Search

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented advance care planning (ACP) billing codes in 2016 to encourage practitioners to conduct and document ACP conversations, and included ACP as a quality metric in the CMS Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative in 2018. Use of this billing code in the inpatient setting has not been studied., Objective: To determine whether a quality improvement intervention to increase inpatient ACP is effective in increasing ACP billing rates or changing hospital treatment plans or patient outcomes., Design, Settings, and Participants: This nationwide cohort study and difference-in-differences analyses compared changes in ACP billing, treatment, and outcomes in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older who were hospitalized and cared for by 3 different groups: practitioners employed by a national acute care staffing organization who underwent an ACP quality improvement intervention, nonintervention practitioners at the same hospital, and control group practitioners from other hospitals. Using data from the Master Beneficiary Summary File, acute care hospital stays for nonsurgical conditions were linked to Medicare enrollment, claims, and vital status data from 1-year preadmission to 1-year postadmission from 2015 to 2019. The ACP billing rates for each group were assessed for associations with 6 inpatient treatments and 4 outcomes. Data analyses were performed from January 2022 to December 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Billed ACP conversations, receipt of intensive care and life support (intensive care unit admission, gastrostomy tube placement, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy), treatment limitations (newly initiated do-not-resuscitate orders) and outcomes (discharge to hospice, inpatient death, 30-day postadmission death, and 1-year postadmission death)., Results: The total study sample included 109 intervention hospitals, 1691 control hospitals, nearly 12 million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older, and 738 309 practitioners associated with admissions from 2016 to 2018. ACP billing rates increased more for the intervention (1.3% in preintervention to 14.0% in postintervention; P < .001) than for the nonintervention (same hospitals) and control groups (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7-4.1 intervention vs control). Increased ACP billing rates were significantly associated with decreased rates of inpatient death in the intervention group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00) compared to the nonintervention (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17) and control groups (reference). All other associations were nonsignificant., Conclusions and Relevance: This nationwide cohort study suggests that while the ACP quality initiative increased ACP billing, changes in clinical outcomes were inconsistent with the hypotheses. Further study is needed to address questions regarding confounding by unobserved measures of care quality.

Background: There are missed opportunities to discuss goals and preferences for care with seriously ill patients in the acute care setting. It is unknown which factors most influence clinician decision-making about communication at the point of care., Objective: This study utilized a cognitive-interviewing technique to better understand what leads clinicians to decide to have a goals of care (GOC) discussion in the acute care setting., Methods: A convenience sample of 15 oncologists, intensivists and hospitalists were recruited from a single academic medical center in a large urban area. Participants completed a cognitive interview describing their thought process when deciding whether to engage in GOC discussions in clinical vignettes., Results: 6 interconnected factors emerged as important in determining how likely the physician was to consider engaging in GOC at that time; (1) the participants' mental model of GOC, (2) timing of GOC related to stability, acuity and reversibility of the patient's condition, (3) clinical factors such as uncertainty, prognosis and recency of diagnosis, (4) patient factors including age and emotional state, (5) participants' role on the care team, and (6) clinician factors such as emotion and communication skill level., Conclusion: Participants were hesitant to commit to the present moment as the right time for GOC discussions based on variations in clinical presentation. Clinical decision support systems that include more targeted information about risk of clinical deterioration and likelihood of reversal of the acute condition may prompt physicians to discuss GOC, but more support for managing discomfort with uncertainty is also needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Care partners of people with serious illness experience significant challenges and unmet needs during the patient's treatment period and after their death. Learning from others with shared experiences can be valuable, but opportunities are not consistently available., Objective: This study aims to design and prototype a regional, facilitated, and web-based peer support network to help active and bereaved care partners of persons with serious illness be better prepared to cope with the surprises that arise during serious illness and in bereavement., Methods: An 18-member co-design team included active care partners and those in bereavement, people who had experienced serious illness, regional health care and support partners, and clinicians. It was guided by facilitators and peer network subject-matter experts. We conducted design exercises to identify the functions and specifications of a peer support network. Co-design members independently prioritized network specifications, which were incorporated into an early iteration of the web-based network., Results: The team prioritized two functions: (1) connecting care partners to information and (2) facilitating emotional support. The design process generated 24 potential network specifications to support these functions. The highest priorities included providing a supportive and respectful community; connecting people to trusted resources; reducing barriers to asking for help; and providing frequently asked questions and responses. The network platform had to be simple and intuitive, provide technical support for users, protect member privacy, provide publicly available information and a private discussion forum, and be easily accessible. It was feasible to enroll members in the ConnectShareCare web-based network over a 3-month period., Conclusions: A co-design process supported the identification of critical features of a peer support network for care partners of people with serious illnesses in a rural setting, as well as initial testing and use. Further testing is underway to assess the long-term viability and impact of the network., (©Elizabeth A O’Donnell, Aricca D Van Citters, Inas S Khayal, Matthew M Wilson, David Gustafson, Amber E Barnato, Andrea C Buccellato, Colleen Young, Megan M Holthoff, Eugene Korsunskiy, Stephanie C Tomlin, Amelia M Cullinan, Alexandra C Steinbaugh, Jennifer J Hinson, Kristen R Johnson, Andrew Williams, Ruth M Thomson, Janet M Haines, Anne B Holmes, Ann D Bradley, Eugene C Nelson, Kathryn B Kirkland. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 08.05.2024.)

Importance: Considerable racial segregation exists in US hospitals that cannot be explained by where patients live. Approaches to measuring such segregation are limited., Objective: To measure how and where sorting of older Black patients to different hospitals occurs within the same health care market., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study used 2019 Medicare claims data linked to geographic data. Hospital zip code markets were based on driving time. The local hospital segregation (LHS) index was defined as the difference between the racial composition of a hospital's admissions and the racial composition of the hospital's market. Assessed admissions were among US Medicare fee-for-service enrollees aged 65 or older living in the 48 contiguous states with at least 1 hospitalization in 2019 at a hospital with at least 200 hospitalizations. Data were analyzed from November 2022 to January 2024., Exposure: Degree of residential segregation, ownership status, region, teaching hospital designation, and disproportionate share hospital status., Main Outcomes and Measures: The LHS index by hospital and a regional LHS index by hospital referral region., Results: In the sample of 1991 acute care hospitals, 4 870 252 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.3] years; 2 822 006 [56.0%] female) were treated, including 11 435 American Indian or Alaska Native patients (0.2%), 129 376 Asian patients (2.6%), 597 564 Black patients (11.9%), 395 397 Hispanic patients (7.8), and 3 818 371 White patients (75.8%). In the sample, half of hospitalizations among Black patients occurred at 235 hospitals (11.8% of all hospitals); 878 hospitals (34.4%) exhibited a negative LHS score (ie, admitted fewer Black patients relative to their market area) while 1113 hospitals (45.0%) exhibited a positive LHS (ie, admitted more Black patients relative to their market area); of all hospitals, 79.4% exhibited racial admission patterns significantly different from their market. Hospital-level LHS was positively associated with government hospital status (coefficient, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.38), while New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Detroit, Michigan, hospital referral regions exhibited the highest regional LHS measures, with hospital referral region LHS scores of 0.12, 0.16, and 0.21, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a novel measure of LHS was developed to quantify the extent to which hospitals were admitting a representative proportion of Black patients relative to their market areas. A better understanding of hospital choice within neighborhoods would help to reduce racial inequities in health outcomes.

We describe racially discordant oncology encounters involving EOL decision-making. Fifty-eight provider interviews were content analyzed using the tenets of problematic integration theory. We found EOL discussions between non-Black providers and their Black patients were often complex and anxiety-inducing. That anxiety consisted of (1) ontological uncertainty in which providers characterized the nature of Black patients as distrustful, especially in the context of clinical trials; (2) ontological and epistemological uncertainty in which provider intercultural incompetency and perceived lack of patient health literacy were normalized and intertwined with provider assumptions about patients' religion and support systems; (3) epistemological uncertainty as ambivalence in which providers' feelings conflicted when deciding whether to speak with family members they perceived as lacking health literacy; (4) divergence in which the provider advised palliative care while the family desired surgery or cancer-directed medical treatment; and (5) impossibility when an ontological uncertainty stance of Black distrust was seen as natural by providers and therefore impossible to change. Some communication strategies used were indirect stereotyping, negotiating, asking a series of value questions, blame-guilt framing, and avoidance. We concluded that provider perceptions of Black distrust, religion, and social support influenced their ability to communicate effectively with patients.

Background: Guidelines recommend Advance Care Planning (ACP) for seriously ill older adults to increase the patient-centeredness of end-of-life care. Few interventions target the inpatient setting., Objective: To test the effect of a novel physician-directed intervention on ACP conversations in the inpatient setting., Design: Stepped wedge cluster-randomized design with five 1-month steps (October 2020-February 2021), and 3-month extensions at each end., Setting: A total of 35/125 hospitals staffed by a nationwide physician practice with an existing quality improvement initiative to increase ACP (enhanced usual care)., Participants: Physicians employed for ≥ 6 months at these hospitals; patients aged ≥ 65 years they treated between July 2020-May 2021., Intervention: Greater than or equal to 2 h of exposure to a theory-based video game designed to increase autonomous motivation for ACP; enhanced usual care., Main Measure: ACP billing (data abstractors blinded to intervention status)., Results: A total of 163/319 (52%) invited, eligible hospitalists consented to participate, 161 (98%) responded, and 132 (81%) completed all tasks. Physicians' mean age was 40 (SD 7); most were male (76%), Asian (52%), and reported playing the game for ≥ 2 h (81%). These physicians treated 44,235 eligible patients over the entire study period. Most patients (57%) were ≥ 75; 15% had COVID. ACP billing decreased between the pre- and post-intervention periods (26% v. 21%). After adjustment, the homogeneous effect of the game on ACP billing was non-significant (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.88-1.06; p = 0.42). There was effect modification by step (p < 0.001), with the game associated with increased billing in steps 1-3 (OR 1.03 [step 1]; OR 1.15 [step 2]; OR 1.13 [step 3]) and decreased billing in steps 4-5 (OR 0.66 [step 4]; OR 0.95 [step 5])., Conclusions: When added to enhanced usual care, a novel video game intervention had no clear effect on ACP billing, but variation across steps of the trial raised concerns about confounding from secular trends (i.e., COVID)., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04557930, 9/21/2020., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objective: To identify the factors that influence the mortality review process at health systems, including how mortality review is conducted, cases are adjudicated, and results are used., Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of the mortality review processes of 6 US health systems from February 1, 2021 to June 31, 2021. The data sources included individual and small-group semi-structured interviews with mortality review team members and a content analysis of site artifacts (eg, guiding principles, chart abstraction forms, review workflows, and clinical pathways developed from past mortality reviews). We analyzed each site's mortality review process, goals and incentives for mortality review, historical and evolving aspects of mortality review, personnel involved, and post-review use of findings., Results: Across the 6 systems, we interviewed a total of 24 mortality review experts and analyzed 26 site documents. We identified 3 thematic factors that influence mortality review processes: organizational intent, organizational structures for mortality review, and the mental models of individuals involved in the review process. Two subthemes emerged within organizational intent: (1) identifying preventable deaths to lower (clinical or financial) risk and (2) using death cases to guide system improvement. Sites varied in governance and decision rights concerning mortality review and adjudication, with 2 subthemes within organizational structures: (1) centralized-hierarchical and (2) decentralized or multidisciplinary. The analysis of mental models of participating reviewers revealed 2 themes: (1) confirmation of preventability and (2) identification of patterns or "signals.", Conclusion: Understanding the factors that influence mortality review allows health systems to better leverage mortality review for institutional improvement and to develop training that builds shared mental models to enhance the review process., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Physician participation in clinical trials is essential for the progress of modern medicine. However, the demand for physician research partners is outpacing physicians' interest in participating in scientific studies. Understanding the factors that influence physician participation in research is crucial to addressing this gap., Methods: In this study, we used a physician's social network, as constructed from patient billing data, to study if the research choices of a physician's immediate peers influence their likelihood to participate in scientific research. We analyzed data from 348 physicians across 40 hospitals. We used logistic regression models to examine the relationship between a physician's participation in clinical trials and the participation of their social network peers, adjusting for age, years of employment, and influences from other hospital facilities., Results: We found that the likelihood of a physician participating in clinical trials increased dramatically with the proportion of their social network-defined colleagues at their primary hospital who were participating ([Formula: see text] for a 1% increase in the proportion of participating peers, [Formula: see text]). Additionally, physicians who work regularly at multiple facilities were more likely to participate ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and increasingly so as the extent to which they have social network ties to colleagues at hospitals other than their primary hospital increases ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). These findings suggest an inter-hospital peer participation process., Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that the social structure of a physician's work-life is associated with their decision to participate in scientific research. The results suggest that interventions aimed at increasing physician participation in clinical trials could leverage the social networks of physicians to encourage participation. By identifying factors that influence physician participation in research, we can work towards closing the gap between the demand for physician research partners and the number of physicians willing to participate in scientific studies., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Racial disparities in hospice care are well documented for patients with cancer, but the existence, direction, and extent of disparity findings are contradictory across the literature. Current methods to identify racial disparities aggregate data to produce single-value quality measures that exclude important patient quality elements and, consequently, lack information to identify actionable equity improvement insights. Our goal was to develop an explainable machine learning approach that elucidates healthcare disparities and provides more actionable quality improvement information. We infused clinical information with engineering systems modeling and data science to develop a time-by-utilization profile per patient group at each hospital using US Medicare hospice utilization data for a cohort of patients with advanced (poor-prognosis) cancer that died April-December 2016. We calculated the difference between group profiles for people of color and white people to identify racial disparity signatures. Using machine learning, we clustered racial disparity signatures across hospitals and compared these clusters to classic quality measures and hospital characteristics. With 45,125 patients across 362 hospitals, we identified 7 clusters; 4 clusters (n = 190 hospitals) showed more hospice utilization by people of color than white people, 2 clusters (n = 106) showed more hospice utilization by white people than people of color, and 1 cluster (n = 66) showed no difference. Within-hospital racial disparity behaviors cannot be predicted from quality measures, showing how the true shape of disparities can be distorted through the lens of quality measures. This approach elucidates the shape of hospice racial disparities algorithmically from the same data used to calculate quality measures., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Context: Emotion regulation by the physician can influence the effectiveness of serious illness conversations. The feasibility of multimodal assessment of emotion regulation during these conversations is unknown., Objectives: To develop and assess an experimental framework for evaluating physician emotion regulation during serious illness conversations., Methods: We developed and then assessed a multimodal assessment framework for physician emotion regulation using a cross-sectional, pilot study on physicians trained in the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) in a simulated, telehealth encounter. Development of the assessment framework included a literature review and subject matter expert consultations. Our predefined feasibility endpoints included: an enrollment rate of ≥60% of approached physicians, >90% completion rate of survey items, and <20% missing data from wearable heart rate sensors. To describe physician emotion regulation, we performed a thematic analysis of the conversation, its documentation, and physician interviews., Results: Out of 12 physicians approached, 11 (92%) SICG-trained physicians enrolled in the study: five medical oncology and six palliative care physicians. All 11 completed the survey (100% completion rate). Two sensors (chest band, wrist sensor) had <20% missing data during study tasks. The forearm sensor had >20% missing data. The thematic analysis found that physicians': 1) overarching goal was to move beyond prognosis to reasonable hope; 2) tactically focused on establishing a trusting, supportive relationship; and 3) possessed incomplete awareness of their emotion regulation strategies., Conclusion: Our novel, multimodal assessment of physician emotion regulation was feasible in a simulated SICG encounter. Physicians exhibited an incomplete understanding of their emotion regulation strategies., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Palliative care units (PCUs) are devoted to intensive management of symptoms and other palliative care needs. We examined the association between opening a PCU and acute care processes at a single U.S. academic medical center. Methods: We retrospectively compared acute care processes for seriously ill patients admitted before and after the opening of a PCU at a single academic medical center. Outcomes included rates of change in code status to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) and comfort measures only (CMO) status, and time to DNR and CMO. We calculated unadjusted and adjusted rates and used logistic regression to assess interaction between care period and palliative care consultation. Results: There were 16,611 patients in the pre-PCU period and 18,305 patients in the post-PCU period. The post-PCU cohort was slightly older, with a higher Charlson index ( p  < 0.001 for both). Post-PCU, unadjusted rates of DNR and CMO increased from 16.4% to 18.3% ( p  < 0.001) and 9.3% to 11.5% ( p  < 0.001), respectively. Post-PCU, median time to DNR was unchanged (0 days), and time to CMO decreased from 6 to 5 days. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.08 ( p  = 0.01) for DNR and 1.19 ( p  < 0.001) for CMO. Significant interaction between care period and palliative care consultation for DNR ( p  = 0.04) and CMO ( p  = 0.01) suggests an important role for palliative care engagement. Conclusions: The opening of a PCU at a single center was associated with increased rates of DNR and CMO status for seriously ill patients.

Objective: To develop a patient-centered, web-based decision aid to support informed and value-concordant decision making among Medicaid enrollees considering tubal sterilization., Methods: We used the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) to guide systematic development of our decision aid. We interviewed 15 obstetrician-gynecologists and 40 women, who had considered or were considering tubal sterilization. A Steering Committee-comprising healthcare providers, social scientists, reproductive health and justice advocates, and people with lived experience-provided feedback and direction. We developed English and Spanish prototypes, which were beta tested with 24 women., Results: The resulting web-based My Decision/Mi Decisión tool (English/Spanish) includes written and video information about tubal sterilization procedures; an interactive table of contraception options; values clarification exercises; reflection and deliberation; knowledge checks; and a summary report to share with one's provider. Users found the decision aid to be informative, engaging, easy to use, and helpful in informing contraception decision making., Conclusion: My Decision/Mi Decisión is a scalable tool that could be implemented widely to support informed decision making about tubal sterilization., Innovation: This is a novel and timely web-based decision tool for tubal sterilization, when demand for permanent contraception is rapidly increasing post- Dobbs . While designed for Medicaid enrollees, further investigation will explore more generalized use., Competing Interests: The authors report no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Skillful communication with attention to patient and care partner priorities can help people with serious illnesses. Few patient-facing agenda-setting tools exist to facilitate such communication., Objective: To develop a tool to facilitate prioritization of patient and care partner concerns during serious illness visits., Patient or Family Involvement: Two family members of seriously ill individuals advised., Methods: We performed a literature review and developed a prototype agenda-setting tool. We modified the tool based on cognitive interviews with patients, families and clinicians. We piloted the tool with patients, care partners and clinicians to gain an initial impression of its perceived value., Results: Interviews with eight patients, eight care partners and seven clinicians, resulted in refinements to the initial tool, including supplementation with visual cues. In the pilot test, seven clinicians used the tool with 11 patients and 12 family members. Qualitatively, patients and care partners reported the guide helped them consider and assert their priorities. Clinicians reported the tool complemented usual practice. Most participants reported no distress, disruption or confusion., Discussion: Patients, care partners and clinicians appreciated centering patient priorities in serious illness visits using the agenda-setting tool. More thorough evaluation is required., Practical Value: The agenda-setting tool may operationalize elements of good serious illness care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Development of this manuscript was supported, in part, by the T32 Research Fellowship in Geriatric Mental Health Services Research (T32 MH19132; Bruce).Dr. Scalia has nothing to disclose. Ms. Collison has nothing to disclose. Mr. Wilson Milne has nothing to disclose. Dr. MacMartin has nothing to disclose. Dr. Barnato has nothing to disclose. Ms. Butt has nothing to disclose. Dr. Wasp has nothing to disclose. Dr. Saunders reports holding copyright in The Considerate Suite. Dr. Durand reports fees from EBSCO Health and ACCESS Community Health Network and reports holding copyright in The Considerate Suite. Dr. Nelson reports stocks in Quality Data Management, Inc. Dr. Elwyn reports royalties from Oxford University Press and Radcliffe Press, ownership of &think LLC, SHARPNetwork LLC, and fees from ACCESS Community Health Network, Chicago Federally Qualified Medical Centers, EBSCO Health, Bind Insurance, PatientWisdom Inc, abridge AI Inc. He also reports holding copyright in The Considerate Suite., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Early access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration., Methods: Mixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites' palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices., Results: Sites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of "favorable" organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care., Conclusion: Integration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Little is known regarding the fidelity of delivery of guideline-recommended components of palliative care in "real world" encounters. Objective: To develop a qualitative coding framework to identify components of clinical palliative care in clinical documentation across care settings. Design: Retrospective review of palliative care clinical documentation from medical providers, with directed qualitative content analysis to identify components of clinical care documented. Setting/Subjects: Purposively sampled deceased patients seen by palliative care at a US academic medical center between 7/1/2011-7/1/2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of this work is a coding framework for use in future research. We assessed the robustness of the framework using Cohen's kappa. Results: We reviewed sixty-two encounters from twenty-six patients. We identified 7 major themes in documentation: (1) addressing physical symptoms, (2) addressing psychological symptoms, (3) establishing illness understanding, (4) supporting decision making, (5) end-of-life planning, (6) understanding psychosocial context, and (7) care coordination. Interrater reliability varied widely between components, with Cohen's kappa ranging from -.51 to 1. Conclusions: This pilot study provides a coding framework to measure documentation of clinical palliative care components. Several components could not be reliably identified using this framework, suggesting the need for additional measurement strategies.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems rapidly responded to challenges in healthcare delivery with innovation. Innovations developed during the COVID-19 pandemic have filled needed gaps in medical care and many may be sustained long term. The unique conditions and processes that facilitated such rapid, successful, and collective innovation should be explored to support future change in healthcare. Decentralized decision making, crowdsourcing, and nontraditional information sharing may be valuable for ongoing innovation in healthcare delivery. Shared, collective purpose in solving challenges in healthcare appear critical to this work. Health care systems aiming to sustain rapid healthcare delivery innovation should consider these processes and focus on facilitating shared purpose to sustain ongoing innovation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite significant improvements in end-of-life care over several decades, belated hospice referrals and hospital staffing patterns make challenging end-of-life conversations between strangers unsurprising, especially when the interaction is time-sensitive. Understanding how physicians perform under these circumstances is relevant to patient quality and medical education. This study is a secondary analysis of transcripts from a simulation that placed 88 intensivists, hospitalists, and ED physicians in the setting of responding to a nurse's call to evaluate a floor patient for impending respiratory collapse. A philosophical account of prudence guided the analytical approach and was operationalized through behavior-based and exemplar-based qualitative coding strategies. Exemplary performances and specific behaviors were then compared with preferred outcomes. Results indicate that exemplary performance correlated with a cluster of 3 behaviors that predicted the desired outcomes, but did not determine them: (1) directly affirming the likelihood that the patient will die in the near term; (2) explicitly soliciting the patient's preferences for care; and (3) asking what other family and friends should be involved. The current study implies that educational initiatives aimed at improving end-of-life conversations should expose clinicians both to technical competencies and to the virtues required to employ these competencies well., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Purpose: We sought to characterize patient-oncologist communication and decision making about continuing or limiting systemic therapy in encounters after an initial consultation, with a particular focus on whether and how oncologists foster shared decision making (SDM)., Methods: We performed content analysis of outpatient oncology encounters at two US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers audio recorded between November 2010 and September 2014. A multidisciplinary team used a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. We used a combination of random and purposive sampling. We restricted quantitative frequency counts to the coded random sample but included all sampled encounters in qualitative thematic analysis., Results: Among 31 randomly sampled dyads with three encounters each, systemic therapy decision making was discussed in 90% (84 of 93) encounters. Thirty-four (37%) broached limiting therapy, which 27 (79%) framed as temporary, nine (26%) as completion of a standard regimen, and five (15%) as permanent discontinuation. Thematic analysis of these 93 encounters, plus five encounters purposively sampled for permanent discontinuation, found that (1) patients and oncologists framed continuing therapy as the default, (2) deficiencies in the SDM process (facilitating choice awareness, discussing options, and incorporating patient preferences) contributed to this default, and (3) oncologists use persuasion rather than deliberation when broaching discontinuation., Conclusion: In this study of outpatient encounters between patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists, when discussing systemic therapy, there exists a default to continue systemic therapy, and deficiencies in SDM contribute to this default.

Objective: To assess the psychometric properties of the consideRATE questions, a measure of serious illness experience., Methods: We recruited people at least 50 years old via paid panels online, with US-Census-based quotas. We randomized participants to a patient experience story at two time points. Participants completed a series of measures, including the consideRATE questions. We assessed convergent (Pearson's correlation), discriminative (one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test for multiple comparisons) and divergent (Pearson's correlation) validity. We also assessed intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation) and responsiveness to change (t-tests)., Results: We included 809 individuals in our analysis. We established convergent validity (r = 0.77; p < 0.001); discriminative validity (bad/neutral stories [mean diff=0.4; p < 0.001]; neutral/ good stories [mean diff=1.3; p < 0.001]) and moderate divergent validity (r = 0.57; p < 0.001). We established sensitivity to change in all stories (bad/good [mean diff=1.52; p < 0.001]; good/bad [mean diff= -1.68; p < 0.001]; neutral/bad [mean diff= -0.57; p < 0.001]; good/neutral [mean diff= -1.11; p < 0.001]; neutral/good [mean diff= 1.1; p < 0.001]) but one (bad/neutral [mean diff= 0.4; p < 0.07]). Intra-rater reliability was demonstrated between time points (r = 0.77; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: the consideRATE questions were reliable and valid in a simulated online test., Practice Implications: the consideRATE questions may be a practical way to measure serious illness experience and the effectiveness of interventions to improve it., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The diffusion of palliative care has been rapid, yet uncertainty remains regarding palliative care's "active ingredients." The National Consensus Project Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care identified eight domains of palliative care. Despite these identified domains, when pressed to describe the specific maneuvers used in clinical encounters, palliative care providers acknowledge that "it's complex." The field of systems has been used to explain complexity across many different types of systems. Specifically, engineering systems develop a representation of a system that helps manage complexity to help humans better understand the system. Our goal was to develop a system model of what palliative care providers do such that the elements of the model can be described concretely and sequentially, aggregated to describe the high-level domains currently described by palliative care, and connected to the complexity described by providers and the literature. Our study design combined methodological elements from both qualitative research and systems engineering modeling. The model drew on participant observation and debriefing semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary palliative care team members by a systems engineer. The setting was an interdisciplinary palliative care service in a US rural academic medical center. In the developed system model, we identified 59 functions provided to patients, families, non-palliative care provider(s), and palliative care provider(s). The high-level functions related to measurement, decision-making, and treatment address up to 8 states of an individual, including an overall holistic state, physical state, psychological state, spiritual state, cultural state, personal environment state, and clinical environment state. In contrast to previously described expert consensus domain-based descriptions of palliative care, this model more directly connects palliative care provider functions to emergent behaviors that may explain system-level mechanisms of action for palliative care. Thus, a systems modeling approach provides insights into the challenges surrounding the recurring question of what is in the palliative care "syringe.", (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Black and Hispanic people are more likely to contract COVID-19, require hospitalization, and die than White people due to differences in exposures, comorbidity risk, and healthcare access., Objective: To examine the association of race and ethnicity with treatment decisions and intensity for patients hospitalized for COVID-19., Design: Retrospective cohort analysis of manually abstracted electronic medical records., Patients: 7,997 patients (62% non-Hispanic White, 16% non-Black Hispanic, and 23% Black) hospitalized for COVID-19 at 135 community hospitals between March and June 2020 MAIN MEASURES: Advance care planning (ACP), do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), and in-hospital mortality. Among decedents, we classified the mode of death based on treatment intensity and code status as treatment limitation (no MV/DNR), treatment withdrawal (MV/DNR), maximal life support (MV/no DNR), or other (no MV/no DNR)., Key Results: Adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar between White (8%) and Black patients (9%, OR=1.1, 95% CI=0.9-1.4, p=0.254), and lower among Hispanic patients (6%, OR=0.7, 95% CI=0.6-1.0, p=0.032). Black and Hispanic patients were significantly more likely to be treated in the ICU (White 23%, Hispanic 27%, Black 28%) and to receive mechanical ventilation (White 12%, Hispanic 17%, Black 16%). The groups had similar rates of ACP (White 12%, Hispanic 12%, Black 11%), but Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to have a DNR order (White 13%, Hispanic 8%, Black 7%). Among decedents, there were significant differences in mode of death by race/ethnicity (treatment limitation: White 39%, Hispanic 17% (p=0.001), Black 18% (p<0.0001); treatment withdrawal: White 26%, Hispanic 43% (p=0.002), Black 28% (p=0.542); and maximal life support: White 21%, Hispanic 26% (p=0.308), Black 36% (p<0.0001))., Conclusions: Hospitalized Black and Hispanic COVID-19 patients received greater treatment intensity than White patients. This may have simultaneously mitigated disparities in in-hospital mortality while increasing burdensome treatment near death., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objective: Measures of variation in end-of-life (EOL) care intensity across hospitals are typically summarised using unidimensional measures. These measures do not capture the full dimensionality of complex clinical care trajectories over time that are needed to inform quality improvement efforts. The objective is to develop a novel visual map of EOL care trajectories that illustrates multidimensional utilisation over time., Setting: United States' National Cancer Institute or National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCI/NCCN)-designated hospitals., Participants: We identified Medicare claims for fee-for-service beneficiaries with poor prognosis cancers who died between April and December 2016 and received the preponderance of treatment in the last 6 months of life at an NCI/NCCN-designated hospital., Design: For each beneficiary, we transformed each Medicare claim into two elements to generate a two-dimensional individual-level heatmap. On the y-axis, each claim was classified into a categorical description of the service delivered by a healthcare resource. On the x-axis, the date for each claim was converted into the day number prior to death it occurred on. We then summed up individual-level heatmaps of patients attributed to each hospital to generate two-dimensional hospital-level heatmaps. We used four case studies to illustrate the feasibility of interpreting these heatmaps and to shed light on how they might be used to guide value-based, quality improvement initiatives., Results: We identified nine distinct EOL care delivery patterns from hospital-level heatmaps based on signal intensity and patterns for inpatient, outpatient and home-based hospice services. We illustrate that in most cases, heatmaps illustrating patterns of multidimensional healthcare utilisation over time provide more information about care trajectories and highlight more heterogeneity than current unidimensional measures., Conclusions: This study illustrates the feasibility of representing multidimensional EOL utilisation over time as a heatmap. These heatmaps may provide potentially actionable insights into hospital-level care delivery patterns, and the approach may generalise to other serious illness populations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ISK, GAB, AEB received grant support from the American Cancer Society (RSG-18-017-01-CPHPS). In addition, ISK and AEB received grant support from the Prouty Pilot Grant from Friends of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: We sought to determine whether dementia is associated with treatment intensity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19., Methods: This study includes review of the medical records for patients >60 years of age (n = 5394) hospitalized with COVID-19 from 132 community hospitals between March and June 2020. We examined the relationships between dementia and treatment intensity (including intensive care unit [ICU] admission and mechanical ventilation [MV] and care processes that may influence them, including advance care planning [ACP] billing and do-not-resuscitate [DNR] orders) and in-hospital mortality adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, month of hospitalization, and clustering within hospital. We further explored the effect of ACP conversations on the relationship between dementia and outcomes, both at the individual patient level (effect of having ACP) and at the hospital level (effect of being treated at a hospital with low: <10%, medium 10%-20%, or high >20% ACP rates)., Results: Ten percent (n = 522) of the patients had documented dementia. Dementia patients were older (>80 years: 60% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001), had a lower burden of comorbidity (3+ comorbidities: 31% vs. 38%, p = 0.003), were more likely to have ACP (28% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001) and a DNR order (52% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001), had similar rates of ICU admission (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.258), were less likely to receive MV (11% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), and more likely to die (22% vs. 14%, p < 0.0001). Differential treatment intensity among patients with dementia was concentrated in hospitals with low, dementia-biased ACP billing practices (risk-adjusted ICU use: 21% vs. 30%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, p = 0.016; risk-adjusted MV use: 6% vs. 16%, OR = 0.3, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Dementia was associated with lower treatment intensity and higher mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Differential treatment intensity was concentrated in low ACP billing hospitals suggesting an interplay between provider bias and "preference-sensitive" care for COVID-19., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Under-triage in trauma remains prevalent, in part because of decisions made by physicians at non-trauma centers. We developed two digital behavior change interventions to recalibrate physician heuristics (pattern recognition), and randomized 688 emergency medicine physicians to use the interventions or to a control. In this observational follow-up, we evaluated whether exposure to the interventions changed physician performance in practice., Methods: We obtained 2016 - 2018 Medicare claims for severely injured patients, linked the names of trial participants to National Provider Identifiers (NPIs), and identified claims filed by trial participants for injured patients presenting to non-trauma centers in the year before and after their trial. The primary outcome measure was the triage status of severely injured patients., Results: We linked 670 (97%) participants to NPIs, identified claims filed for severely injured patients by 520 (76%) participants, and claims filed at non-trauma centers by 228 (33%). Most participants were white (64%), male (67%), and had more than three years of experience (91%). Patients had a median Injury Severity Score of 16 (IQR 16 - 17), and primarily sustained neuro-trauma. After adjustment, patients treated by physicians randomized to the interventions experienced less under-triage in the year after the trial than before (41% versus 58% [-17%], P = 0.015); patients treated by physicians randomized to the control experienced no difference in under-triage (49% versus 56% [-7%], P = 0.35). The difference-in-the-difference was non-significant (10%, P = 0.18)., Conclusions: It was feasible to track trial participants' performance in national claims. Sample size limitations constrained causal inference about the effect of the interventions., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest DM, CCC, BF, MRR, DCA, DMY, AEB report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Effective communication between providers and patients with serious illness is critical to ensure that treatment is aligned with patient goals. We developed and tested an implementation strategy for incorporating the previously developed Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), a clinician script, into hematology-oncology fellowship training at a single US academic medical center. Between December 2017 and April 2018, we trained 8 oncology fellows to use and document the SICG. The training included associated communication skills-such as handling emotion and headlining-over 7 didactic sessions. Implementation strategies included training 4 oncology faculty as coaches to re-enforce fellows' skills and an electronic medical record template to document the SICG. We assessed effectiveness using 4 approaches: (1) SICG template use among fellows in the 12 months following training, (2) fellow confidence pre- and post-intervention via survey, (3) performance in 2 simulated patient encounters, and (4) semi-structured interviews after 12 months. Fellows successfully implemented the SICG in simulated patient encounters, though only 2 of 6 fellows documented any SICG in the clinical practice. Most fellows reported greater confidence in their communication after training. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed the following: (1) positive training experience, (2) improved patient preference elicitation, (3) selected SICG components used in a single encounter, (4) prioritize other clinical duties, (5) importance of emotion handling skills, (6) no faculty coaching receive outside training. Despite acquisition of communication skills, promoting new clinical behaviors remains challenging. More work is needed to identify which implementation strategies are required in this learner population., (© 2020. American Association for Cancer Education.)

Background: 30% of elderly patients who require emergency general surgery (EGS) die in the year after the operation. Preoperative discussions can determine whether patients receive preference-sensitive care. Theoretically, surgeons frame their conversations after systematically assessing the risks and benefits of management options based on the clinical characteristics of each case. However, little is known about how surgeons actually deliberate about those options., Objective: To identify variables that influence surgeons' assessment of management options for critically-ill EGS patients., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 general surgeons in western Pennsylvania who worked in a variety of hospital settings. Interviews explored perioperative decision-making by asking surgeons to think aloud about selected memorable cases and a standardized case vignette of a frail patient with acute mesenteric ischemia. We used constant comparative methods to analyze interview transcripts and inductively developed a framework for the decision-making process., Results: Surgeons averaged 13 years (standard deviation (SD) 10.4) of experience; 40% specialized in trauma/acute care surgery. Important themes regarding the main topic of "perioperative decision-making" included many considerations beyond the clinical characteristics of cases. Surgeons described the importance of variables ranging from the availability of institutional resources to professional norms. Surgeons often remarked on their desire to achieve individual flow, team efficiency, and concordant expectations of treatment and prognosis with patients., Conclusions: This is the first study to explore how surgeons decide among management options for critically-ill EGS patients. Surgeons' decision-making reflected a broad array of clinical, personal, and institutional variables. Effective interventions to ensure preference-sensitive care for EGS patients must address all of these variables., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hospitalization offers an opportunity for healthcare providers to initiate advance care planning (ACP) conversations, yet such conversations occur infrequently. Barriers to these conversations include attitudes, skill, and time. Our objective was to develop a theory-based, provider-level intervention to increase the frequency of ACP conversations in hospitals., Methods: We followed a systematic process to develop a theory-based, provider-level intervention to increase ACP conversations between providers and their hospitalized patients. Using principles established in Intervention Mapping and the Behavior Change Wheel, we identified a behavioral target, a theory of behavior change, behavior change techniques, and a mode of delivery. We addressed a limitation of these two processes of intervention development by also establishing a framework of design principles to structure the selection of intervention components. We partnered with a game development company to translate the output into a video game., Results: We identified willingness to engage in ACP conversations as the primary contributor to ACP behavior, and attitudes as a modifiable source of this willingness. We selected self-determination theory, and its emphasis on increasing autonomous motivation, as a relevant theory of behavior change and means of changing attitudes. Second, we mapped the components of autonomous motivation (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) to relevant behavior change techniques (e.g., identity). Third, we decided to deliver the intervention using a video game and to use the narrative engagement framework, which describes the use of stories to educate, model behavior, and immerse the user, to structure our selection of intervention components. Finally, in collaboration with a game development company, we used this framework to develop an adventure video game (Hopewell Hospitalist)., Conclusions: The systematic development of a theory-based intervention facilitates the mechanistic testing of the efficacy of the intervention, including the specification of hypotheses regarding mediators and moderators of outcomes. The intervention will be tested in a randomized clinical trial., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Before the predicted March 2020 surge of COVID-19, US healthcare organizations were charged with developing resource allocation policies. We assessed policy preparedness and substantive triage criteria within existing policies using a cross-sectional survey distributed to public health personnel and healthcare providers between March 23 and April 23, 2020. Personnel and providers from 68 organizations from 34 US states responded. While half of the organizations did not yet have formal allocation policies, all but 4 were in the process of developing policies. Using manual abstraction and natural language processing, we summarize the origins and features of the policies. Most policies included objective triage criteria, specified inapplicable criteria, separated triage and clinical decision making, detailed reassessment plans, offered an appeals process, and addressed palliative care. All but 1 policy referenced a sequential organ failure assessment score as a triage criterion, and 10 policies categorically excluded patients. Six policies were almost identical, tracing their origins to influenza planning. This sample of policies reflects organizational strategies of exemplar-based policy development and the use of objective criteria in triage decisions, either before or instead of clinical judgment, to support ethical distribution of resources. Future guidance is warranted on how to adapt policies across disease type, choose objective criteria, and specify processes that rely on clinical judgments.

Background: The demographics of heart failure are changing. The rate of growth of the "older" heart failure population, specifically those ≥ 75, has outpaced that of any other age group. These older patients were underrepresented in the early beta-blocker trials. There are several reasons, including a decreased potential for mortality benefit and increased risk of side effects, why the risk/benefit tradeoff may be different in this population., Objective: We aimed to determine the association between receipt of a beta-blocker after heart failure discharge and early mortality and readmission rates among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), specifically patients aged 75+., Design and Participants: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of beneficiaries with ≥ 1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2016 to run an instrumental variable analysis., Main Measure: The primary measure was 90-day, all-cause mortality; the secondary measure was 90-day, all-cause readmission., Key Results: Using the two-stage least squared methodology, among all HFrEF patients, receipt of a beta-blocker within 30-day of discharge was associated with a - 4.35% (95% CI - 6.27 to - 2.42%, p < 0.001) decrease in 90-day mortality and a - 4.66% (95% CI - 7.40 to - 1.91%, p = 0.001) decrease in 90-day readmission rates. Even among patients ≥ 75 years old, receipt of a beta-blocker at discharge was also associated with a significant decrease in 90-day mortality, - 4.78% (95% CI - 7.19 to - 2.40%, p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions, - 4.67% (95% CI - 7.89 to - 1.45%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Patients aged ≥ 75 years who receive a beta-blocker after HFrEF hospitalization have significantly lower 90-day mortality and readmission rates. The magnitude of benefit does not appear to wane with age. Absent a strong contraindication, all patients with HFrEF should attempt beta-blocker therapy at/after hospital discharge, regardless of age., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Importance: Early discussion of end-of-life (EOL) care preferences improves clinical outcomes and goal-concordant care. However, most EOL discussions occur approximately 1 month before death, despite most patients desiring information earlier., Objective: To describe successful navigation and missed opportunities for EOL discussions (eg, advance care planning, palliative care, discontinuation of disease-directed treatment, hospice care, and after-death wishes) between oncologists and outpatients with advanced cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary qualitative analysis of outpatient visits audio-recorded between November 2010 and September 2014 for the Studying Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted at 2 US academic medical centers. Participants included medical, gynecological, and radiation oncologists and patients with stage IV malignant neoplasm, whom oncologists characterized as being ones whom they "…would not be surprised if they were admitted to an intensive care unit or died within one year." Data were analyzed between January 2018 and August 2020., Exposures: The parent study randomized participants to oncologist- and patient-directed interventions to facilitate discussion of emotions. Encounters were sampled across preintervention and postintervention periods and all 4 treatment conditions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Secondary qualitative analysis was done of patient-oncologist dyads with 3 consecutive visits for EOL discussions, and a random sample of 7 to 8 dyads from 4 trial groups was analyzed for missed opportunities., Results: The full sample included 141 patients (54 women [38.3%]) and 39 oncologists (8 women [19.5%]) (mean [SD] age for both patients and oncologists, 56.3 [10.0] years). Of 423 encounters, only 21 (5%) included EOL discussions. Oncologists reevaluated treatment options in response to patients' concerns, honored patients as experts on their goals, or used anticipatory guidance to frame treatment reevaluation. In the random sample of 31 dyads and 93 encounters, 35 (38%) included at least 1 missed opportunity. Oncologists responded inadequately to patient concerns over disease progression or dying, used optimistic future talk to address patient concerns, or expressed concern over treatment discontinuation. Only 4 of 23 oncologists (17.4%) had both an EOL discussion and a missed opportunity., Conclusions and Relevance: Opportunities for EOL discussions were rarely realized, whereas missed opportunities were more common, a trend that mirrored oncologists' treatment style. There remains a need to address oncologists' sensitivity to EOL discussions, to avoid unnecessary EOL treatment.

Three palliative care clinical trials were presented at the 2020 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. The heterogeneity in populations, models of care, study design, and assessment of clinical outcomes across these three studies show the broad opportunities for research into interventions for palliative care. In this Viewpoint, we summarise the characteristics of these studies, discuss their novel features and lingering questions, and offer a suggestion for further expanding the focus of clinical trials for delivery of palliative care in the future. We particularly argue that the propensity to characterise palliative care as if it was a clinical or biomedical intervention hampers the design and evaluation of complex clinical interventions that influence clinicians, systems for health-care delivery, individual patients, and their families., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Goals of care discussions at the end of life give opportunity to affirm the autonomy and humanity of dying patients. Best practices exist for communication around goals of care, but there is no research on differences in approach taken by different specialties engaging these conversations. Objective: To describe the communication practices of internal medicine (IM), emergency medicine (EM), and critical care (CC) physicians in a high-fidelity simulation of a terminally ill patient with stable and defined end-of-life preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: Mixed-methods secondary analysis of transcripts obtained from a multicenter study simulating high stakes, time-limited end-of-life decision making in a cohort of 88 volunteer physicians (27 IM, 22 EM, and 39 CC) who were called to evaluate a standardized patient in extremis. The patient had clear comfort-oriented goals of care that the physician needed to elicit and use to inform treatment decisions. Discussions were coded at the level of the sentence for semantic content. Exposures: Data were analyzed by physician specialty. Main Outcome Measure: Occurrence of content codes indicative of prudent (right outcome by the right means) goals of care conversations. Data were analyzed both for number of occurrences of the code in a simulated conversation and for presence or absence of the code within a conversation. Results: There was no difference between physician types in intubation rates or intensive care unit admissions. Codes for "comfort as a goal of care," "noncurative goals of care," and "oblique references to death" emerged as significantly different between physician types. Conclusions and Relevance: This experiment shows demonstrable differences in practice patterns between physician specialties when addressing end-of-life decision making. Some of the variation likely arose from differences in setting, but these data suggest that training in goals of care conversations may benefit if it is adapted to the distinct needs and culture of each specialty., Competing Interests: None of the authors have a conflict of interest. The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government., (© Andre Morales et al., 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Context: No brief patient-reported experience measure focuses on the most significant concerns of seriously ill individuals., Objectives: The objective of the study was to develop the consideRATE questions., Methods: This user-centered design study had three phases. We reviewed the literature and consulted stakeholders, including caregivers, clinicians, and researchers, to identify the elements of care most important to patients (Phase 1). We refined items based on cognitive interviews with patients, families, and clinicians (Phase 2). We piloted the measure with patients and families (Phase 3)., Results: Phase 1 resulted in seven questions addressing the following elements: 1) care team attention to patients' physical symptoms, 2) emotional symptoms, 3) environment of care, 4) respect for patients' priorities, 5) communication about future plans, 6) communication about financial and similar affairs, and 7) communication about illness trajectory. Phase 2 participants included eight patients, eight family members, and seven clinicians. We added an open-text comment option. We did not identify any other issues that were important enough to participants to include. Response choices ranged from one (very bad) to four (very good), with a not applicable option (does not apply). Phase 3 involved 15 patients and 16 family members and demonstrated the acceptability of the consideRATE questions. Most reported that the questions were not distressing, disruptive, or confusing. Completion time averaged 2.4 minutes (range 1-5)., Conclusion: Our brief patient-reported serious illness experience measure is based on what matters most to patients, families, and clinicians. It was acceptable to patients and families in a regional sample. It has promise for use in clinical settings., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Fewer than half of the US population has an advance healthcare directive. Hospitalizations offer a key opportunity for clinicians to engage patients in advance care planning (ACP) conversations. Guidelines suggest screening for the presence of "serious illness" but do not further specify how to prioritize the 12.4 million patients hospitalized each year., Objective: To establish a normative standard for prioritizing hospitalized patients for ACP conversations., Design and Setting: A modified Delphi study, with three iterative rounds of online surveys., Participants: Multi-disciplinary group of US-based clinicians with research and practical expertise in ACP., Main Measures: Indirect and direct elicitation of short-term and 1-year risk of mortality that prompt experts to prioritize ACP conversations for hospitalized adults., Main Results: Fifty-seven of 108 (52%) candidate panelists completed round 1, and 47 completed rounds 2 and 3. Panelists were primarily physicians (84%), with significant experience (mean years 23 [SD 9.8]), who either taught (55%) and/or performed research about ACP (55%). In round 1, > 70% of panelists agreed that all hospitalized adults ≥ 65 years should have an ACP conversation before discharge, but disagreed about the timing and content of the conversation. By round 3, > 70% of participants agreed that patients with either high (> 10%) short-term or high (≥ 34%) 1-year risk of mortality should have a goals of care conversation (i.e., focused on preferences for near-term treatment), while patients with low (≤ 10%) short-term and low (< 19%) 1-year risk of mortality warranted an ACP conversation (i.e., focused on preferences for future care) before discharge., Limitations: Use of case vignettes to elicit clinician judgment; response rate., Conclusions: Panelists agreed that clinicians should have an ACP conversation with all hospitalized adults over 65 years in an ACP conversation, adjusting the content and timing of the conversation conditional on the patient's risk of short-term and 1-year mortality.

Background: A critical barrier to improving the quality of end-of-life (EOL) cancer care is our lack of understanding of the mechanisms underlying variation in EOL treatment intensity. This study aims to fill this gap by identifying 1) organizational and provider practice norms at major US cancer centers, and 2) how these norms influence provider decision making heuristics and patient expectations for EOL care, particularly for minority patients with advanced cancer., Methods: This is a multi-center, qualitative case study at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Comprehensive Cancer Centers. We will theoretically sample centers based upon National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsed EOL quality metrics and demographics to ensure heterogeneity in EOL intensity and region. A multidisciplinary team of clinician and non-clinician researchers will conduct direct observations, semi-structured interviews, and artifact collection. Participants will include: 1) cancer center and clinical service line administrators; 2) providers from medical, surgical, and radiation oncology; palliative or supportive care; intensive care; hospital medicine; and emergency medicine who see patients with cancer and have high clinical practice volume or high local influence (provider interviews and observations); and 3) adult patients with metastatic solid tumors and whom the provider would not be surprised if they died in the next 12 months and their caregivers (patient and caregiver interviews). Leadership interviews will probe about EOL institutional norms and organization. We will observe inpatient and outpatient care for two weeks. Provider interviews will use vignettes to probe explicit and implicit motivations for treatment choices. Semi-structured interviews with patients near EOL, or their family members and caregivers will explore past, current, and future decisions related to their cancer care. We will import transcribed field notes and interviews into Dedoose software for qualitative data management and analysis, and we will develop and apply a deductive and inductive codebook to the data., Discussion: This study aims to improve our understanding of organizational and provider practice norms pertinent to EOL care in U.S. cancer centers. This research will ultimately be used to inform a provider-oriented intervention to improve EOL care for racial and ethnic minority patients with advanced cancer., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT03780816 ; December 19, 2018.

Background: To better understand how radiation oncologists perceive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer and how these perceptions may influence treatment decisions., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews of radiation oncologists between January-May, 2016. We used a purposeful sampling technique to select participants across a wide range of experience, regions, and practice types. Two trained qualitative researchers used an inductive, iterative approach to code transcripts and identify themes. We then used content analysis and thematic analysis of the coded transcripts to understand radiation oncologists' attitudes and beliefs about IMRT and SBRT., Results: Thematic saturation was achieved after 20 interviews. Participants were affiliated with academic (n = 13; 65%), private (n = 5; 25%), and mixed (n = 2; 10%) practices and had a wide range of clinical experience (median 19 years; range 4-49 years). Analysis of interview transcripts revealed four general themes: 1) most radiation oncologists offered surgery, brachytherapy, IMRT, and active surveillance for low-risk patients; 2) there was no consensus on the comparative effectiveness of IMRT and SBRT; 3) key barriers to adopting SBRT included issues related to insurance, reimbursement, and practice inertia; and 4) despite these barriers, most participants envisioned SBRT use increasing over the next 5-10 years., Conclusions: In the absence of strong opinions about effectiveness, nonclinical factors influence the choice of radiation treatment. Despite a lack of consensus, most participants agreed SBRT may become a standard of care in the future.

Rationale: Patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation experience low survival rates and incur high healthcare costs. However, little is known about how to optimally organize and manage their care. Objectives: To identify a set of effective care practices for patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation. Methods: We performed a focused ethnographic evaluation at eight long-term acute care hospitals in the United States ranking in either the lowest or highest quartile of risk-adjusted mortality in at least four of the five years between 2007 and 2011. Measurements and Main Results: We conducted 329 hours of direct observation, 196 interviews, and 39 episodes of job shadowing. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis and a positive-negative deviance approach. We found that high- and low-performing hospitals differed substantially in their approach to care. High-performing hospitals actively promoted interdisciplinary communication and coordination using a range of organizational practices, including factors related to leadership (e.g., leaders who communicate a culture of quality improvement), staffing (e.g., lower nurse-to-patient ratios and ready availability of psychologists and spiritual care providers), care protocols (e.g., specific yet flexible respiratory therapy-driven weaning protocols), team meetings (e.g., interdisciplinary meetings that include direct care providers), and the physical plant (e.g., large workstations that allow groups to interact). These practices were believed to facilitate care that is simultaneously goal directed and responsive to individual patient needs, leading to more successful liberation from mechanical ventilation and improved survival. Conclusions: High-performing long-term acute care hospitals employ several organizational practices that may be helpful in improving care for patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Objective: To develop prostate cancer-specific physician-hospital networks to define hospital-based units that more accurately group hospitals, providers, and the patients they serve., Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We created physician-hospital networks by assigning each patient to a physician and each physician to a hospital based on treatment patterns. We assessed content validity by examining characteristics of hospitals anchoring the physician-hospital networks and of the patients associated with these hospitals., Results: We identified 42,963 patients associated with 344 physician-hospital networks. Networks anchored by a teaching hospital (compared to a nonteaching hospital) had higher median numbers of prostate cancer patients (117 [interquartile range {71-189} vs 82 {50-126}]) and treating physicians (7 [4-11] vs 4 [3-6]) (both P <0.001). On average, patients traveled farther to networks anchored by a teaching hospital (49 miles [standard deviation] [207] vs 41 [183]; P <.001). Hospitals known as high-volume centers for robotic prostatectomies, proton-beam therapy, and active surveillance had network rates for these procedures well above the mean. Hospitals known as safety net providers served higher proportions of minorities., Conclusion: We empirically developed prostate-cancer specific physician-hospital networks that exhibit content validity and are relevant from a clinical and policy perspective. They have the potential to become targets for policy interventions focused on improving the delivery of prostate cancer care., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To combat the high cost and increasing burden of quality reporting, the Medicare Payment Advisory (MedPAC) has recommended using claims data wherever possible to measure clinical quality. In this article, we use a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and existing quality metrics to explore the impact of changes in quality metric methodology on measured quality performance, the association with patient outcomes, and hospital rankings., Methods and Results: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D from 2008 to 2015 to create (1) a cohort of 295 494 fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥1 hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and (2) a cohort of 1079 hospitals with ≥11 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction admissions in 2014 and 2015. We used Part D data to calculate β-blocker use after discharge and β-blocker use over time. We then varied the quality metric methodologies to explore the impact on measured performance. We then used multivariable time-to-event analyses to explore the impact of metric methodology on the association between quality performance and patient outcomes and Kendall's Tau to describe impact of quality metric methodology on hospital rankings. We found that quality metric methodology had a significant impact on measured quality performance. The association between quality performance and readmissions was sensitive to changes in methodology but the association with 1-year mortality was not. Changes in quality metric methodology also had a substantial impact on hospital quality rankings., Conclusions: This article highlights how small changes in quality metric methodology can have a significant impact on measured quality performance, the association between quality performance and utilization-based outcomes, and hospital rankings. These findings highlight the need for standardized quality metric methodologies, better case-mix adjustment and cast further doubt on the use of utilization-based outcomes as quality metrics in chronic diseases.

Background: We calculated the performance of National Cancer Institute (NCI)/National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers' end-of-life (EOL) quality metrics among minority and white decedents to explore center-attributable sources of EOL disparities., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with poor-prognosis cancers who died between April 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 and had any inpatient services in the last 6 months of life. We attributed patients' EOL treatment to the center at which they received the preponderance of EOL inpatient services and calculated eight risk-adjusted metrics of EOL quality (hospice admission ≤3 days before death; chemotherapy last 14 days of life; ≥2 emergency department (ED) visits; intensive care unit (ICU) admission; or life-sustaining treatment last 30 days; hospice referral; palliative care; advance care planning last 6 months). We compared performance between patients across and within centers., Results: Among 126,434 patients, 10,119 received treatment at one of 54 NCI/NCCN centers. In aggregate, performance was worse among minorities for ED visits (10.3% vs 7.4%, P < .01), ICU admissions (32.9% vs 30.4%, P = .03), no hospice referral (39.5% vs 37.0%, P = .03), and life-sustaining treatment (19.4% vs 16.2%, P < .01). Despite high within-center correlation for minority and white metrics (0.61-0.79; P < .01), five metrics demonstrated worse performance as the concentration of minorities increased: ED visits (P = .03), ICU admission (P < .01), no hospice referral (P < .01), and life-sustaining treatments (P < .01)., Conclusion: EOL quality metrics vary across NCI/NCCN centers. Within center, care was similar for minority and white patients. Minority-serving centers had worse performance on many metrics., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Technology availability and prior experience with novel cancer treatments may partially drive their use. We sought to examine this issue in the context of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) by studying how its use for an established indication (lung cancer) impacts its use for an emerging indication (prostate cancer)., Methods: Using SEER-Medicare from 2007 to 2011, we developed prostate cancer-specific physician-hospital networks. Our primary dependent variable was SBRT use for prostate cancer and our primary independent variable was SBRT use for lung cancer, both at the network level. To assess the influence of SBRT availability and experiential use, we generated predicted probabilities of SBRT use for prostate cancer stratified by a network's use of lung cancer SBRT, adjusting for network characteristics. To assess intensity of use, we examined the correlation between the proportion of prostate cancer patients and lung cancer patients receiving SBRT within a network., Results: We identified 316 networks that served 41,034 prostate cancer and 83,433 lung cancer patients. A network was significantly more likely to use SBRT for prostate cancer if that network used SBRT for lung cancer (e.g., in 2011, odds ratio [OR] 12.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-41.8). The Pearson's correlation between the proportion of prostate cancer patients and lung cancer patients receiving SBRT in a network was 0.34, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.12)., Conclusions: SBRT availability and experiential use for lung cancer influences its use for prostate cancer, but intensity of use for one does not relate to intensity of use for the other., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To our knowledge it is unknown whether stereotactic body radiation therapy of prostate cancer is a substitute for other radiation treatments or surgery, or for expanding the pool of patients who undergo treatment instead of active surveillance., Materials and Methods: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare we identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We developed physician-hospital networks by identifying the treating physician of each patient based on the primary treatment received and subsequently assigning each physician to a hospital. We examined the relative distribution of prostate cancer treatments stratified by whether stereotactic body radiation therapy was performed in a network by fitting logistic regression models with robust SEs to account for patient clustering in networks., Results: We identified 344 physician-hospital networks, including 30 (8.7%) and 314 (91.3%) in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was and was not performed, respectively. Networks in which that therapy was and was not done did not differ with time in the performance of robotic and radical prostatectomy, and active surveillance (all p >0.05). The relationship with intensity modulated radiation therapy did not show any consistent temporal pattern. In networks in which it was performed less intensity modulated radiation therapy was initially done but there were similar rates in later years. Brachytherapy trends differed among networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed with a lower brachytherapy rate in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was done (p=0.03)., Conclusions: Surgery and active surveillance rates did not differ in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed but when that therapy was done there was a lower brachytherapy rate. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may represent more of an alternative to brachytherapy than to active surveillance.

Importance: Despite evidence that treatment of severely injured patients at trauma centers is associated with reduced mortality, nearly half of all such patients are treated at nontrauma centers (undertriaged). Little is known about whether interfacility undertriage occurs because of practitioner decision-making or institutional and regional factors., Objectives: To assess the associations between variation in triage practitioners at nontrauma centers and between practitioner-level variation and patient outcomes after injury., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from severely injured patients presenting to nontrauma centers and the practitioners who evaluated them in the emergency department from January 1, 2010, to October 15, 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 15, 2018, to March 21, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of variation in undertriage associated with practitioners, practitioner rates of undertriage, practitioner characteristics associated with undertriage, and 30-day case-fatality rate., Results: A total of 124 008 severely injured patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [8.4] years; 67 253 [54.2%] female) and the 25 376 practitioners (5564 [21.9%] female) who evaluated the patients in the emergency department of nontrauma centers were included in the study. Undertriage occurred among 85 403 patients (68.9%), with 40.6% of total variation associated with practitioners, 37.8% with hospitals, and 6.7% with regions. Compared with physicians with National Provider Identification (NPI) enumeration before 2007, those with an NPI enumerated between 2007 and 2010 had an undertriage risk ratio (RR) of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), and those with an NPI enumerated after 2010 had an undertriage RR of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99). Hospitals with neurosurgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.45-1.57) compared with those that did not; hospitals with spine surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.06-1.13); hospitals with general surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09-1.17). Compared with practitioners who undertriaged 25% or less of patients, a statistically significant increase was found in the odds of death for patients treated by practitioners with a triage rate of less than 25% to 50% (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) and less than 50% to 75% undertriage (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) but not undertriage at greater than 75% (OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18). In sensitivity analyses to adjust for unmeasured confounding, the association between triage practices and the case fatality rate became monotonic; compared with patients treated by practitioners with an undertriage rate of 25% or less, the odds of case fatality were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.21; P = .001) among patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates less than 25% to 50%, 1.22 (95% CI, 1.13-1.32; P < .001) for patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates less than 50% to 75%, and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.10-1.30; P < .001) for patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates greater than 75%., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that individual practitioner practices are an important source of variation in triage and represent a potential locus of intervention to reduce preventable deaths after injury.

Background: A majority of severely injured patients fail to receive care at trauma centers (undertriage), in part, because of physician judgment. We previously developed two educational video games that reduced physicians' undertriage compared with control in two clinical trials. In this secondary analysis, we investigated heterogeneity of treatment effect of the interventions by assessing physicians' preexisting practice patterns in claims data. We hypothesized that physicians with high preexisting undertriage would benefit most from game-based training., Methods: Using Medicare claims records from 2010 to 2015, we measured physicians' preexisting triage practices before their participation in one of two trials conducted in 2016 and 2017. We categorized physicians as having received game-based training versus control and noted their postintervention simulation triage performance in the trials. We used multivariable linear regression models to assess the heterogeneity of game-based training effect among physicians with high and low preexisting undertriage., Results: Of the 394 eligible physicians from our trials, we identified 275 (70%) with claims for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries suffering severe injury between 2010 and 2015. On average, the physicians were 44 y old (SD 8.4) with 12 y (SD 8.2) of experience. We found significant interaction between preexisting practice and intervention efficacy (P = 0.04). Physicians with high undertriage before enrollment improved significantly with game-based training compared with the control (46% versus 63%, P < 0.001). Those with low preexisting undertriage did not (58% versus 56%, P = 0.76)., Conclusions: Using claims-based data, we found heterogeneity of treatment effect of interventions designed to recalibrate physician heuristics. Physicians with high preexisting undertriage benefited most from game-based training., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the relationship between treatment and subsequent functional status among prostate cancer patients., Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey data, we identified men 65 years or older diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2009 (follow-up through 2010) who were treated with conservative management, surgery, or radiation. Our primary outcome was functional status as measured by activities of daily living. Secondary outcomes included physical component summary and mental component summary scores, which are both calculated from the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12) questionnaires. We included patients who completed 2 surveys and performed propensity score analyses to match patients 1:5 with noncancer controls. We used generalized linear mixed effects models, accounting for clustering due to insurance plan., Results: We identified 408 patients of whom 143 (35%) underwent conservative management, 59 (14%) underwent surgery, and 206 (51%) underwent radiation. Among conservative management and radiation patients, changes in functional status mirrored that of their noncancer controls (all P > .05). Among surgery patients, changes in activities of daily living scores were not significant, but physical component summary (mean difference = 4.5, P < .001) and mental component summary (mean difference = 3.3, P = .01) scores declined slightly more than for their noncancer peers., Conclusion: Surgery patients had a slight decline in their general functional status whereas conservative management and radiation patients had no differences in functional status compared with their noncancer peers. Although the functional status of surgery patients declined more than that of their noncancer peers, this difference may not be clinically significant., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Being diagnosed with cancer often forces patients and families to make difficult medical decisions. How patients think they and others will feel in the future, termed affective predictions, may influence these decisions. These affective predictions are often biased, which may contribute to suboptimal care outcomes by influencing decisions related to palliative care and advance care planning., Objectives: This study aimed to translate perspectives from the decision sciences to inform future research about when and how affective predictions may influence decisions about palliative care and advance care planning., Methods: A systematic search of two databases to evaluate the extent to which affective predictions have been examined in the palliative care and advance care planning context yielded 35 relevant articles. Over half utilized qualitative methodologies (n = 21). Most studies were conducted in the U.S. (n = 12), Canada (n = 7), or European countries (n = 10). Study contexts included end of life (n = 10), early treatment decisions (n = 10), pain and symptom management (n = 7), and patient-provider communication (n = 6). The affective processes of patients (n = 20), caregivers (n = 16), and/or providers (n = 12) were examined., Results: Three features of the palliative care and advance care planning context may contribute to biased affective predictions: 1) early treatment decisions are made under heightened emotional states and with insufficient information; 2) palliative care decisions influence life domains beyond physical health; and 3) palliative care decisions involve multiple people., Conclusion: Biases in affective predictions may serve as a barrier to optimal palliative care delivery. Predictions are complicated by intense emotions, inadequate prognostic information, involvement of many individuals, and cancer's effect on non-health life domains. Applying decision science frameworks may generate insights about affective predictions that can be harnessed to solve challenges associated with optimal delivery of palliative care., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Rationale: Telemedicine is an increasingly common care delivery strategy in the ICU. However, ICU telemedicine programs vary widely in their clinical effectiveness, with some studies showing a large mortality benefit and others showing no benefit or even harm., Objectives: To identify the organizational factors associated with ICU telemedicine effectiveness., Methods: We performed a focused ethnographic evaluation of 10 ICU telemedicine programs using site visits, interviews, and focus groups in both facilities providing remote care and the target ICUs. Programs were selected based on their change in risk-adjusted mortality after adoption (decreased mortality, no change in mortality, and increased mortality). We used a constant comparative approach to guide data collection and analysis., Measurements and Main Results: We conducted 460 hours of direct observation, 222 interviews, and 18 focus groups across six telemedicine facilities and 10 target ICUs. Data analysis revealed three domains that influence ICU telemedicine effectiveness: 1) leadership (i.e., the decisions related to the role of the telemedicine, conflict resolution, and relationship building), 2) perceived value (i.e., expectations of availability and impact, staff satisfaction, and understanding of operations), and 3) organizational characteristics (i.e., staffing models, allowed involvement of the telemedicine unit, and new hire orientation). In the most effective telemedicine programs these factors led to services that are viewed as appropriate, integrated, responsive, and consistent., Conclusions: The effectiveness of ICU telemedicine programs may be influenced by several potentially modifiable factors within the domains of leadership, perceived value, and organizational structure.