Trial Outcomes & Findings for Facilitating Communication Study (NCT NCT03721952)

Patients and family were screened and recruited from April 2019 to March 2023. Potential subjects received introductory calls from the research coordinator to assess interest and eligibility. Enrollees completed baseline surveys and were randomized. Patients and family were approached for interviews between March 2020 and December 2022. Clinicians and administrators were recruited between January 2021 and January 2023.

2823 patients and family were assessed for eligibility. 1806 were excluded; main reasons included: family or legal next of kin unavailable, and patient status improved/transferred from ICU. 568 declined participation; main reason given was the family member feeling overwhelmed. 505 family subjects were enrolled, representing 449 enrolled patients.

Measure Analysis Population Description: These data were not collected for family members ("Usual Care/CONTROL: Family" \& "Facilitator-Based INTERVENTION: Family" or "Clinician \& Administrator Interviewees" subjects. Patients can have more than one condition so the number will not sum to the number of participants analyzed.

Family member symptoms of depression and anxiety assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The HADS is a reliable and valid 14-item, 2-domain (anxiety and depression) tool used to assess symptoms of psychological distress. Seven items evaluate anxiety and seven evaluate depression. Each item is scored on a 4-point scale (ranging from 0-3. For each of three follow-up points (1-month, 3-month, and 6-month), the response variable was the sum of 7 items measuring depression, weighted for the number of items with valid responses. The sum could range from 0 to 21, with higher values indicating greater depression (i.e., worse outcome),

Family member symptoms of depression and anxiety assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The HADS is a reliable and valid 14-item, 2-domain (anxiety and depression) tool used to assess symptoms of psychological distress. Seven items evaluate anxiety and seven evaluate depression. Each item is scored on a 4-point scale (ranging from 0-3. For each of three follow-up points (1-month, 3-month, and 6-month), the response variable was the sum of 7 items measuring anxiety, weighted for the number of items with valid responses. The sum could range from 0 to 21, with higher values indicating greater anxiety (i.e., worse outcome)

Measure of family experience of patients with serious illness. The QUAL-E (Fam) is a validated 17-item companion instrument to the patient QUAL-E measure of quality of life at the end of life, with four subscales and two general items. This study is using 11 items from three subscales: Relationship with Health Care Provider, Completion, and Preparation subscales. For each of three follow-up points (1-month, 3-month, and 6-month), the response variable was the mean of the valid responses to QUAL-E (Fam) items #5, 6, 7, and 8. The mean could range from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating higher quality of relationship (i.e., better outcome).

Measure of family experience of patients with serious illness. The QUAL-E (Fam) is a validated 17-item companion instrument to the patient QUAL-E measure of quality of life at the end of life, with four subscales and two general items. This study is using 11 items from three subscales: Relationship with Health Care Provider, Completion, and Preparation subscales. For each of three follow-up points (1-month, 3-month, and 6-month), the response variable was the mean of the valid responses to QUAL-E (Fam) items #9, 10, and 11. The mean could range from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating higher sense of completion (i.e., better outcome).

Measure of family experience of patients with serious illness. The QUAL-E (Fam) is a validated 17-item companion instrument to the patient QUAL-E measure of quality of life at the end of life, with four subscales and two general items. This study is using 11 items from three subscales: Relationship with Health Care Provider, Completion, and Preparation subscales. For each of three follow-up points (1-month, 3-month, and 6-month), the response variable was the sum of valid responses to QUAL-E (Fam) items #12, 13, 14, and 15, weighted for the number of items with valid responses. The sum could range from 4 to 20, with higher values indicating greater preparation (i.e., better outcome).

Concordance between the care patients want and the care they receive is measured with two questions from the SUPPORT study. The first defines preference (care focused on extending life even with more pain and discomfort vs. care focused on relieving pain and discomfort even with not living as long.) The second assesses perception of current treatment using the same options. The outcome is a dichotomous variable of whether preference matches care received. For each of three follow-up points (1-month, 3-month, and 6-month), the response variable was coded 1 if the respondent's perception of the focus of care the patient received (comfort vs. life extension) matched their perception of the patient's preferred focus of care; and 0 if the perceived focus of care received did not match the perceived patient's care preference. If the response to either item was "don't know," the outcome was coded 0. The higher value indicated goal-concordant care (the better outcome).

The Impact of Event Scale-6 (IES-6), derived from the IES-R, uses six self-report items to assess subjective distress caused by a traumatic event. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 ("not at all") to 4 ("extremely"). For each of three follow-up points (1-month, 3-month, and 6-month), the response variable was the sum of 6 items measuring the traumatic impact of events, weighted for the number of items with valid responses. The sum could range from 0 to 24, with higher values indicating greater traumatic impact (i.e., worse outcome)

Documentation in the patient's electronic health record of hospital readmission within 30 days after discharge from the index hospitalization: 0=no readmission, 1=one or more readmissions; missing if index hospitalization still ongoing at the end of the 183-day follow-up period, patient death during index hospitalization, or randomization occurred after index hospitalization discharge. Valid outcomes could be either 0 or 1, with higher value indicating a worse outcome.

Number of full days on which the patient was alive and not in the hospital between the randomization date and 29 days after the randomization date. Values could range from 0 to 30, with higher value indicating a better outcome; missing if randomization occurred after index hospitalization discharge.

Number of full days on which the patient was alive and not in the hospital between the randomization date and 90 days after the randomization date. Values could range from 0 to 91, with higher value indicating a better outcome; missing if randomization occurred after index hospitalization discharge.

Number of full days on which the patient was alive and not in the hospital between the randomization date and 182 days after the randomization date. Values could range from 0 to 183, with higher value indicating a better outcome; missing if randomization occurred after index hospitalization discharge.

Number of full days on which the patient was alive and not in an ICU between the randomization date and 29 days after the randomization date. Values could range from 0 to 30, with higher value indicating a better outcome; missing if randomization occurred after index hospitalization discharge.

Number of full days on which the patient was alive and not in an ICU between the randomization date and 90 days after the randomization date. Values could range from 0 to 91, with higher value indicating a better outcome; missing if randomization occurred after index hospitalization discharge.

Number of full days on which the patient was alive and not in an ICU between the randomization date and 182 days after the randomization date. Values could range from 0 to 183, with higher value indicating a better outcome; missing if randomization occurred after index hospitalization discharge.

Total hospitalization costs from date of randomization to index hospitalization discharge. Costs ranged from $1,631.73 to $1,299,781.53, with higher value indicating a worse outcome; missing if the patient was randomized after discharge from the index hospitalization.

Total hospitalization costs for the 30-day period beginning with the date of randomization, adjusted to their value in December 2023 based on the Consumer Price Index for Medical Care. Values ranged from $1,631.73 to $585,386.34, with higher values indicating worse outcomes; missing if the patient was randomized after index hospitalization discharge.

The Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) is a 4-item questionnaire assessing participants' feelings of competence. Items can be worded differently for different target behaviors. Responses range from "Not at all true" (1) to "Very True" (7); higher score on the latent variable would indicate greater competence. We will evaluate this mediator cross-sectionally.

The Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) is a 4-item questionnaire assessing participants' feelings of competence. Items can be worded differently for different target behaviors. Responses range from "Not at all true" (1) to "Very True" (7); higher score on the latent variable would indicate greater competence. We will evaluate this mediator cross-sectionally.

The Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) is a 4-item questionnaire assessing participants' feelings of competence. Items can be worded differently for different target behaviors. Responses range from "Not at all true" (1) to "Very True" (7); higher score on the latent variable would indicate greater competence. We will evaluate this mediator cross-sectionally.

The "Acceptability of Intervention Measure" (AIM) is a 4 item measure with proven reliability, validity and responsiveness to change. It is designed to assess participants' perception of the intervention in which they participated as agreeable ("meets my approval"), palatable ("appealing to me") or satisfactory ("like it", "welcome it"). Response options include "completely disagree", "disagree", "neither agree nor disagree", "agree" and "completely agree". These items were asked of the intervention participants at the conclusion of the 3-month intervention phase.

Qualitative interviews after individual participation. Interviews will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore the factors associated with implementation, including aspects of the intervention, inner and outer settings, individuals, and processes of care. Individual constructs within these domains were chosen to fit this specific intervention and context.

Qualitative interviews after individual participation. Interviews will also explore three key implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, penetration) that will guide future dissemination of the intervention.