Search

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic severely disrupted hospice care, yet there is little research regarding how widespread disruptions affected clinician and family decision-making. We aimed to understand how the pandemic affected structures, processes, and outcomes of end-of-life care., Research Design and Methods: Retrospective narrative chart review of electronic health records of 61 patients referred and admitted to hospice from 3 New York City geriatrics practices who died between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. We linked longitudinal, unstructured medical, and hospice electronic health record notes to create a real-time, multiperspective trajectory of patients' interactions with providers using directed content analysis., Results: Most patients had dementia and were enrolled in hospice for 11 days. Care processes were shaped by structural factors (staffing, supplies, and governmental/institutional policies), and outcomes were prioritized by care teams and families (protecting safety, maintaining high-touch care, honoring patient values, and supporting patients emotionally and spiritually). Processes used to achieve these outcomes were decision-making, care delivery, supporting a "good death," and emotional and spiritual support., Discussion and Implications: Care processes were negotiated throughout the end of life, with clinicians and families making in-the-moment decisions. Some adaptations were effective but also placed extraordinary pressure on paid and family caregivers. Healthcare teams' and families' goals to meet patients' end-of-life priorities can be supported by ongoing assessment of patient goals and process changes needed to support them, stronger structural supports for paid and family caregivers, incentivizing relationships across primary care and hospice teams, and extending social work and spiritual care., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Context: The critical role of hospice and palliative care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is well recognized, but there is limited evidence to guide healthcare leadership through future crises., Objectives: Our goal was to support future organizational resilience by exploring hospice and palliative team members' perspectives on crisis leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC)., Methods: This qualitative descriptive study used individual, semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled interdisciplinary team members. Enrollment sites were two large NYC metro hospice care organizations and one outpatient palliative care practice. We asked participants to complete a demographic form and a 45-60 minute interview. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively, for data analysis. We triangulated the data by presenting preliminary study findings to a group of clinicians (n=21) from one of the referring organizations., Results: Participants (n=30) were professionally diverse (e.g., nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, administrators), experienced (mean=17 years; 10 years in hospice), and highly educated (83% ≥ master's degree). About half (n=15) self-identified as white, non-Hispanic, and nearly half (n=13) self-identified as being from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Two (n=2) did not wish to self-identify. We identified four themes that reflected challenges and adaptive responses to providing care during a crisis: Stay Open and Stay Safe; Act Flexibly; Lead Adaptively; and Create a Culture of Solidarity., Conclusion: While additional work is indicated, findings offer direction for a crisis management playbook to guide leadership in hospice, palliative care, and other healthcare settings in future crises., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The per diem financial structure of hospice care may lead agencies to consider patient-level factors when weighing admissions., Objective: To investigate if treatment cost, disease complexity, and diagnosis are associated with hospice willingness to accept patients., Design: In this 2019 online survey study, individuals involved in hospice admissions decisions were randomized to view one of six hypothetical patient vignettes: "high-cost, high-complexity," "low-cost, high-complexity," and "low-cost, low-complexity" within two diseases: heart failure and cystic fibrosis. Vignettes included demographics, prognoses, goals, and medications with costs. Respondents indicated their perceived likelihood of acceptance to their hospice; if likelihood was <100%, respondents were asked the barriers to acceptance. We used bivariate tests to examine associations between demographic, clinical, and organizational factors and likelihood of acceptance., Participants: Individuals involved in hospice admissions decisions MAIN MEASURES: Likelihood of acceptance to hospice care KEY RESULTS: N=495 (76% female, 53% age 45-64). Likelihoods of acceptance in cystic fibrosis were 79.8% (high-cost, high-complexity), 92.4% (low-cost, high-complexity), and 91.5% (low-cost, low-complexity), and in heart failure were 65.9% (high-cost, high-complexity), 87.3% (low-cost, high-complexity), and 96.6% (low-cost, low-complexity). For both heart failure and cystic fibrosis, respondents were less likely to accept the high-cost, high-complexity patient than the low-cost, high-complexity patient (65.9% vs. 87.3%, 79.8% vs. 92.4%, both p<0.001). For heart failure, respondents were less likely to accept the low-cost, high-complexity patient than the low-cost, low-complexity patient (87.3% vs. 96.6%, p=0.004). Treatment cost was the most common barrier for 5 of 6 vignettes., Conclusions: This study suggests that patients receiving expensive and/or complex treatments for palliation may have difficulty accessing hospice., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Hospice care was initially designed for seriously ill individuals with cancer. Thus, the model and clinicians were geared toward caring for this population. Despite the proportion of persons living with dementia (PLWD) receiving hospice care substantially increased over the past 10 years, and their longer lengths of stay, established hospice interventions for this population are scarce. No systematic review has previously evaluated those interventions that do exist. We synthesized hospice intervention studies for PLWD, their families, and hospice professionals by describing the types of interventions, participants, outcomes, and results; assessing study quality; and identifying promising intervention strategies., Methods: A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search of five databases through March 2021 and follow-up hand searches. Included studies were peer-reviewed, available in English, and focused on hospice interventions for persons with dementia, and/or care partners, and clinicians. Using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, data was extracted guided by the Cochrane Checklist, and quality was assessed using a 26-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Checklist., Results: The search identified 3235 unique studies in total, of which 10 studies met inclusion criteria. The search revealed three types of interventions: clinical education and training, usual care plus care add-on services, and "other" delivered to 707 participants (mostly clinicians). Five studies included underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Outcomes measured knowledge and skills, psychosocial and health outcomes, feasibility, and acceptability, with significant improvements in six studies. Study quality was reflective of early-stage research with clinical education and training strategies showing deliberate progression towards real-world efficacy testing., Implications: Hospice interventions for PLWD are sparse and in early-phase research. More research is needed with rigorous designs, diverse samples, and outcomes considering the concordance of care., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society.)