Search

ObjectivesTo understand the facilitators and barriers to hospice staff engagement of patients and surrogates in advance care planning (ACP) conversations.DesignQualitative study conducted with purposive sampling and semistructured interviews using ATLAS.ti software to assist with template analysis.Settings and participantsParticipants included 51 hospice professionals (31 clinicians, 13 leaders, and 7 quality improvement administrators) from 4 geographically distinct nonprofit US hospices serving more than 2700 people.MeasuresInterview domains were derived from the implementation science framework of Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B), with additional questions soliciting recommendations for behavior change. Differences in themes were reconciled by consensus. The facilitator, barrier, and recommendation themes were organized within the COM-B framework.ResultsCapability was facilitated by interdisciplinary teamwork and specified clinical staff roles and inhibited by lack of self-perceived skill in engaging in ACP conversations. Opportunities for ACP occurred during admission to hospice, acute changes, or deterioration in patient condition. Opportunity-related environmental barriers included time constraints such as short patient stay in hospice and workload expectations that prevented clinicians from spending more time with patients and families. Motivation to discuss ACP was facilitated by the employee's goal of providing personalized, patient-centered care. Implicit assumptions about patients' and families' preferences reduced staff's motivation to engage in ACP. Hospice staff made recommendations to improve ACP discussions, including training and modeling practice sessions, earlier introduction of ACP concepts by clinicians in prehospice settings, and increasing workforce diversity to reflect the patient populations the organizations want to reach and cultural competency.Conclusions and implicationsEven hospice staff can be uncomfortable discussing death and dying. Yet staff were able to identify what worked well. Solutions to increase behavior of ACP engagement included staff training and modeling practice sessions, introducing ACP prior to hospice, and increasing workforce diversity to improve cultural competency.

ObjectivesApproximately 7.5 million US adults are homebound or have difficulty accessing office-based primary care. Home-based primary care (HBPC) provides such patients access to longitudinal medical care at home. The purpose of this study was to describe the challenges and adaptations by HBPC practices made during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignMixed-methods national survey.Setting and participantsHBPC practices identified as members of the American Academy of Homecare Medicine (AAHCM) or participants of Home-Centered Care Institute (HCCI) training programs.MethodsOnline survey regarding practice responses to COVID-19 surges, COVID-19 testing, the use of telemedicine, practice challenges due to COVID-19, and adaptations to address these challenges. Descriptive statistics and t tests described frequency distributions of nominal and categorical data; qualitative content analysis was used to summarize responses to the open-ended questions.ResultsSeventy-nine practices across 29 states were included in the final analyses. Eighty-five percent of practices continued to provide in-person care and nearly half cared for COVID-19 patients. Most practices pivoted to new use of video visits (76.3%). The most common challenges were as follows: patient lack of familiarity with telemedicine (81.9%), patient anxiety (77.8%), clinician anxiety (69.4%), technical difficulties reaching patients (66.7%), and supply shortages including masks, gown, and disinfecting materials (55.6%). Top adaptive strategies included using telemedicine (95.8%), reducing in-person visits (81.9%), providing resources for patients (52.8%), and staff training in PPE use and COVID testing (52.8%).Conclusions and implicationsHBPC practices experienced a wide array of COVID-19-related challenges. Most continued to see patients in the home, augmented visits with telemedicine and creatively adapted to the challenges. An increased recognition of the need for in-home care by health systems who observed its critical role in caring for fragile older adults may serve as a silver lining to the otherwise dark sky of the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 6 million adults in the United States are homebound or semi-homebound and would benefit from home-based medical care (HBMC). There is currently no nationally recognized quality of care framework for home-based medical care. We sought to capture diverse stakeholder perspectives on the essential aspects of quality HBMC and create a quality of care framework for homebound adults. A qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews from purposive sampling of key HBMC stakeholders was performed. Leaders from 12 exemplar HBMC practices (clinicians and administrators), advocacy groups (American Association of Retired Persons, National Partnership for Women and Families, Kaiser Family Foundation), and representatives from 3 key professional medical societies associated with HBMC participated in phone interviews. Semistructured interviews were based on domains of quality developed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) for individuals with multiple chronic conditions. We identified 3 categories of quality HBMC: provider and practice activities; provider characteristics; and outcomes for patients, caregivers, and providers. Within these 3 categories, we identified 10 domains and 49 standards for quality HBMC. These included 3 new domains (comprehensive assessment, patient/caregiver education, and provider competency) as well as specification and adaptation of the NQF Framework for Multiple Chronic Conditions domains for HBMC. Notably, several quality domains emanating from the NQF Framework for Multiple Chronic Conditions (transitions, access, and patient/caregiver engagement) were applicable to HBMC. This quality of care framework serves as a guide for HBMC practices seeking to improve their care quality and as a starting point for health systems and payers to ensure value from HBMC practices with whom they work.

BackgroundThe unique needs of homebound adults receiving home-based medical care (HBMC) (ie, home-based primary care and home-based palliative care services) are ideally provided by interdisciplinary care teams (IDTs) that provide coordinated care. The composition of team members from an array of organizations and the unique dimension of providing care in the home present specific challenges to timely access and communication of patient care information. The objective of this work was to develop a conceptual framework and corresponding quality indicators (QIs) that assess how IDT members for HBMC practices access and communicate key patient information with each other.MethodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature was performed to inform a framework for care coordination in the home and the development of candidate QIs to assess processes by which all IDT members optimally access and use patient information. A technical expert panel (TEP) participated in a modified Delphi process to assess the validity and feasibility of each QI and to identify which would be most suitable for testing in the field.ResultsThematic analysis of literature revealed 4 process themes for how HBMC practices might engage in high-quality care coordination: using electronic medical records, conducting interdisciplinary team meetings, sharing standardized patient assessments, and communicating via secure e-messaging. Based on these themes, 9 candidate QIs were developed to reflect these processes. Three candidate QIs were assessed by the TEP as valid and feasible to measure in an HBMC practice setting. These indicators focused on use of IDT meetings, standardized patient assessments, and secure e-messaging.ConclusionTranslating the complex issue of care coordination into QIs will improve care delivered to vulnerable home-limited adults who receive HBMC. Guided by the literature, we developed a framework to reflect optimal care coordination in the home setting and identified 3 candidate QIs to field-test in HBMC practices.