospital settings. Methods: The SICP was implemented at 20 units in two hospitals in Sweden. During the implementation process, seven individual interviews and two group interviews were conducted with seven facilitators (five physicians, one behavioral therapist, and one administrator). Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, first inductively, and then deductively using the organizational readiness for change as a theoretical framework. Result: The analysis resulted in three factors acting as enablers and eight factors acting as enablers and/or barriers during the implementation of the SICP. The three factors considered as enablers were preliminaries, identifying patients, and facilitator’s role. The eight factors considered as enablers and/or barriers were broad implementation, leadership, time, confidence, building foundation, motivation to work change, motivation for training in serious illness conversations, and attitudes. Conclusion: This study indicates limited readiness to implement the SICP in hospital settings due to considerable variation in organizational contextual factors, change efficacy, and change commitment. The identified enablers and barriers for implementation of the SICP could guide and support future implementations to be sustainable over time.

Objective: The Serious Illness Care Program was developed to support goals and values discussions between seriously ill patients and their clinicians. The core competencies, that is, the essential clinical conversation skills that are described as requisite for effective serious illness conversations (SICs) in practice, have not yet been explicated. This integrative systematic review aimed to identify core competencies for SICs in the context of the Serious Illness Care Program. Methods: Articles published between January 2014 and March 2023 were identified in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed databases. In total, 313 records underwent title and abstract screening, and 96 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The articles were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines, and data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results: In total, 53 articles were included. Clinicians’ core competencies for SICs were described in 3 themes: conversation resources, intrapersonal capabilities, and interpersonal capabilities. Conversation resources included using the conversation guide as a tool, together with applying appropriate communication skills to support better communication. Intrapersonal capabilities included calibrating one's own attitudes and mindset as well as confidence and self-assurance to engage in SICs. Interpersonal capabilities focused on the clinician's ability to interact with patients and family members to foster a mutually trusting relationship, including empathetic communication with attention and adherence to patient and family members views, goals, needs, and preferences. Conclusions: Clinicians need to efficiently combine conversation resources with intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to successfully conduct and interact in SICs.