The Anatomy of Interprofessional Collaboration Around Recommendations in the Intensive Care Unit: An Exploration After Serious Illness Care Training

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Serious illness conversations are an iterative, interprofessional, team-based process that includes recommendations about medical care. Yet, it is not clear how clinicians in different role groups work together in this process. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> We sought to examine how interprofessional clinicians in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) who were trained in the serious illness care program (SICP) document recommendations after serious illness conversations. <b><i>Design:</i></b> This is a retrospective chart review and inductive content analysis. <b><i>Settings/Subjects:</i></b> We reviewed the charts of patients admitted to the MICU of an academic hospital with a long history of palliative care (PC) in the northeastern United States between January 1 and December 31, 2019, who had at least one documented serious illness conversation. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of the 207 conversations identified, 177 (85.5%) included a recommendation: 44.6% (79/177) were documented by registered nurses, 36.7% (65/177) by physician trainees (internal medicine residents and pulmonology/critical care fellows), and 18.6% (33/177) by PC consultants (physicians, nurse practitioners, and PC fellows). Recommendations were categorized into several domains: (1) code status (2) treatment interventions, (3) psychosocial support, and (4) communication. The recommendations textbox was also used to document general updates and patient education. The most common domains documented were code status and treatment interventions, respectively: Registered nurses (40.5%; 20.3%), physician trainees (52.3%; 36.4%), and PC clinicians (42.4%; 32.3%). Clinicians used the direct/active voice to document recommendations concordant with their scope of practice and the reporter/passive voice to document recommendations given by others. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> SICP-trained interprofessional MICU clinicians commonly give and document recommendations on a range of domains and flexibly use direct/active and reporter/passive voice to signal their scope of practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Palliative Medicine
Published
2025-12-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10966218251403311
Primary Topic
Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Anatomy of Interprofessional Collaboration Around Recommendations in the Intensive Care Unit: An Exploration After Serious Illness Care Training

Jessica Logeman, Juliet Jacobsen, Jenny Klintman, C. F. McCarthy et al.
Journal of Palliative Medicine
Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
article

The Anatomy of Interprofessional Collaboration Around Recommendations in the Intensive Care Unit: An Exploration After Serious Illness Care Training

Jessica Logeman, Juliet Jacobsen, Jenny Klintman, C. F. McCarthy, Elizabeth Lindenberger, Arden O’Donnell
article en

Abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Serious illness conversations are an iterative, interprofessional, team-based process that includes recommendations about medical care. Yet, it is not clear how clinicians in different role groups work together in this process. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> We sought to examine how interprofessional clinicians in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) who were trained in the serious illness care program (SICP) document recommendations after serious illness conversations. <b><i>Design:</i></b> This is a retrospective chart review and inductive content analysis. <b><i>Settings/Subjects:</i></b> We reviewed the charts of patients admitted to the MICU of an academic hospital with a long history of palliative care (PC) in the northeastern United States between January 1 and December 31, 2019, who had at least one documented serious illness conversation. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of the 207 conversations identified, 177 (85.5%) included a recommendation: 44.6% (79/177) were documented by registered nurses, 36.7% (65/177) by physician trainees (internal medicine residents and pulmonology/critical care fellows), and 18.6% (33/177) by PC consultants (physicians, nurse practitioners, and PC fellows). Recommendations were categorized into several domains: (1) code status (2) treatment interventions, (3) psychosocial support, and (4) communication. The recommendations textbox was also used to document general updates and patient education. The most common domains documented were code status and treatment interventions, respectively: Registered nurses (40.5%; 20.3%), physician trainees (52.3%; 36.4%), and PC clinicians (42.4%; 32.3%). Clinicians used the direct/active voice to document recommendations concordant with their scope of practice and the reporter/passive voice to document recommendations given by others. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> SICP-trained interprofessional MICU clinicians commonly give and document recommendations on a range of domains and flexibly use direct/active and reporter/passive voice to signal their scope of practice.

Journal of Palliative Medicine
Harvard University (US), Lund University (SE), Kristianstad University (SE), Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.