Serious Illness Conversation Documentation for Older Adults with High-Grade Glioma: A Mixed-Methods Study
Clicks: 1
ID: 320263
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #4 of 40 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Practice
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background Poor prognosis among older adults with high-grade glioma (HGG) heightens need for longitudinal serious illness conversations (SIC). We analyzed SIC quality among older HGG patients with and without palliative care consultation (PCC). Methods We retrospectively identified HGG patients aged ≥65 years from a single-site cancer registry and abstracted SIC documentation from their clinical records. Content: Using an established codebook from the Ariadne Labs Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), a standardized framework for comprehensive, high-quality SIC, we identified documentation about (1) prognostication; (2) goals of care; and (3) end-of-life care planning. Comprehensiveness: Using 16 possible subtopics, we calculated a summary score (range 0–16). Timing: We identified the first occurrence of documentation across disease phases: (1) diagnostic; (2) first-line treatment; (3) second-line treatment; and 4) end of life (after cancer-directed treatment). We compared documentation between patients who 1) received PCC vs not and 2) received early PCC (before second-line treatment) vs later or no PCC. Results Among 158 older adults, 102 (64.6%) had documented SIC: 89 (56.3%) on prognostication; 86 (54.4%) on goals of care; and 79 (50.6%) on end-of-life care. Half the cohort never had documented SIC (35.4%) or had it only in the end-of-life phase (15.8%). Median summary score was higher in patients with any PCC vs none (11 [8, 13] vs 0 [0, 4]; P<.01) and early vs late or no PCC (7 [4, 10] vs 0 [0, 2]; P<.01). Discussion We identified gaps in frequency, timeliness, and scope of SIC documentation. PCC may improve SIC documentation quality.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7167852464
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Rita C. Crooms, Sara Zalcgendler, Karen I. Connor, Rachelle Morgenstern, Jennie Taylor, Laura P. Gelfman, Barbara G. Vickrey |
| Journal | Neuro-Oncology Practice |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/nop/npag062
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.