Search

Background: Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis., Methods: We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes., Results: Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time., Conclusion: Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises., 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: Multiple medical organizations recommend using life expectancy (LE) to individualize diabetes care goals. We compare the performance of patient LE predictions made by physicians to LE predictions from a simulation model (the Chicago model) in a cohort of older diabetic patients., Design: Retrospective cohort study of a convenience sample (n = 447) of diabetes patients over 65 years and their physicians. Measurements: Physicians provided LE estimates for individual patients during a baseline survey (2000-2003). The prognostic model included a comprehensive geriatric type 2 diabetes simulation model (the Chicago model) and combinations of the physician estimate and the Chicago model ("And," "Or," and "Average" models). Observed survival was determined based on the National Death Index through 31 December 2010. The predictive accuracy of LE predictions was assessed using c-statistic for 5-year mortality; Harrell's c-statistic, and Integrated Brier score for overall survival. Results: The patient cohort had a mean (SD) age of 73.4 (5.9) years. The majority were female (62.6%) and black (79.4%). At 5 years, 108 (24.2%) patients had died. The c-statistic for 5-year mortality was similar for physicians (0.69) and the Chicago model (0.68), while the average of estimates by physicians and Chicago model yielded the highest c-statistic of any method tested (0.73). The estimates of overall survival yielded a similar pattern of results. Limitations: Generalizability of patient cohort and lack of updated model parameters. Conclusions: Compared with individual methods, the average of LE estimates by physicians and the Chicago model had the best predictive performance. Prognostic models, such as the Chicago model, may complement and support physicians' intuitions as they consider treatment decisions and goals for older patients with chronic conditions like diabetes.