Continuum Audio The Approach to Serious-Illness Conversations With Dr. Jessica Besbris
Neurologists are privileged to act as guides for patients as they navigate the complex course of serious neurologic illnesses. Because of the impact on quality of life, personhood, and prognosis, neurologists must be able to conduct serious-illness conversations to improve rapport, reduce patient anxiety and depression, and increase the likelihood that treatment choices agree with patient goals and values.
In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Jessica M. Besbris, MD, author of the article "The Approach to Serious-Illness Conversations" in the Continuum® December 2025 Neuropalliative Care issue.
Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida.
Dr. Besbris is an assistant professor of neurology and internal medicine, and the director of the neuropalliative care, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California.
Additional Resources
Read the article: The Approach to Serious-Illness Conversations
Subscribe to Continuum®: shop.lww.com/Continuum
Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME
Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud
More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com
Social Media
Host: @headacheMD
Guest: @JessBesbris
Full episode transcript available here
Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. Be sure to visit the links in the episode notes for information about earning CME, subscribing to the journal, and exclusive access to interviews not featured on the podcast.
Dr Monteith: Hi, this is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Jessica Besbris about her article on the approach to serious illness conversation, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. How are you?
Dr Besbris: I'm doing great. Thank you so much for having me here today.
Dr Monteith: Well, thank you for being on our podcast.
Dr Besbris: My pleasure.
Dr Monteith: Why don't we start off with you introducing yourself?
Dr Besbris: Sure. So, my name is Jessica Besbris. I am a neurologist with fellowship training in palliative care, and I am currently at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where I am the director of our neuropalliative care program.
Dr Monteith: Excellent. So, how did you get involved in that?
Dr Besbris: Like, I think, many neurologists, I always knew I wanted to be a neurologist---or, I should say, from the moment I decided to be a doctor I knew that that was the type of doctor I wanted to be, a neurologist. So, I went into medical school with the aim of becoming a neurologist. And very quickly, when I started my clinical years, I was exposed to patients who were living with very serious illnesses. And I found myself really drawn to opportunities to help, opportunities to make people feel better, opportunities to improve quality of life in situations that on the face of it seemed really challenging, where maybe it seemed like our usual treatments were not necessarily the answer or were not the only answer. And so, I pretty quickly recognized that taking care of patients with serious illness was going to be a big part of my life as a neurologist and that palliative care was the way I wanted to help these patients and families.
Dr Monteith: And you mentioned you're leading the group. So, how many colleagues do you have in the program?
Dr Besbris: We have a very large palliative care group, but within neuropalliative care, it's myself and one other physician, a nurse practitioner, and a social worker.
Dr Monteith: Okay, well, I know you guys are busy.
Dr Besbris: Yes, we are very happy to be busy.
Dr Monteith: Yes. So, let's talk about the objectives of your article.
Dr Besbris: Sure. So, the goal of this article is to impress upon neurologists that it really is all of our jobs as neurologists to be having these conversations with our patients who are affected with serious illness. And then, in most areas of neurology, these conversations will come up. Whether it's giving a life changing diagnosis, or talking about treatment choices, or treatment not going the way that we had hoped, or even sometimes progression of disease or end-of-life care. These topics will come up for most of us in neurology, and really, we're hoping that this article not only makes the case that neurologists can and should be having these conversations, but that there are skills that we can teach in this article and with other resources to improve the skill level and sense of confidence that neurologists have when they enter into these conversations.
Dr Monteith: Great. I read that there are some developments in the field, on organizational levels, about really making these skills part of standard of care in terms of education. So, can you speak to that?
Dr Besbris: Yes. So, there have been a couple of really landmark papers and changes in the educational landscape that I think have really brought neuropalliative care in general, and serious illness conversation in particular, to the forefront. So, there were the position statements released by the American Academy of Neurology in 1996 and 2022, both of which really said, hey, all neurologists should be doing this and receive training on how to have these conversations and provide this care. And the ACGME, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, also requires neurology residency programs to learn how to communicate with patients and families, assess goals, and talk about end-of-life care. So, there's a real structural imperative now for neurologists to learn early on how to have serious illness conversations with their patients.
Dr Monteith: Great. If there's anything for our listeners to get out of this conversation, what are the essential points?
Dr Besbris: If you only take away one or two things from this conversation, I hope that they're that this is an awesome responsibility to be in a moment with a patient going through something challenging, to meet them in that moment with thoughtful, honest, empathic conversations about who they are and what's important to them. And that, just like any other procedure, these are skills that can be taught so that you can feel really confident and comfortable being in these moments.
Dr Monteith: Excellent. Wow. Okay, I feel your energy and your empathy already. And so, why don't we just talk about skills? What is the best way to deliver tough news? I read this wonderful chart on SPIKES protocol.
Dr Besbris: Yeah, the SPIKES protocol is one really well-known way to deliver serious news. And what's nice about SPIKES is it gives a mnemonic. And as neurology learners, we all love a good mnemonic to help you really center yourself when you're entering into these conversations so that you have a structured format to follow, just like with any procedure. So, the SPIKES protocol stands for Setting: so, making sure you have the right environment; Perception, or assessing what your patient or surrogate decision maker knows already so that you know where to begin; receiving an Invitation to deliver serious news. And then K stands for Knowledge, delivering in a clear and concise way the information that you want to make sure the family or patient walk away with. E for exploring Emotion; and S for really Summarizing what's been discussed and Strategizing on next steps. I think that having these kinds of conversations, it's just like being expert in anything. When you first start learning, it's helpful to have a set of very concrete steps you can follow. And you might even think through the mnemonic as you get ready to walk into that room. And as you become more expert, the flow becomes more natural. And maybe what you do before walking in to prepare is just honing what is that headline? What is that concise statement that I'm really going to give? And the rest may start to feel more natural and less protocolized.
Dr Monteith: And there are a few other mnemonics. There's the NURSE mnemonic, which I like. You know, there's a balance between saying things and sounding kind of… you know, sometimes they're like, well, how could you understand what I'm going through? Have you been through something like this? And people shy away, and they're afraid to kind of be a part of these conversations. So how do we approach that with this, a NURSE mnemonic in a way that's kind of sincere?
Dr Besbris: Absolutely. So, the NURSE mnemonic, unlike SPIKES, is not a step-by-step protocol. So, NURSE is a mnemonic, but you don't go through each letter and sort of give a naming statement and then an understanding statement and then a respecting statement and so on. Nurse is really a toolkit of different types of statements that we can give in response to emotions so that when you find yourself in a situation where a patient or family member is tearful, is scared, is angry, is expressing feelings, you have some phrases ready that feel authentic to you and that you feel are going to meet the moment and allow you to empathically respond to those emotions. Because until we do that, we really can't move further in this conversation with our patients and families feeling heard and respected. So, that NURSE mnemonic, those Naming, Understanding, Respecting, Supporting and Exploring statements, are really examples of statements that we can use to meet that moment with empathy and understanding and without implying that we have walked in their shoes. We want to avoid being presumptuous and really focus on just being present and empathic.
Dr Monteith: So, let's just kind of run through, I think it's really important. Let's run through some of these examples. Maybe if someone's crying hysterically, how would we respond to that?
Dr Besbris: So, this is an opportunity for Naming. And I made this one, I think, in the chart, a little bit obvious, meaning that we recognize when someone is crying that they are feeling probably very sad. This is an opportunity for us to name and thus normalize that emotion. I just think something as simple as, I think anyone would be really sad hearing this. These responses are not intended to fix this emotion. I'm not trying to get someone to stop crying or to, you know, necessarily not feel sad. It's really just to say, yeah, it's normal that you're feeling sad. It's okay. I'm here with you while you're feeling sad. And I'm going to be with you no matter what you're bringing to the table.
Dr Monteith: Yeah. Let's go through just a couple of others. I mean, these are really good.
Dr Besbris: Sure. Maybe Respecting.
Dr Monteith: Yeah. So, my Dad is a fighter. Only God, not doctors, can know the future.
Dr Besbris: Yeah. So, I love giving these examples with our learners because these statements, things like my Dad is a fighter or God will bring me a miracle or you don't know the answer. Only God knows what's going to happen, I think that they give a lot of doctors a feeling of confrontation, a feeling of anxiety. And I think there are a few reasons for that. And I think one of the main ones is that they're statements that imply that we as doctors are not all-powerful and it's our patients or families sort of looking for a different locus of control, whether it's internal fortitude or a higher power. They're looking to something other than us, and maybe that makes us feel a little bit uncomfortable. And I think that sometimes physicians think that these statements imply that someone doesn't even understand what's going on. But maybe they're coming to this from a place of denial. And I would argue that when someone comes to you with a statement like my dad is a fighter or, you know, I'm looking to God to bring me a miracle or to show me the future. I think that what they're really saying is, wow, I'm really hearing that things are serious, so much so that I'm reaching for these other resources to give me strength and hope. I don't think anyone asks for a miracle if they think that a miracle is not needed, if the problem is easy to fix. And so, rather than come to these types of statements from a confrontational place of I'm the doctor and I know best, I think this is a great opportunity to show some respect and give some respecting statements. Your dad is a fighter. I don't think he could have come this far without being a fighter. Or, you know, I am so grateful that you have your faith to lean on during times like these to give you strength. These are also nice opportunities for exploring statements. For example, I'm so grateful to learn more about your dad. Can you tell me what it is that he has been fighting for all of this time?
Dr Monteith: I love that. It's like a follow-up, and also validating.
Dr Besbris: Yeah, it's validating. And it allows us to learn a little bit more about this person and to learn, well, is he fighting for a life that we can still achieve with our interventions to lead into the next part of a conversation? Or, is God is going to bring me a miracle? Well, tell me what a miracle looks like for you. I can't tell you how many times I thought someone was going to tell me that a miracle would be cure. And sometimes that is what comes up. But other times I hear, a miracle would be, you know, my loved one surviving long enough for the rest of the family to gather. And, you know, that is certainly something we can work towards together.
Dr Monteith: So, why don't we talk a little bit about approach to goals of care discussions? They are tough, and let's just put it into perspective to the critical care team. It's time, the person's been in the ICU, the family wants everything thrown at medically. And it's to the point that the assessment is that would be medical futility.
Dr Besbris: Lots to unpack there.
Dr Monteith: I wanted to make it hard for you.
Dr Besbris: No, no, this is good! I mean, this is something- I work in a, you know, almost one thousand-bed hospital with a massive critical care building. And so, these are not unusual circumstances at all. First of all, I would just say that goals of care conversations are not only about end-of-life care. And I make that point a few different times in the article because I think when people imagine goals of care, and one of the reasons that I think clinicians may sometimes shy away from goals of care discussions, is that they think they have to be sad, they have to be scary, they have to be about death and dying. And I would argue that, really, goals of care discussions are about understanding who a person is, how they live their life, what's most important to them. Most of these conversations should be about living. How are we going to together achieve a quality of life that is meaningful for you and treatments that are going to fit your needs and your preferences? But there is a little slice of that pie in the pie chart of goals of care discussions that is in the arena of end-of-life care. For example, ICU care with, really, the highest levels of intensity of care, and having to talk about whether that still is meeting the moment from the perspective of goals as well as the perspective of efficacy.
So, from the goals standpoint, I approach these conversations just like any other goals of care conversation. Usually at this point, we're speaking to family members and not our patients because in a neurocritical care unit, if someone is that sick, they probably are incapacitated. And so, it's a moment to really sit down with family and say, please tell me about the human being lying in that bed. They can't introduce themselves. What would they tell me about themselves if they could speak right now? What kinds of things were important to them in the course of their treatment? What kind of a life did they want to live or do they want to live? So that then we can reflect on, well, can our treatment achieve that? And this process is called shared decision making. This is really where we take in data from the family, who are experts in the patient, and then our own expertise in the illness and what our treatments can achieve, and then bring all of that information together to make a recommendation that aligns with what we believe is right for a particular patient.
So, in the example that you gave, the extreme circumstance where someone is receiving maximal intensive care and we're starting to reach the point of futility, I think that we need to first really understand, well, what does futility mean for this particular patient? Is it that we as healthcare providers would not value living in the state this person is in? Or is it that the treatments truly cannot physiologically keep them alive or meet their stated goals? If it's the first one, that I wouldn't want to be on machines unconscious, you know, at the end of my life, well, I have to set that aside. It's really about what this patient wants. and if the family is telling you they valued every breath, every moment, and if we have care that can achieve that, we should continue to offer and recommend that care.
And as healthcare providers, it is so important that we do explain when treatments are not going to be able to physiologically meet a patient's needs or achieve their goals. And that's where we can say, I'm going to continue to do everything I can, for example, to, you know, keep your loved one here for these meaningful moments. And we are at a point where performing CPR would no longer be able to restart his heart. And I just wanted to let you know that that's not something that we're going to do because I have an obligation not to provide painful medical treatments that will not work. So, my approach to futility is really different than my approach to shared decision-making because in the context of objective futility, it's not about necessarily- it's not about decision-making, it's not about shared decision-making as much as it is explaining why something is simply not going to work. Does that make sense?
Dr Monteith: Absolutely. And what I love in your article is that, you know, you go beyond the skills, but also potential communication challenges---for example, patients' neurologic status, their ability to understand complex communication, or even cultural differences. So, can you speak about that briefly?
Dr Besbris: Absolutely. In the world of neurological serious illness, it is incredibly common for our patients to face challenges in communication. That might be because they are aphasic, because they have a motor speech deficit, it might be because they're intubated, it might be because their capacity is diminished or absent. And so, there are a lot of challenges to keeping patients in these conversations. And in the article, I summarize what those challenges can look like and some strategies that we can use to continue to engage our patients in these conversations to the greatest extent possible and also turn to their surrogate decision makers where the patients themselves are no longer able to participate or participate fully. In terms of cultural considerations, I mean, there could be an entire article or an entire Continuum just on cultural considerations in neurology and in serious illness communication.
And so, the key points that I really tried to focus on were exploring from a place of cultural humility what the beliefs and practices of a particular patient and family are in their cultural context, to ask questions to help you understand how those cultural differences may impact the way you approach these conversations. And being sensitive to folks with limited English proficiency, to ensure that we are using medical interpreters whenever possible.
Dr Monteith: Excellent. Well, there's so much in the article. There's already so much that we just discussed, but our listeners are going to have to go to the article to get the rest of this. I do want to ask you to just kind of reflect on, you know, all the different cases and experiences that you have, and just, if you can give us a final remark?
Dr Besbris: I can think of a number of cases that I've seen in my work as both an inpatient and outpatient neuropalliative provider where I've seen patients after strokes in the hospital with uncertain prognosis, whose families were struggling with a decision around feeding tubes. And where we have made a determination based on goals; for example, to pursue what's called a time-limited trial, to say let's place a feeding tube, let's meet again in the clinic in a few months after some rehab and let's just see, is this meeting this patient 's goals and expectations?
I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of patients who have walked into my office after a period of rehabilitation who have regained the ability to eat, who are living an acceptable quality of life, and who have expressed gratitude for the work that I did in eliciting their goals, helping support their families. And some of whom have even come in and said, now that I'm doing better, I'd really like to do an advance directive to better guide my family in the future. People asking for more goals of care discussions, having seen how successful and helpful these conversations have been.
Dr Monteith: Great. That's really life-altering for that patient, the family, so many people. Thank you so much for the work you do and for writing this great article and sharing all of this that we really need to learn more about.
Dr Besbris: It's been a privilege. Thank you so much for talking with me today.
Dr Monteith: Today I've been interviewing Dr Jessica Besbris about her article on the approach to serious illness conversation, which is found in the December 2025 Continuum issue on neuropalliative care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today.
Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use the link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.