Search

This cohort study characterizes current practice and trends among patients cared for and outcomes achieved by inpatient specialty palliative care services in the United States., Key Points Question How have the practice and outcomes of inpatient, specialty palliative care in the United States changed over time? Findings During the 5 years examined in this cohort study of 135 197 patients, palliative care teams saw an increasing percentage of patients with diagnoses other than cancer, saw an increasing percentage of patients discharged from the hospital alive, and connected more patients with outpatient supportive services. Meaning These trends suggest that inpatient palliative care teams are reaching a broader group of patients with serious illness and are seeing them earlier in their illnesses, consistent with emerging data and guidelines., Importance Although palliative care (PC) historically focused on patients with cancer and those near the end of life, evidence increasingly demonstrates a benefit to patients with a broad range of serious illnesses and to those earlier in their illness. The field of PC has expanded and evolved rapidly, resulting in a need to characterize practice over time to understand whether it reflects evolving evidence and guidelines. Objective To characterize current practice and trends among patients cared for and outcomes achieved by inpatient specialty PC services in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was performed from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, at 88 US hospitals in which PC teams voluntarily participate in the Palliative Care Quality Network (PCQN), a national quality improvement collaborative. A total of 135 197 patients were referred to PCQN teams during the study period. Initial analyses of the study data were conducted from March 3 to March 21, 2018. Exposure Inpatient PC consultation. Main Outcomes and Measures A total of 23 standardized data elements collected by PCQN teams that provided information about the characteristics of referred patients, including age, sex, Palliative Performance Scale score, and primary diagnosis leading to PC consult; reason(s) given for the consultation; and processes of care provided by the PC team, including disciplines involved, number of family meetings held, advance care planning documentation completed, and screened for and intervened on needs. Results A total of 135 197 patients were referred to inpatient PC (51.0% female; mean age, 71.3 years [range, 57.8-82.5 years]) and were significantly debilitated (mean Palliative Performance Scale score, 34.7%; range, 14.9%-56.8%). Cancer was the most common primary diagnosis (32.0%; range, 11.3%-93.9%), although rates decreased from 2013 to 2017 (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91; P

Care planning is a critical function of palliative care teams, but the impact of advance care planning and goals of care discussions by palliative care teams has not been well characterized.To describe the population of patients referred to inpatient palliative care consultation teams for care planning, the needs identified by palliative care clinicians, the care planning activities that occur, and the results of these activities.This was a prospective cohort study conducted between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. Seventy-eight inpatient palliative care teams from diverse US hospitals in the Palliative Care Quality Network, a national quality improvement collaborative. Standardized data were submitted for 73 145 patients.Inpatient palliative care consultation.Overall, 52 571 of 73 145 patients (71.9%) referred to inpatient palliative care were referred for care planning (range among teams, 27.5%-99.4% of patients). Patients referred for care planning were older (73.3 vs 67.9 years; F statistic, 1546.0; P .001), less likely to have cancer (30.0% vs 41.1%; P .001), and slightly more often had a clinical order of full code at the time of referral (54.6% vs 52.1%; P .001). Palliative care teams identified care planning needs in 52 825 of 73 145 patients (72.2%) overall, including 42 467 of 49 713 patients (85.4%) referred for care planning and in 10 054 of 17 475 patients (57.5%) referred for other reasons. Through care planning conversations, surrogates were identified for 10 571 of 11 149 patients (94.8%) and 9026 patients (37.4%) elected to change their code status. Substantially more patients indicated that a status of do not resuscitate/do not intubate was consistent with their goals (7006 [32.1%] preconsultation to 13 773 [63.1%] postconsultation). However, an advance directive was completed for just 2160 of 67 955 patients (3.2%) and a Physicians Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form was completed for 8359 of 67 955 patients (12.3%) seen by palliative care teams.Care planning was the most common reason for inpatient palliative care consultation, and care planning needs were often found even when the consultation was for other reasons. Surrogates were consistently identified, and patients' preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments were frequently updated. However, a minority of patients completed legal forms to document their care preferences, highlighting an area in need of improvement.

Background/aimPalliative care services (PCS) are recommended to enhance quality of care for hospitalized patients.MethodsWe evaluated the attitudes of liver transplant (LT) providers and perceived barriers to PCS for their patients by conducting a web-based survey of intensive care unit nurses, postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) physician trainees, nurse practitioners, fellows, and attending physicians on the LT service at an academic medical center.ResultsThe response rate was 44% (88/200). Providers agreed that LT and PCS are not mutually exclusive (86%, n = 76). Respondents reported confusion regarding criteria and timing for referral to PCS. Most suggested that referral is appropriate when death is imminent (78%, n = 69). Many providers felt that patients' depression (66%, n = 58) was poorly managed, although few identified that PCS were consulted for depression (28%, n = 25). Overall, 84% (n = 74) identified attending physicians as the main barrier to involving PCS, and attendings (93%, n = 82) were more likely than PGY1 (67%, n = 59) and nurses (55%, n = 48) to describe PCS as end-of-life care (p = 0.03). Nearly all LT providers agreed that patients welcomed goals of care discussions (83%, n = 73), were grateful for PCS (96%, n = 85), and received higher quality care with PCS (96%, n = 85).ConclusionLT providers overwhelmingly report that PCS benefit patients and are consistent with LT goals even while patients are listed for LT. Barriers to PCS include confusion over referral criteria and describing PCS as end-of-life care by attending physicians. PCS teams may expand access for LT patients by establishing clear criteria for PCS referral and targeting educational interventions about palliative care to attendings.

The objective of this cross-sectional questionnaire study was to assess associations of a self-report index of sun protection habit strength with sunscreen use in sporting environments and outdoor physical activity. Participants (n = 234) in field hockey, soccer, tennis and surf sports in Queensland, Australia, completed a self-administered survey on sun protection during organized sport, and during general outdoor physical activity during 2005/2006. The sun protection habit strength index was dichotomized into two categories. Multinomial logistic regression analyses assessed the associations of low versus high sun protection habit strength with three categories of sunscreen use (no or rare use; inadequate use; and adequate use). Compared to participants with low sun protection habit strength, those with high sun protection habit strength had significantly greater odds of any sunscreen use during organized sport and during general outdoor physical activity. This association was strongest for adequate sunscreen use in both settings. In conclusion, this study suggests that the measure of sun protection habit strength is a potentially useful assessment tool for future sun protection studies.

PURPOSE.: Approximately, 20.5 million Americans (17.2%) older than 40 years have a cataract in at least one eye, and rates are expected to rise to over 30 million by 2020. Wearing sunglass, especially early in life, may reduce the risk of cataracts. Meanwhile, little is known about the prevalence of wearing sunglasses in the United States, especially in areas with high ultraviolet radiation. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and predictors of wearing sunglasses in public outdoor recreation settings. METHODS.: Systematic observations were made at beaches, parks and outdoor public swimming pools in Honolulu, Hawaii on sunny days between November 2005 and June 2007. Observations were conducted independently by two trained observers between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm. During each observation period, each individual in the area was coded for gender, age category, clothing coverage, shade use, and use of sunglasses. RESULTS.: A total of 5171 people were observed by two independent observers, and the inter-rater reliability use of sunglasses was excellent (Cohen kappa = 0.83). Overall, 33.0% of people wore sunglasses. χ analysis revealed that significantly more people (p < 0.001) wore sunglasses at swimming pools (35.1%) and parks (34.8%) compared to beaches (30.4%). Adults (41.6%) were more likely to wear sunglasses than children (12.3%; p < 0.001). Gender was not significantly associated (p = 0.3) with the use of sunglasses (males = 32.7%; females = 33.3%). Those wearing hats were significantly more likely (p < 0.001) to wear sunglasses (46.6%) than those with bare heads (28.4%). CONCLUSIONS.: Direct observation in public outdoor recreation settings reveled that only one third of the population wore sunglasses. Further research should examine the use of sunglasses in other locations and investigate the effectiveness of interventions that promote the wearing of sunglasses in settings with risk for ultraviolet radiation exposure.

Background Verbal self-report is the method most often used to assess sunscreen use, but the data may be confounded by recall error and social desirability. Sunscreen swabbing is a non-invasive procedure to objectively assess the presence of sunscreen on the skin. This study examined the agreement between verbal reports of sunscreen use from survey and diary measures and objectively measured sunscreen use. Methods Participants were 564 parents, children aged 5–10 years, and lifeguards at 16 swimming pools in four regions of the U.S. Participants completed self-reported measures, including baseline and final surveys, as well as a 4-day diary and objective swabbing measures of sunscreen presence on 2 separate days. Data were collected in 2006 and analyzed in 2006–2007. Results Levels of sunscreen use were relatively high based on surveys (65.7%); diary data (40.3%); and swabbing measures (59.1%). Agreement between swabbing and diary measures of sunscreen use was fair to good, with κ statistics for children at 0.40, followed by lifeguards at 0.34 and parents at 0.27. Validity coefficients across measures of sunscreen use were higher for lifeguards and parents than for children, and diary measures were higher than surveys. No systematic errors were found across groups or by gender, latitude, study arm, or risk category. Conclusions These findings are comparable to those in other validation studies, including studies of the validity of dietary assessments. Self-reported estimates of sunscreen use by diaries or surveys appear to be as good as objective measures.