ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Human connection can reduce suffering and facilitate meaningful decision-making amid the often terrifying experience of hospitalization for advanced cancer. Some conversational pauses indicate human connection, but we know little about their prevalence, distribution or association with outcomes. PURPOSE: To describe the epidemiology of Connectional Silence during serious illness conversations in advanced cancer. METHODS: We audio-recorded 226 inpatient palliative care consultations at two academic centers. We identified pauses lasting 2+ seconds and distinguished Connectional Silences from other pauses, sub-categorized as either Invitational (ICS) or Emotional (ECS). We identified treatment decisional status pre-consultation from medical records and post-consultation via clinicians. Patients self-reported quality-of-life before and one day after consultation. RESULTS: Among all 6769 two-second silences, we observed 328 (4.8%) ECS and 240 (3.5%) ICS. ECS prevalence was associated with decisions favoring fewer disease-focused treatments (ORadj: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.12, 4.06). Earlier conversational ECS was associated with improved quality-of-life (p = 0.01). ICS prevalence was associated with clinicians' prognosis expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Connectional Silences during specialist serious illness conversations are associated with decision-making and improved patient quality-of-life. Further work is necessary to evaluate potential causal relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pauses offer important opportunities to advance the science of human connection in serious illness decision-making.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Physician-Patient Relations , Communication , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Critical Illness/therapy , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Palliative Care , Referral and ConsultationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Understanding uncertainty in participatory decision-making requires scientific attention to interaction between what actually happens when patients, families and clinicians engage one another in conversation and the multi-level contexts in which these occur. Achieving this understanding will require conceptually grounded and scalable methods for use in large samples of people representing diversity in cultures, speaking and decision-making norms, and clinical situations. DISCUSSION: Here, we focus on serious illness and describe Conversational Stories as a scalable and conceptually grounded framework for characterizing uncertainty expression in these clinical contexts. Using actual conversations from a large direct-observation cohort study, we demonstrate how natural language processing and unsupervised machine learning methods can reveal underlying types of uncertainty stories in serious illness conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Conversational Storytelling offers a meaningful analytic framework for scalable computational methods to study uncertainty in healthcare conversations.
