Search

Racial inequities in palliative and end-of-life care have been well-documented for many years. This inequity is long-standing and resistant to many intervention efforts. One reason for this may be that research in racial inequity in palliative care, and the interventions developed, do not account for the effects of race and the everyday racism that patients of color experience while navigating the healthcare system. Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) offers researchers new routes of inquiry to broaden the scope of research priorities in palliative care and improving racial outcomes through a novel conceptual framework and methodology. PHCRP, based off critical race theory (CRT), contains ten principles within four foci to guide researchers toward a more race conscious approach for the generation of research questions, research processes, and development of interventions targeting racial inequities.

CONTEXT: Patients with underlying chronic illness requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure are at risk for poor outcomes and high costs. OBJECTIVES: Identify characteristics at time of intensive care unit (ICU) admission that identify patients at highest risk for high-intensity, costly care. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health and financial records (2011–2017) for patients requiring ≥48 hours of mechanical ventilation with ≥1 underlying chronic condition at an academic healthcare system. Main outcome was total cost of index hospitalization. Exposures of interest included number and type of chronic conditions. We used finite mixture models to identify the highest-cost group. RESULTS: 4,892 patients met study criteria. Median cost for index hospitalization was $135,238 (range, $9,748-$3,176,065). Finite mixture modelling identified three classes with mean costs of $89,980, $150,603, and $277,712. Patients more likely to be in the high-cost class were: 1) < 72 years old (OR: 2.03; 95% CI:1.63, 2.52); 2) with dementia (OR: 1.55; 95% CI:1.17, 2.06) or chronic renal failure (OR: 1.27; 95% CI:1.08, 1.48); 3) weight loss ≥ 5% in year prior to hospital admission (OR: 1.25; 95% CI:1.05, 1.48); and 4) hospitalized during prior year (OR: 1.92; 95% CI:1.58, 2.35). CONCLUSION: Among patients with underlying chronic illness and acute respiratory failure, we identified characteristics associated with the highest costs of care. Identifying these patients may be of interest to healthcare systems and hospitals and serve as one indication to invest resources in palliative and supportive care programs that ensure this care is consistent with patients’ goals.

Rationale Intensive care unit (ICU) visitation restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have drastically reduced family-engaged care. Understanding the impact of physical distancing on family members of ICU patients is needed to inform future policies. Objective To understand the experiences of family members of critically ill patients with COVID-19 when physically distanced from their loved ones and to explore ways clinicians may support them. Methods This qualitative study of an observational cohort study reports data from 74 family members of ICU patients with COVID-19 at ten US hospitals in four states, chosen based on geographic and demographic diversity. Adult family members of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 during the early phase of the pandemic (February-June 2020) were invited to participate in a phone interview. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide to assess four constructs: illness narrative, stress experiences, communication experiences, and satisfaction with care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. Results Among 74 interviewees, the mean age was 53.0 years; 55% were white, and 76% were female. Physical distancing contributed to substantial stress and harms (nine themes). Participants described profound suffering and psychological illness, unfavorable perceptions of care, and weakened therapeutic relationship between family members and clinicians. Three communication principles emerged as those most valued by family members: contact, consistency, and compassion (the 3Cs). Family members offered suggestions to guide clinicians faced with communicating with physically distanced families. Conclusions Visitation restrictions impose substantial psychological harms upon family members of critically ill patients. Derived from the voices of family members, our findings warrant strong consideration when implementing visitation restrictions in the ICU and advocate for investment in infrastructure (including staffing and videoconferencing) to support communication. This study offers family-derived recommendations to operationalize the 3Cs to guide and improve communication in times of physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Context Human-centered design provides a framework to understand the needs of patients and clinicians who are the target of goals-of-care discussion priming tools. Few studies employ human-centered design to develop and refine their tools. Objectives To describe how human-centered design can be applied to the development and refinement of clinician- and patient-facing inpatient goals-of-care discussion guides (Jumpstart guides). Methods Human-centered design was applied to the development and refinement of the inpatient Jumpstart guides in four phases: (1) discovering problems based on prior pilots, studies, and research team priorities; (2) further defining problems based on stakeholder and expert review of the current guides; (3) designing solutions based on consensus among stakeholders; and (4) validating solutions after research team review of stakeholder comments. Results Five initial problems were identified by the research team in phase 1. After expert and stakeholder review in phase 2, 30 additional problems were identified related to Jumpstart guide format, structure, and content. In phase 3, stakeholders proposed solutions to these 35 problems and reached consensus on 32 of these. There was disagreement in 3 areas, including how to frame discussions around cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 2 perceived barriers to inpatient goals-of-care discussions. In phase 4, the research team reviewed all stakeholder input and reached final consensus on solutions to all of the identified problems. Conclusion Human-centered design is a useful tool for enhancing communication interventions in serious illness and can easily be integrated in future development and refinement of clinician- and patient-facing interventions to enhance goals-of-care discussions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People receiving maintenance dialysis must often rely on family members and other close persons to make critical treatment decisions toward the end of life. Contemporary data on family members’ understanding of the end-of-life wishes of members of this population are lacking. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Among 172 family members of people undergoing maintenance dialysis, we ascertained their level of involvement in the patient’s care and prior discussions about care preferences. We also compared patient and family member responses to questions about end-of-life care using percentage agreement and the κ-statistic. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the 172 enrolled family members was 55 (±17) years, 136 (79%) were women, and 43 (25%) were Black individuals. Sixty-seven (39%) family members were spouses or partners of enrolled patients. A total of 137 (80%) family members had spoken with the patient about whom they would want to make medical decisions, 108 (63%) had spoken with the patient about their treatment preferences, 47 (27%) had spoken with the patient about stopping dialysis, and 56 (33%) had spoken with the patient about hospice. Agreement between patient and family member responses was highest for the question about whether the patient would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (percentage agreement 83%, κ=0.31), and was substantially lower for questions about a range of other aspects of end-of-life care, including preference for mechanical ventilation (62%, 0.21), values around life prolongation versus comfort (45%, 0.13), preferred place of death (58%, 0.07), preferred decisional role (54%, 0.15), and prognostic expectations (38%, 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Most surveyed family members reported they had spoken with the patient about their end-of-life preferences but not about stopping dialysis or hospice. Although family members had a fair understanding of patients’ cardiopulmonary resuscitation preferences, most lacked a detailed understanding of their perspectives on other aspects of end-of-life care.

The integration of palliative care into intensive care units (ICUs) is advocated to mitigate physical and psychological burdens for patients and their families, and to improve end-of-life care. The most efficacious palliative care interventions, the optimal model of their delivery and the most appropriate outcome measures in ICU are not clear. We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the number and types of palliative care interventions implemented within the ICU setting, to assess their impact on ICU practice and to evaluate differences in palliative care approaches across different countries. Fifty-eight full articles were identified, including 9 randomised trials and 49 cohort studies; all but 4 were conducted within North America. Interventions were categorised into five themes: communication (14, 24.6%), ethics consultations (5, 8.8%), educational (18, 31.6%), involvement of a palliative care team (28, 49.1%) and advance care planning or goals-of-care discussions (7, 12.3%). Thirty studies (51.7%) proposed an integrative model, whilst 28 (48.3%) reported a consultative one. The most frequently reported outcomes were ICU or hospital length of stay (33/55, 60%), limitation of life-sustaining treatment decisions (22/55, 40%) and mortality (15/55, 27.2%). Quantitative assessment of pooled data was not performed due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. Beneficial effects on the most common outcomes were associated with strategies to enhance palliative care involvement, either with an integrative or a consultative approach. Few studies reported functional outcomes for ICU patients. Almost all studies were from North America, limiting the generalisability to other healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: Parents experience high distress following their child's diagnosis of cancer. We previously tested two delivery models (group and one-on-one) of the “Promoting Resilience in Stress Management for Parents” (PRISM-P) intervention in a randomized trial: one-on-one delivery improved resilience and benefit finding at three months when compared to usual care (UC). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate quantitative and qualitative outcomes at six months. DESIGN: In this single-center, phase 2, parallel, 1:1:1 randomized trial conducted December 2016 to December 2018, English-speaking parents with a 2–24 year-old child diagnosed with new cancer were randomly assigned to UC, one-on-one, or group PRISM-P, a brief, skill-based curriculum targeting stress management, goal setting, cognitive reframing, and meaning making. We collected parent-reported outcomes (resilience, benefit finding, and psychological distress) at baseline and three and six months. We applied linear mixed-effects regression models to examine six-month outcomes among all participants and conducted directed content analyses of exit interviews with the first 12 parents to complete each study arm. RESULTS: The 94 participating parents were median aged 35–38 years and predominantly white, college-educated mothers. At six months, there was no statistically significant difference in parent-reported outcomes. Exit interviews (n = 36) suggested that PRISM-P was highly valued: 100% of interviewed recipients recommended it for other parents. Most suggested more coaching would help them retain skills, and almost all endorsed a combined one-on-one and group program. CONCLUSIONS: Although the PRISM-P benefits observed at three months were not sustained for six months, all interviewed parents found it valuable. Additional opportunities to strengthen and sustain resilience resources include longer follow-up, flexible format, and skill reinforcement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02998086.

Purpose: Although targeted psychosocial programming for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with advanced cancer is a well-described priority, how best to engage AYAs in that programming is less clear. We aimed to examine AYA perspectives on facilitators and barriers to utilization of psychosocial programs and preferred mode of delivery. Methods: In this nested cohort study, AYAs participated in semistructured 1:1 interviews on communication needs. The present analysis focused on questions regarding psychosocial program delivery. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis followed by thematic content analysis to further organize and refine identified global themes and organizational themes. Results: We interviewed 32 patients (M(age) = 18, range 14–25, 41% female). Key facilitators to utilization of psychosocial services by AYAs were to (1) align in importance of coping skills, (2) emphasize AYA self-motivation and agency in approach and introduction to services, and (3) offer services to everyone and at multiple timepoints. Key AYA barriers included (1) considering themselves an exception to the rule when discussing the psychosocial needs of AYAs with cancer, (2) the challenge of starting something new, and (3) reluctance to share emotional problems with psychosocial clinicians. Regarding the mode of delivery, some preferred in-person delivery due to opportunities for developing a close relationship and therapeutic rapport-building. Mobile app-based delivery was universally appealing. Conclusion: We provide a potential framework to increase uptake of psychosocial services in the high needs population of AYAs with advanced cancer. Future research will explore implementation strategies for increasing AYA engagement in psychosocial intervention programs.

Background: It is not clear whether use of specialty palliative care consults and “comfort measures only” (CMO) order sets differ by type of intensive care unit (ICU). A better understanding of palliative care provided to these patients may help address heterogeneity of care across ICU types. Objectives: Examine utilization of specialty palliative care consultation and CMO order sets across several different ICU types in a multihospital academic health care system. Design: Retrospective cohort study using Washington State death certificates and data from the electronic health record. Setting/Subjects: Adults with a chronic medical illness who died in an ICU at one of two hospitals from July 2013 through December 2018. Five ICU types were identified by patient population and attending physician specialty. Measurements: Documentation of a specialty palliative care consult during a patient's terminal ICU stay and a CMO order set at time of death. Results: For 2706 eligible decedents, ICU type was significantly associated with odds of palliative care consultation (p

Background Polypharmacy raises the risk of drug-drug interactions and adverse events among patients with cancer. Most polypharmacy research has focused on adults age 65 or older enrolled in Medicare insurance. To better inform pharmacy practice and cancer care delivery, data are needed on polypharmacy among commercially insured patients with cancer and those younger than 65. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of insurance enrollment and claims files linked to the Puget Sound Cancer Surveillance System for adults age 18 and older who were commercially insured, diagnosed with stage IV cancer, survived 30+ days after diagnosis, and did not enroll in hospice. We describe the prevalence of polypharmacy, chemotherapy use, and medication-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs in the last month of life. Results Of 606 patients, 390 (64%) experienced polypharmacy (i.e. 5+ medications) in the last 30 days of life. Almost half (n = 297, 49%) received chemotherapy or targeted agents; chemotherapy was associated with significantly higher odds of polypharmacy (odds ratio (OR) 2.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.04–4.20). The most commonly prescribed medications at end of life were opioids, benzodiazepines and anti-emetics. Among 484 patients (80%) incurring medication-related costs in the last month of life, median total OOP cost was $82 (interquartile range $30–$200). Seven patients (1%) had total costs above $5,000. The median chemotherapy-related OOP cost was $446 (IQR $150–$1896); 32 patients (7%) had chemotherapy-related OOP costs between $1,000 and $5,000. Conclusion Most patients with advanced cancer experienced polypharmacy at end of life, although most medications observed herein are commonly used for supportive care. Patients receiving chemotherapy had higher medication-related OOP costs, and chemotherapy was significantly associated with polypharmacy at end of life. Evaluation of polypharmacy at end of life may represent an important opportunity to improve quality of life and reduce costs for patients and families.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.

Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable. Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV. Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the “reported CFR” for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. “Definitive hospital CFR” for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39–52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4–49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3–85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger’s regression test suggesting no publication bias. Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies. Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997).

PURPOSE: Intensive care interventions that prolong life without achieving meaningful benefit are considered clinically “inappropriate”. In 2012, the frequency of perceived-inappropriate critical care was 10.8% at one academic health system; and we aimed to re-evaluate this frequency. METHODS: For 4 months in 2017, we surveyed critical care physicians daily and asked whether each patient was receiving appropriate, probably inappropriate, or inappropriate critical care. Patients were categorized into three groups: 1) patients for whom treatment was never inappropriate, 2) patients with at least one assessment that treatment was probably inappropriate, but no inappropriate treatment assessments, and 3) patients who had at least one assessment of inappropriate treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-five physicians made 10,105 assessments on 1424 patients. Of these, 94 (6.6%) patients received at least one assessment of inappropriate critical care, which is lower than 2012 (10.8% (p0.05). Inpatient mortality in 2017 was 73% for patients receiving inappropriate critical care. CONCLUSIONS: Over five years the proportion of patients perceived to be receiving inappropriate critical care dropped by 40%. Understanding the reasons for such change might elucidate how to continue to reduce inappropriate critical care.

Palliative care has potential to improve quality of life and goal-concordant care for patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD). However, it is rarely employed prior to critical illness because the best methods for implementation are not well-defined. We qualitatively evaluated ACHD patients' understanding of and opinions regarding palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) to better define the needs of this population. We conducted a thematic analysis of 25 semistructured interviews with patients with ACHD in which we assessed participants' perspectives on the need for, and barriers and facilitators to, the use of palliative care and ACP. In a group of participants with ACHD (mean age 38, 48% male) classified as simple (24%), moderate (32%), or complex (44%), we identified 4 major themes: (1) using knowledge to combat future uncertainties; (2) unfamiliarity with and limited exposure to palliative care and ACP; (3) facilitators and barriers to engaging in palliative care and ACP; and (4) importance of timing and presentation of ACP discussions. In conclusion, participants expressed a desire for knowledge about ACHD progression and treatment. They supported routine incorporation of palliative care and ACP and identified related facilitators and barriers to doing so. Importantly, timing and format of these discussions must be individualized using shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and their families.

Context Goal-concordant care is an important indicator of high-quality care in serious illness. Objectives To estimate the prevalence of patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care among seriously ill outpatients and identify factors associated with the absence of patient-reported goal concordance. Methods Analysis of enrollment surveys from a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness. Patients reported their prioritized health care goal and the focus of their current medical care; these items were matched to define receipt of goal-concordant care. Results Of 405 patients with a prioritized health care goal, 58% reported receipt of goal-concordant care, 17% goal-discordant care, and 25% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patient-reported receipt of goal concordance differed by patient goal. For patients who prioritized extending life, 86% reported goal-concordant care, 2% goal-discordant care, and 12% were uncertain of the focus of their care. For patients who prioritized relief of pain and discomfort, 51% reported goal-concordant care, 21% goal-discordant care, and 28% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patients who prioritized a goal of relief of pain and discomfort were more likely to report goal-discordant care than patients who prioritized a goal of extending life (relative risk ratio 22.20; 95% CI 4.59, 107.38). Conclusion Seriously ill outpatients who prioritize a goal of relief of pain and discomfort are less likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who prioritize extending life. Future interventions designed to improve receipt of goal-concordant care should focus on identifying patients who prioritize relief of pain and discomfort and promoting care aligned with that goal.

Context Hospice care focuses on improving the quality of end-of-life care and respecting patients’ preferences regarding end-of-life treatment. The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the utilization of hospice services is unknown. Objectives To investigate the utilization of hospice care services before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods All patients (n = 19,900) cared for at Taipei City Hospital from January 2019 to April 2020 were divided into three time points: January–April 2019 (before COVID-19), May–December 2019 (interim), and January–April 2020 (during COVID-19). This cohort study compared the monthly utilization of hospice services before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results There was no significant difference in hospice home visits (194 vs. 184; P = 0.686) and new enrollments (15 vs. 14; P = 0.743) to hospice home care before and during the pandemic. However, the bed occupancy rate in hospice units in the hospital was significantly reduced from 66.2% before the pandemic to 37.4% during the pandemic (P = 0.029), whereas that in nonhospice units had a nonsignificant decrease from 81.6% before the pandemic to 71.8% during the pandemic (P = 0.086). During the pandemic, the number of inpatient days was affected more severely in hospice units than in nonhospice units (−42.4% vs. −10.9%; P = 0.029). Conclusions This study suggests that hospice home care services were maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic, while the utilization of hospice inpatient care services reduced. Home care for hospice patients is an essential component of palliative care during a pandemic.

Context The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is stressing health care systems throughout the world. Significant numbers of patients are being admitted to the hospital with severe illness, often in the setting of advanced age and underlying comorbidities. Therefore, palliative care is an important part of the response to this pandemic. The Seattle area and UW Medicine have been on the forefront of the pandemic in the U.S. Methods UW Medicine developed a strategy to implement a palliative care response for a multihospital health care system that incorporates conventional capacity, contingency capacity, and crisis capacity. The strategy was developed by our palliative care programs with input from the health care system leadership. Results In this publication, we share our multifaceted strategy to implement high-quality palliative care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that incorporates conventional, contingency, and crisis capacity and focuses on the areas of the hospital caring for the most patients: the emergency department, intensive care units, and acute care services. The strategy focuses on key content areas, including identifying and addressing goals of care, addressing moderate and severe symptoms, and supporting family members. Conclusion Strategy planning for delivery of high-quality palliative care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic represents an important area of need for our health care systems. We share our experiences of developing such a strategy to help other institutions conduct and adapt such strategies more quickly.

Objectives:To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing “Family Care Rituals” as a means of engaging family members in the care of patients admitted to the ICU with a high risk of ICU mortality on outcomes including stress-related symptoms in family members.Design:Prospective, before-and-a

Purpose To examine heterogeneity of quality-of-care ratings within families and to examine possible predictors of concordance. Materials and methods We examined two aspects of agreement within families: response similarity and the amount of exact concordance in responses in a cohort of Danish ICU family members participating in a questionnaire survey (the European Quality Questionnaire: euroQ2). Results Two hundred seventy-four family respondents representing 122 patients were included in the study. Identical ratings between family members occurred in 28%–59% of families, depending upon the specific survey item. In a smaller sample of 28 families whose patients died, between 39% and 86% gave identical responses to items rating end-of-life care. There was more response variance within than between families, yielding low estimates of intrafamily correlation. Statistics correcting for chance agreement also suggested modest within-family agreement. Conclusions The finding that variance is higher within than between families suggests the value of including multiple participants within a family in order to capture varying points of view.

Key Points Question For patients with severe acute brain injury, how prevalent is prognosis discordance between physicians and families, and what factors are associated with it? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 193 patients with severe acute brain injury, prognosis discordance occurred for 61% of patients, with both misunderstanding and belief differences present; prognosis discordance was more likely for family members who were part of minoritized racial groups. Nurses seemed to accurately predict poor family understanding, whereas physicians perceived belief differences as poor family understanding. Meaning The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that prognosis discordance, which may hamper the shared decision-making process, is common between families and physicians for patients with severe acute brain injury., This cross-sectional study uses data from a single neuroscience center to assess for the presence of discordance between physicians and family members regarding prognosis in patients with severe acute brain injury., Importance Shared decision-making requires key stakeholders to align in perceptions of prognosis and likely treatment outcomes. Objective For patients with severe acute brain injury, the objective of this study was to better understand prognosis discordance between physicians and families by determining prevalence and associated factors. Design, Setting, and Participants This mixed-methods cross-sectional study analyzed a cohort collected from January 4, 2018, to July 22, 2020. This study was conducted in the medical and cardiac intensive care units of a single neuroscience center. Participants included families, physicians, and nurses of patients admitted with severe acute brain injury. Exposures Severe acute brain injury was defined as stroke, traumatic brain injury, or hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy with a Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 12 points after hospital day 2. Main Outcomes and Measures Prognosis discordance was defined as a 20% or greater difference between family and physician prognosis predictions; misunderstanding was defined as a 20% or greater difference between physician prediction and the family’s estimate of physician prediction; and optimistic belief difference was defined as any difference (>0%) between family prediction and their estimate of physician prediction. Logistic regression was used to identify associations with discordance. Optimistic belief differences were analyzed as a subgroup of prognosis discordance. Results Among 222 enrolled patients, prognostic predictions were available for 193 patients (mean [SD] age, 57 [19] years; 106 men [55%]). Prognosis discordance occurred for 118 patients (61%) and was significantly more common among families who identified with minoritized racial groups compared with White families (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; CI, 1.40-7.07, P = .006); among siblings (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 1.35-17.93, P = .02) and adult children (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.10-5.37; P = .03) compared with spouses; and when nurses perceived family understanding as poor compared with good (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.88-7.40; P

Purpose: Frailty is often used in clinical decision-making for patients with COVID-19, yet studies have found variable influence of frailty on outcomes in those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we evaluated the characteristics, and outcomes of frail patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19.Methods: We contacted the corresponding authors of sixteen eligible studies published between December 1st 2019 and February 28th 2021 reporting the clinical frailty scale (CFS) in patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICU. Individual patient data was obtained from 7 studies. We classified patients as non-frail (CFS=1-4) or frail (CFS=5-8). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. We also compared the use of mechanical ventilation (MV) and the proportion of ICU bed-days between frailty categories. Results: Of the 2001 patients admitted to ICU, 388 (19.4%) were frail. Increasing age and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, CFS ≥4, use of MV, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy and hyperlactatemia were risk factors for death in a multivariable analysis. Hospital mortality was higher in frail patients (65.2% vs. 41.8%; pConclusion: Frail patients with COVID-19 were commonly admitted to ICU and had greater hospital mortality but spent relatively fewer days in ICU when compared with non-frail patients. Frail patients receiving MV were at greater risk of death than non-frail patients. Systematic review registration: Registration protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42020224255).

STRUCTURED Abstract Background As clinical care and research in adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) increasingly include a focus on quality of life, hearing and reflecting on our patients’ experiences must be a priority. The objective of this study was to describe how living with this chronic illness has affected the adult lives of patients living with ACHD. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of 25 participants in which we asked about the impact of ACHD on their quality of life. We used thematic analysis to analyze the interview data and identified themes reflecting patients’ reported experiences. Results Study participants were a mean age of 38 years (range 21–63 years) and reported good functional status. ACHD was characterized as simple (24%), moderate (32%), or complex (44%). Three major themes arose: 1) impact of ACHD on identity, including perception of “normal,” self-esteem, and motivation; 2) sources of emotional distress; and 3) influence on adult decision-making, including careers and relationships. Conclusion Living with ACHD impacts important aspects related to self-perceived quality of life. Addressing these concerns is important to providing comprehensive, patient-centered ACHD care.

Background and objectives High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do-not-intubate (DNI) and/or do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Methods We conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018. Results We included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified. Conclusions While HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high-quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

Context Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer often face complex, preference-sensitive decisions. How clinicians and patients engage in shared decision-making during goals-of-care discussions is not well understood. Objective The objective of this study was to explore decision-making by patients and clinicians during inpatient goals-of-care discussions. Methods This is a qualitative study of audio-recorded goals-of-care discussions between hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their clinicians. Grounded theory was used to analyze transcripts. Results Sixty-two patients participated in goals-of-care discussions with 51 unique clinicians. Nearly half of patients (n = 30) were female and their mean age was 60.1 years (SD = 12.7). A palliative care attending or fellow was present in 58 of the 62 discussions. Decisions centered on three topics: 1) disease-modifying treatments; 2) hospice; and 3) code status. Clinicians' approach to decision-making included the following stages: "information exchange," "deliberation," "making a patient-centered recommendation," and "wrap-up: decisional status." Successful completion of each stage varied by the type of decision. When discussing code status, clinicians missed opportunities to engage patients in information exchange and to wrap up decisional status. By contrast, clinicians discussing disease-modifying treatments and hospice failed to integrate patient preferences. Clinicians also missed opportunities to make patient-centered recommendations when discussing treatment decisions. Conclusion Clinicians missed opportunities to facilitate shared decision-making regarding goals of care, and these missed opportunities differed by type of decision being discussed. Opportunities for clinician communication training include engagement in collaborative deliberation with patients and making patient-centered recommendations in situations of high medical uncertainty.

Summary For patients with chronic, life-limiting illnesses, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) near the end of life might not improve patient outcomes or be consistent with patient and family values, goals, and preferences. In this context, advance care planning and palliative care interventions designed to clarify patients' values, goals, and preferences have the potential to reduce provision of high-intensity interventions that are unwanted or non-beneficial. In this Series paper, we have assessed interventions that are effective at helping patients with chronic, life-limiting illnesses to avoid an unwanted ICU admission. The evidence found was largely from observational studies, with considerable heterogeneity in populations, methods, and types of interventions. Results from randomised trials of interventions to improve communication about goals of care are scarce, of variable quality, and mixed. Although observational studies show that advance care planning and palliative care interventions are associated with a reduced number of ICU admissions at the end of life, causality has not been well established. Using the available evidence we suggest recommendations to help to avoid ICU admission when it does not align with patient and family values, goals, and preferences and conclude with future directions for research.

Background ICU patients/surrogates may experience adverse outcomes related to perceived inappropriate treatment. The objective was to determine the prevalence of patient/surrogate-reported perceived inappropriate treatment, its impact on adverse outcomes, and discordance with clinicians. Methods We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study of adult ICU patients. Results For 151 patients, 1,332 patient, surrogate, nurse, and physician surveys were collected. Disagreement between patients/surrogates and clinicians regarding "too much" treatment being administered occurred in 26% of patients. Disagreement regarding "too little" treatment occurred in 10% of patients. Disagreement about perceived inappropriate treatment was associated with prognostic discordance (P = .02) and lower patient/surrogate satisfaction (Likert scale 1-5 of 4 vs 5; P = .02). Patient/surrogate respondents reported "too much" treatment in 8% of patients and "too little" treatment in 6% of patients. Perceived inappropriate treatment was associated with moderate or high respondent distress for 55% of patient/surrogate respondents and 35% of physician/nurse respondents (P = .30). Patient/surrogate perception of inappropriate treatment was associated with lower satisfaction (Family Satisfaction in the ICU Questionnaire-24, 69.9 vs 86.6; P = .002) and lower trust in the clinical team (Likert scale 1-5 of 4 vs 5; P = .007), but no statistically significant differences in depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 of 2 vs 1; P = .06) or anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale of 7 vs 4; P = .18). Conclusions For approximately one-third of ICU patients, there is disagreement between clinicians and patients/surrogates about the appropriateness of treatment. Disagreement about appropriateness of treatment was associated with prognostic discordance and lower patient/surrogate satisfaction. Patients/surrogates who reported inappropriate treatment also reported lower satisfaction and trust in the ICU team.

Objectives:The Critical Care Choosing Wisely Task Force recommends that intensivists offer patients at high risk for death or severe functional impairment the option of pursuing care focused on comfort. We tested the a priori hypothesis that intensivists who are prompted to document patient prognosi

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are associated with improved end-of-life care for patients and therefore may be used as a process measure in quality improvement, research, and reimbursement programs. OBJECTIVES: To examine three methods to assess occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion - patient report, clinician report, and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR) - at a clinic visit for seriously ill patients and determine whether each method is associated with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multi-center cluster-randomized trial, with 494 patients and 124 clinicians caring for them. Self-reported surveys collected from patients and clinicians two weeks after a clinic visit assessed occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion. Documentation of a goals-of-care discussion was abstracted from the EHR. Patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care was assessed by survey two weeks after the visit. RESULTS: 52% of patients reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the clinic visit; clinicians reported occurrence of a discussion at 66% of visits. EHR documentation occurred in 42% of visits (p

Background: Patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) lack decision-making capacity, calling on families and clinicians to make goal-concordant decisions, aligning treatment with patient's presumed goals-of-care. Using the family perspective, this study aimed to (1) compare patient's goals-of-care with the care they were receiving in the acute setting, (2) identify patient and family characteristics associated with goal-concordant care, and (3) assess goals-of-care 6 months after SABI.Methods: Our cohort included patients with SABI in our Neuro-ICU and a Glasgow Coma Scale Score Results: Among 214 patients, families reported patients' goals-of-care to be extending life in 118 cases (55%), comfort in 71 (33%), and unsure for 25 (12%), while care received focused on extending life in 165 cases (77%), on comfort in 23 (11%) and families were unsure in 16 (7%). In a nominal regression model, prioritizing comfort over extending life was significantly associated with being non-Hispanic White and having worse clinical severity. Most patients who prioritized extending life were receiving family-reported goal-concordant care (88%, 104/118), while most of those who prioritized comfort were receiving goal-discordant care (73%, 52/71). The only independent association for goal concordance was having a presumed goal of extending life at enrollment (OR 23.62, 95% CI 10.19–54.77). Among survivors at 6 months, 1 in 4 family members were unsure about the patient's goals-of-care.Conclusion: A substantial proportion of patients are receiving unwanted aggressive care in the acute setting after SABI. In the first days, such aggressive care might be justified by prognostic uncertainty. The high rate of families unsure of patient's goals-of-care at 6 months suggests an important need for periodic re-evaluation of prognosis and goals-of-care in the post-acute setting.

Objectives: The global COVID-19 pandemic made strict visitation policies necessary. We explored the experiences of family members of patients with severe acute brain injury focusing on the impact of family presence in the hospital. Methods: Semistructured interviews (February 2018-April 2020) were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed family members of 19 patients with stroke, traumatic brain injury, or cardiac arrest; five interviews occurred after initiation of restrictive visitation policies. Four key themes highlight the role of visitation on family's ability to (1) cope by being at the bedside, (2) protect and advocate for the patient, (3) build trust with clinicians, and (4) receive emotional support in the intensive care unit. After visitation restrictions, families found ways to communicate and support virtually and wished for proactive communication from clinicians. Conclusions: Family presence at patient's bedside fulfills important needs. Visitation restrictions require hospitals to be creative and inclusive to help maintain these connections.

Objectives Treatment decisions following severe acute brain injury need to consider patients' goals-of-care and long-term outcomes. Using family members as respondents, we aimed to assess patients' goals-of-care in the ICU and explore the impact of adaptation on survivors who did not reach the level of recovery initially considered acceptable. Design Prospective, observational, mixed-methods cohort study. Setting Comprehensive stroke and level 1 trauma center in Pacific Northwest United States. Participants Family members of patients with severe acute brain injury in an ICU for greater than 2 days and Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 12. Measurements and main results At enrollment, we asked what level of physical and cognitive recovery the patient would find acceptable. At 6 months, we assessed level of recovery through family surveys and chart review. Families of patients whose outcome was below that considered acceptable were invited for semistructured interviews, examined with content analysis. Results For 184 patients, most family members set patients' minimally acceptable cognitive recovery at "able to think and communicate" or better (82%) and physical recovery at independence or better (66%). Among 170 patients with known 6-month outcome, 40% had died in hospital. Of 102 survivors, 33% were able to think and communicate, 13% were independent, and 10% died after discharge. Among survivors whose family member had set minimally acceptable cognitive function at "able to think and communicate," 64% survived below that level; for those with minimally acceptable physical function at independence, 80% survived below that. Qualitative analysis revealed two key themes: families struggled to adapt to a new, yet uncertain, normal and asked for support and guidance with ongoing treatment decisions. Conclusions and relevance Six months after severe acute brain injury, most patients survived to a state their families initially thought would not be acceptable. Survivors and their families need more support and guidance as they adapt to a new normal and struggle with persistent uncertainty.

Background Critically-ill patients and their families suffer a high burden of psychological symptoms due, in part, to many transitions among clinicians and settings during and after critical illness, resulting in fragmented care. Communication facilitators may help. Design and intervention We are conducting two cluster-randomized trials, one in the U.S. and one in France, with the goal of evaluating a nurse facilitator trained to support, model, and teach communication strategies enabling patients and families to secure care consistent with patients' goals, beginning in ICU and continuing for 3 months. Participants We will randomize 376 critically-ill patients in the US and 400 in France to intervention or usual care. Eligible patients have a risk of hospital mortality of greater than15% or a chronic illness with a median survival of approximately 2 years or less. Outcomes We assess effectiveness with patient- and family-centered outcomes, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, as well as assessments of goal-concordant care, at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-randomization. The primary outcome is family symptoms of depression over 6 months. We also evaluate whether the intervention improves value by reducing utilization while improving outcomes. Finally, we use mixed methods to explore implementation factors associated with implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, acceptability, penetration) to inform dissemination. Conducting the trial in U.S. and France will provide insights into differences and similarities between countries. Conclusions We describe the design of two randomized trials of a communication facilitator for improving outcomes for critically ill patients and their families in two countries.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Being a caregiver for a patient in the ICU can place emotional burden on families and engaging families in caregiving can reduce psychological distress. Our goal was to observe support methods used by families in the ICU and identify differences between race/ethnicity. Design: A secondary analysis of a multicenter before-and-after clinical trial. Setting: Three hospitals in Chicago, Providence, and Florence, Italy. Participants: Family members of patients admitted to the ICU. Interventions: In the primary study, an intervention was designed to engage families in seven domains that were based on the five physical senses (taste, touch, sight, smell, and sound), personal care, and spiritual care of the patient. During the control phase, nursing staff observed and recorded if they witnessed families participating in support methods unprompted. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared the use of support methods among families from different races, categorized by race as either White, Black, or other using generalized estimating equation population-averaged logistic regression analysis. A total of 133 patients and 226 family members were enrolled in the control arm of the primary study, with patients being 71.2% White, 17% Black, and 11.8% other. Compared with Whites, families who identified their race Black or other may be more likely to participate in support methods that included personal care, touch, or spiritual care. Families who identified as Black may also be more likely to incorporate audio or sound. There were no differences in the categories of sight, smell, or taste. Conclusions: Our study identifies racial differences in the use of bedside support methods in the ICU. Guiding families in a culturally congruent and open-minded manner may have the potential to decrease family distress and improve the experience for families in the ICU.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected ICUs and critical care health-care providers (HCPs) worldwide. Research Question How do regional differences and perceived lack of ICU resources affect critical care resource use and the well-being of HCPs? Study Design and Methods Between April 23 and May 7, 2020, we electronically administered a 41-question survey to interdisciplinary HCPs caring for patients critically ill with COVID-19. The survey was distributed via critical care societies, research networks, personal contacts, and social media portals. Responses were tabulated according to World Bank region. We performed multivariate log-binomial regression to assess factors associated with three main outcomes: limiting mechanical ventilation (MV), changes in CPR practices, and emotional distress and burnout. Results We included 2,700 respondents from 77 countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%). The reported lack of ICU nurses was higher than that of intensivists (32% vs 15%). Limiting MV for patients with COVID-19 was reported by 16% of respondents, was lowest in North America (10%), and was associated with reduced ventilator availability (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.61-2.74). Overall, 66% of respondents reported changes in CPR practices. Emotional distress or burnout was high across regions (52%, highest in North America) and associated with being female (mechanical ventilation, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33), being a nurse (ARR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.53), reporting a shortage of ICU nurses (ARR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33), reporting a shortage of powered air-purifying respirators (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55), and experiencing poor communication from supervisors (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46). Interpretation Our findings demonstrate variability in ICU resource availability and use worldwide. The high prevalence of provider burnout and its association with reported insufficient resources and poor communication from supervisors suggest a need for targeted interventions to support HCPs on the front lines.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, some healthcare facilities have, at times, reached the limits of their capacity to handle the surge in patient volume. Hospital beds and other medical resources became scarce as a consequence. Healthcare workers (HCWs) – both clinical and non-clinical – were required to increase their workload, under extremely stressful circumstances., Based on considerations of justice, healthcare workers must be able to rely on support and protection from the societies in which they work. Prioritisation of healthcare workers for vaccines may be a way to maintain a functioning healthcare system.

The COVID-19 pandemic strained health-care systems throughout the world. For some, available medical resources could not meet the increased demand and rationing was ultimately required. Hospitals and governments often sought to establish triage committees to assist with allocation decisions. However, for institutions operating under crisis standards of care (during times when standards of care must be substantially lowered in the setting of crisis), relying on these committees for rationing decisions was impractical-circumstances were changing too rapidly, occurring in too many diverse locations within hospitals, and the available information for decision making was notably scarce. Furthermore, a utilitarian approach to decision making based on an analysis of outcomes is problematic due to uncertainty regarding outcomes of different therapeutic options. We propose that triage committees could be involved in providing policies and guidance for clinicians to help ensure equity in the application of rationing under crisis standards of care. An approach guided by egalitarian principles, integrated with utilitarian principles, can support physicians at the bedside when they must ration scarce resources.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a key enabling technology for re-use of information in free-text clinical notes. However, a barrier to deployment is the availability of labeled corpora for supervised machine learning, which are expensive to acquire as they must be annotated by experienced clinicians. Where corpora are available, they may be opportunistically collected and thus vulnerable to bias. Here we evaluate an approach for accounting for dataset bias in the context of identifying specific patient-provider interactions. In this context, bias is the result of a phenomenon being over or under-represented in a particular type of clinical note as a result of the way a dataset was curated. Using a clinical dataset which represents a great deal of variation in terms of author and setting, we control for confounding variables using a backdoor adjustment approach [1, 2], which to our knowledge has not been previously applied the clinical domain. This approach improves precision by up to 5% and the adjusted models’ scores for false positives are generally lower, resulting in a more generalizable model with the potential to enhance the downstream utility of models trained using opportunistically collected clinical corpora.

This case series examines outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest among patients with COVID-19.

Background: Although national guidelines recommend timely initiation of palliative care for hospitalized patients with advanced heart failure (AHF), providers may not recognize which patients who have heart failure are most in need of consultation. Measures: A tool was developed and pilot-tested to screen patients admitted to a cardiology inpatient service with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 50% or less for potential triggers signifying palliative care needs in the telemetry or cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Intervention: The tool was completed during cardiology rounds. Outcomes: Of the 21 patients evaluated, the median LVEF was lower in the telemetry group (22%) than in the CICU group (28%). Trigger patients in the telemetry unit were less adherent to medical management (χ2 = 6.034, p = .014) and had greater psychosocial and spiritual needs (χ2 = 3.956, p = .047) than those in the CICU. Conclusion: We describe a feasible palliative care screening tool for patients with AHF hospitalized in a telemetry unit or CICU that may identify opportunities for early palliative care referrals. Additional study is needed to determine whether this tool can be used to improve patient care or patient outcomes.

Effective prognostication for a novel disease presents significant challenges, especially given the stress induced during a pandemic. We developed a point-of-care tool to summarize outcome data for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and help guide clinicians through a thoughtful prognostication process. Two authors reviewed studies of outcomes of patients with critical illness due to COVID-19 and created a visual infographic tool based on available data. Survival data were supplemented by descriptions of best- and worst-case clinical scenarios. The tool also included prompts for clinician reflection designed to enhance awareness of cognitive biases that may affect prognostic accuracy. This online, open-source COVID-19 Prognostication Tool has been made available to all clinicians at our institution and is updated weekly to reflect evolving data. Our COVID-19 Prognostication Tool may provide a useful approach to promoting consistent and high-quality prognostic communication across a health care system.