The main points of variation across centers related to the organizational context and resources with which the program was implemented. These differences created diverse foundations upon which local versions of 3WP were built.
Organizational context
Differences across participating sites provoked discussion of practical and logistical issues. For example, smaller centers with fewer staff members found it challenging to mobilize individuals to implement wishes due to competing clinical demands: “We’re so short-staffed, so I don’t know how often those kinds of things occur cause, like if eight people are working that means only three people can go sit down and have a [3WP] meeting.” (MD).
Larger centers also faced communication and mobilization challenges, but for different reasons. While it was easy to identify 3WP champions from a large pool of individuals, communicating about the program to the full staff complement was more difficult. “Honestly, we’re talking several hundred people that we’re trying to talk to.” (RN) This site also described needing to do a periodic “educational blitz” (RN) to reach new staff and keep awareness of the program at the top of everyone’s mind.
Each center identified different features of their ICU that facilitated the start and spread of the program. For some academic centers, it was a research tradition and the accompanying infrastructure “Any university that is accustomed to having lots of research studies … it’s easier to start than having to prove the benefits beforehand.” (MD). For other sites, it was an institutional mission statement that focused on high quality end-of-life care or the importance of a positive patient experience. Others identified particular strengths or resources of team members, such as having “a very young staff” (RN) enthusiastic about initiating new projects, or having a culture that emphasized the importance of palliative care “end-of-life is not something that most of our group shy away from” (MD).
Level of administrative support varied, with some centers emphasizing the key roles that clinical managers played in creating space and time to initiate 3WP, “When this came up he [Manager] threw his support behind it 150 percent” (RN), while others emphasized the initial challenge posed by management before they understood the nature and value of the program. Describing an early attempt to implement a patient’s wish of seeing his pet one last time, one clinical leader recalled asking for permission to bring the animal into the ICU. The person he asked “emailed his boss and then it turned into… ‘you need to get the CEO, every single leader and also the whole [University] to sign off, this is a universal policy’” (MD). More commonly, the initiation of 3WP was described as outside of the attention of administrators: “I’m sure they don’t know what 3 Wishes is, I don’t think anyone knows or cares what we’re doing” (MD). Typically, as the program continued, administrators became more aware of it, and were described as supportive - either passively or actively.
Each center had a core team of clinicians with different backgrounds and of different sizes who started the 3WP: “Our social workers, our spiritual care providers, our nurses do the asking part whereas the research team would collect the data. The research team often did the running if something required running” (RC). All sites noted that their program was initiated and run by front-line clinicians, and the team composition evolved over time: “One of the things that was intentional but looked organic was that it started out as an intensive care, palliative care, spiritual care collaboration with nursing, respiratory therapy, so it was very interprofessional from inception” (MD). Nursing staff were commonly described as key to the 3WP, especially in smaller centers: “Because we’re a community ICU, the bulk of our staff that are involved with patients are physicians and nurses just based on who’s available, because our interdisciplinary team is stretched thinner across the hospital than perhaps in the bigger sites, and so they’re not getting to know the patients as intensely as the nurses and physicians are.” (RN).
Resources
All sites were required to creatively identify and secure resources to support the 3WP, but strategies and successes differed. Some resources were readily available: staff enthusiasm, community contributions, and volunteer energy. “
During various times we actually have a lot of [volunteer]
people there, so they helped us a lot. These are students from the university … we actually utilize them a lot to help us gather supplies or to help us.” (RN). Other resources had to be creatively sourced. Organizing financial resources required ingenuity, with teams securing funds from research grants, awards, fundraising among staff and the hospital community, and small corporate grants for supplies, as outlined in Table
3. Several sites successfully tapped into resources beyond the ICU, such as musicians in the volunteer association. Others connected with groups such as school children who made blankets to comfort dying patients, forming ongoing relationships that benefitted both parties: “
The [school] board said ‘yup, we love it, it’s a great idea, but we in turn would like someone from the hospital to come and talk about death and dying and why the program is important’” (MD). Provision of supplies and services from local coffee shops and other stores was facilitated by forming relationships with local businesses. At one site, the hospital provided support from their operating budget: “
a 3 Wishes Project Manager was hired by administration after a little over a year of 3WP implementation when they saw the value of the project.” (MD).
Table 3
Sources of Monetary and In-kind Funding for the 3 Wishes Project
Cash |
Individual Donations |
Site-initiated fundraising | X | | X | X | X | | X |
Donations from family and friends of deceased patients | X | | X | X | X | | X |
Philanthropy from staff and community members | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
Organizational Funds |
Internal hospital grant | | | | X | | | |
Hospital operational funds | X | | | X | | | X |
Hospital Foundation funds | | | | X | X | | X |
Hospital Volunteer Association funds | X | X | | X | | X | |
Grants |
Peer review grant | X | X | X | X | | X | |
Corporate community grant | X | | | | | X | |
Internal research funds | X | X | | X | X | | X |
Cash awards | X | X | X | | | | |
In-Kind |
Donations from family and friends of deceased patients (e.g., candles) | X | | X | X | X | | x |
Donations by staff (e.g., music, nail polish) | X | | X | X | X | X | X |
Community members (e.g., blankets) | X | | X | X | X | X | X |
Hospital Volunteer Association support staff (e.g., musicians) | X | X | | X | | | |
Hospital corporate donations (e.g., parking passes) | X | X | | X | X | X | |
Other corporate donations (e.g., coffee shop) | X | | X | X | X | X | |