Search

Rationale: Crisis standards of care (CSCs) guide critical care resource allocation during crises. Most recommend ranking patients on the basis of their expected in-hospital mortality using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, but it is unknown how SOFA or other acuity scores perform among patients of different races. Objectives: To test the prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score and version 2 of the Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score (LAPS2) among Black and white patients. Methods: We included Black and white patients admitted for sepsis or acute respiratory failure at 27 hospitals. We calculated the discrimination and calibration for in-hospital mortality of SOFA, LAPS2, and modified versions of each, including categorical SOFA groups recommended in a popular CSC and a SOFA score without creatinine to reduce the influence of race. Measurements and Main Results: Of 113,158 patients, 27,644 (24.4%) identified as Black. The LAPS2 demonstrated higher discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.77) than the SOFA score (AUC, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.68–0.69). The LAPS2 was also better calibrated than the SOFA score, but both underestimated in-hospital mortality for white patients and overestimated in-hospital mortality for Black patients. Thus, in a simulation using observed mortality, 81.6% of Black patients were included in lower-priority CSC categories, and 9.4% of all Black patients were erroneously excluded from receiving the highest prioritization. The SOFA score without creatinine reduced racial miscalibration. Conclusions: Using SOFA in CSCs may lead to racial disparities in resource allocation. More equitable mortality prediction scores are needed.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimburses clinicians for advance care planning (ACP) discussions with Medicare patients. The objective of the study was to examine the association of CMS-billed ACP visits with end-of-life (EOL) healthcare utilization. DESIGN: Patient-level analyses of claims for the random 20% Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) sample of decedents in 2017. To account for multiple comparisons, Bonferroni adjusted P value 1 month before death). MEASUREMENTS: Six measures of EOL healthcare utilization or intensity (inpatient admission, emergency department [ED] visit, intensive care unit [ICU] stay, and expenditures within 30 days of death, in-hospital death, and first hospice within 3 days of death). Analyses was adjusted for age, race, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, expenditure by Dartmouth hospital referral region (high, medium, or low), and dual eligibility. RESULTS: Overall, 6.3% (14,986) of the sample had at least one billed ACP visit. After multivariable adjustment, patients with an ACP visit experienced significantly less intensive EOL care on four of six measures: hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] = .77; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .74–.79), ED visit (OR = .77; 95% CI = .75–.80), or ICU stay (OR = .78; 95% CI = .74–.81) within a month of death; and they were less likely to die in the hospital (OR = .79; 95% CI = .76–.82). There were no differences in the rate of late hospice enrollment (OR = .97; 95% CI = .92–1.01; P = .119) or mean expenditures ($242.50; 95% CI = −$103.63 to $588.61; P = .169). CONCLUSION: Billed ACP visits were relatively uncommon among Medicare FFS decedents, but their occurrence was associated with less intensive EOL utilization. Further research on the variables affecting hospice use and expenditures in the EOL period is recommended to understand the relative role of ACP.

Palliative care research is deeply challenging for many reasons, not the least of which is the conceptual and operational difficulty of measuring outcomes within a seriously ill population such as critically ill patients and their family members. This manuscript describes how Randy Curtis and his network of collaborators successfully confronted some of the most vexing outcomes measurement problems in the field, and by so doing, have enhanced clinical care and research alike. Beginning with a discussion of the clinical challenges of measurement in palliative care, we then discuss a selection of the novel measures developed by Randy and his collaborators and conclude with a look toward the future evolution of these concepts. Randy and his foundational work, including both successes as well as the occasional near miss, have enriched and advanced the field as well as (immeasurably) impacted the work of so many others—including this manuscript’s authors.

This cohort study assesses whether higher levels of family member–reported palliative care needs are observed among those whose critically ill loved ones meet a clinical palliative care trigger compared with those who do not meet such a trigger., Key Points Question Does clinical palliative care trigger status accurately identify individuals with the most serious unmet palliative care needs? Findings In this cohort study including 257 dyads (1 patient in an intensive care unit [ICU] and 1 family member of each patient), there was no significant difference in self-reported palliative care needs between those with and without a clinical trigger (median Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool scores, 21.0 vs 22.5). Clinical triggers’ 45% sensitivity and 55% specificity suggested that they were no better than chance at identifying serious needs. Meaning The findings suggest that using clinical trigger status to prompt palliative care consultation in ICU settings may be an inefficient use of this limited resource; incorporating direct measures of unmet need in care may be a promising alternative strategy., Importance Palliative care consultations in intensive care units (ICUs) are increasingly prompted by clinical characteristics associated with mortality or resource utilization. However, it is not known whether these triggers reflect actual palliative care needs. Objective To compare unmet needs by clinical palliative care trigger status (present vs absent). Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study was conducted in 6 adult medical and surgical ICUs in academic and community hospitals in North Carolina between January 2019 and September 2020. Participants were consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation and their family members. Exposure Presence of any of 9 common clinical palliative care triggers. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) score (range, 0-130, with higher scores reflecting greater need), which was completed after 3 days of ICU care. Trigger status performance in identifying serious need (NEST score ≥30) was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and C statistics. Results Surveys were completed by 257 of 360 family members of patients (71.4% of the potentially eligible patient–family member dyads approached) with a median age of 54.0 years (IQR, 44-62 years); 197 family members (76.7%) were female, and 83 (32.3%) were Black. The median age of patients was 58.0 years (IQR, 46-68 years); 126 patients (49.0%) were female, and 88 (33.5%) were Black. There was no difference in median NEST score between participants with a trigger present (45%) and those with a trigger absent (55%) (21.0; IQR, 12.0-37.0 vs 22.5; IQR, 12.0-39.0; P = .52). Trigger presence was associated with poor sensitivity (45%; 95% CI, 34%-55%), specificity (55%; 95% CI, 48%-63%), positive likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), negative likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2), and C statistic (0.50; 95% CI, 0.44-0.57). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, clinical palliative care trigger status was not associated with palliative care needs and no better than chance at identifying the most serious needs, which raises questions about an increasingly common clinical practice. Focusing care delivery on directly measured needs may represent a more person-centered alternative.

Objective Implementation of residency duty hour standards has led to adoption of different staffing models, such as the "holdover" model, whereby nighttime teams admit patients and transfer their care to daytime teams who provide ongoing care. In contrast, nonholdover teams at our institution are responsible for both admitting patients and providing ongoing care. We sought to determine whether patients admitted by holdover teams experience worse outcomes than those admitted by nonholdover teams. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the internal medicine hospital service at a quaternary care hospital from July 2013 to June 2015. Primary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and transfer to an intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission. Secondary outcomes were any transfer to an intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home (versus discharge to postacute care facility), and readmission to the health system within 30 days of discharge. Results We analyzed 5518 encounters, 64% of which were admitted by a holdover team. Outcomes were similar between study groups, except the LOS, which was 5.5 hours longer for holdover encounters in unadjusted analyses (5.18 versus 4.95 days, P = 0.04) but not significantly different in adjusted analyses. The mean discharge time was 4:00 P.M. for both groups, whereas the mean admission times were 12:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. for holdover and nonholdover encounters, respectively. Conclusions Holdover encounters at our institution were not associated with worse patient safety outcomes. A small increase in LOS may have been attributable to holdover patients having earlier admission and identical discharge times.

Objectives As ICUs are increasingly a site of end-of-life care, many have adopted end-of-life care resources. We sought to determine the association of such resources with outcomes of ICU patients. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Pennsylvania ICUs. Patients Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Interventions Availability of any of one hospital-based resource (palliative care consultants) or four ICU-based resources (protocol for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy, triggers for automated palliative care consultation, protocol for family meetings, and palliative care clinicians embedded in ICU rounds). Measurements and main results In mixed-effects regression analyses, admission to a hospital with end-of-life resources was not associated with mortality, length of stay, or treatment intensity (mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, artificial nutrition, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation); however, it was associated with a higher likelihood of discharge to hospice (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.11-2.24), an effect that was driven by ICU-based resources (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04-1.81) rather than hospital-based resources (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.83-1.71). Instrumental variable analysis using differential distance (defined as the additional travel distance beyond the hospital closest to a patient's home needed to reach a hospital with end-of-life resources) demonstrated that among those for whom differential distance would influence receipt of end-of-life resources, admission to a hospital with such resources was not associated with any outcome. Conclusions ICU-based end-of-life care resources do not appear to change mortality but are associated with increased hospice utilization. Given that this finding was not confirmed by the instrumental variable analysis, future studies should attempt to verify this finding, and identify specific resources or processes of care that impact the care of ICU patients at the end of life.

This Viewpoint discusses how limited or blocked access to legal abortion will affect the provision of emergency and critical care, including negative effects on patient health, legal intrusion into the patient-physician decision-making process, and concerns about legal jeopardy.

ObjectiveBecause the heterogeneity of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and family members represents a challenge to palliative care delivery, we aimed to determine if distinct phenotypes of palliative care needs exist.MethodsProspective cohort study conducted among family members of adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in six medical and surgical ICUs. The primary outcome was palliative care need measured by the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST, range from 0 (no need) to 130 (highest need)) completed 3 days after ICU admission. We also assessed quality of communication, clinician–family relationship and patient centredness of care. Latent class analysis of the NEST’s 13 items was used to identify groups with similar patterns of serious palliative care needs.ResultsAmong 257 family members, latent class analysis yielded a four-class model including complex communication needs (n=26, 10%; median NEST score 68.0), family spiritual and cultural needs (n=21, 8%; 40.0) and patient and family stress needs (n=43, 31%; 31.0), as well as a fourth group with fewer serious needs (n=167, 65%; 14.0). Interclass differences existed in quality of communication (median range 4.0–10.0, pConclusionsFour novel phenotypes of palliative care need were identified among ICU family members with distinct differences in the severity of needs and perceived quality of the clinician–family interaction. Knowledge of need class may help to inform the development of more person-centred models of ICU-based palliative care.

Introduction The technologies used to treat the millions who receive care in intensive care unit (ICUs) each year have steadily advanced. However, the quality of ICU-based communication has remained suboptimal, particularly concerning for Black patients and their family members. Therefore we developed a mobile app intervention for ICU clinicians and family members called ICUconnect that assists with delivering need-based care. Objective To describe the methods and early experiences of a clustered randomized clinical trial (RCT) being conducted to compare ICUconnect vs. usual care. Methods and analysis The goal of this two-arm, parallel group clustered RCT is to determine the clinical impact of the ICUconnect intervention in improving outcomes overall and for each racial subgroup on reducing racial disparities in core palliative care outcomes over a 3-month follow up period. ICU attending physicians are randomized to either ICUconnect or usual care, with outcomes obtained from family members of ICU patients. The primary outcome is change in unmet palliative care needs measured by the NEST instrument between baseline and 3 days post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal concordance of care and interpersonal processes of care at 3 days post-randomization; length of stay; as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder at 3 months post-randomization. We will use hierarchical linear models to compare outcomes between the ICUconnect and usual care arms within all participants and assess for differential intervention effects in Blacks and Whites by adding a patient-race interaction term. We hypothesize that both compared to usual care as well as among Blacks compared to Whites, ICUconnect will reduce unmet palliative care needs, psychological distress and healthcare resource utilization while improving goal concordance and interpersonal processes of care. In this manuscript, we also describe steps taken to adapt the ICUconnect intervention to the COVID-19 pandemic healthcare setting. Enrollment status A total of 36 (90%) of 40 ICU physicians have been randomized and 83 (52%) of 160 patient-family dyads have been enrolled to date. Enrollment will continue until the end of 2021.

Background Structurally marginalized groups experience disproportionately low rates of advance care planning (ACP). To improve equitable patient-centered end-of-life care, we examine barriers and facilitators to ACP among clinicians as they are central participants in these discussions. Method In this national study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively selected clinicians from 6 diverse health systems between August 2018 and June 2019. Thematic analysis yielded themes characterizing clinicians’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ACP among patients, and patient-centered ways of overcoming them. Results Among 74 participants, 49 (66.2%) were physicians, 16.2% were nurses, and 13.5% were social workers. Most worked in primary care (35.1%), geriatrics (21.1%), and palliative care (19.3%) settings. Clinicians most frequently expressed difficulty discussing ACP with certain racial and ethnic groups (African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American) (31.1%), non-native English speakers (24.3%), and those with certain religious beliefs (Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, and Muslim) (13.5%). Clinicians were more likely to attribute barriers to ACP completion to patients (62.2%), than to clinicians (35.1%) or health systems (37.8%). Three themes characterized clinicians’ difficulty approaching ACP (preconceived views of patients’ preferences, narrow definitions of successful ACP, and lack of institutional resources), while the final theme illustrated facilitators to ACP (acknowledging bias and rejecting stereotypes, mission-driven focus on ACP, and acceptance of all preferences). Conclusions Most clinicians avoided ACP with certain racial and ethnic groups, those with limited English fluency, and persons with certain religious beliefs. Our findings provide evidence to support development of clinician-level and institutional-level interventions and to reduce disparities in ACP.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Vulnerable patients, such as racial and ethnic minorities, infrequently participate in advance care planning (ACP). Reasons underlying low uptake are not well understood. We sought to examine clinician perspectives regarding barriers to ACP among vulnerable populations. STUDY DESIGN: Case studies with semi‐structured interviews. POPULATION STUDIED: Health systems were purposively selected by an expert advisory panel to ensure diversity of health system size, region, type (ie, academic, public, nonprofit), and religious affiliation. Within each site, a purposive sample of 10–13 clinicians was selected by the chief medical officer or a palliative care leader based on clinician role (eg, physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers), specialty, and experience with ACP. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We interviewed 75 clinicians at 6 health systems after which we reached thematic saturation. When asked to describe characteristics of patients with whom they have difficulty discussing ACP, clinicians most frequently identified racial and ethnic minorities and non‐English or non‐native English speakers. Four themes emerged that characterized clinicians’ perspectives regarding barriers to ACP among vulnerable patients. First, clinicians had preconceived notions that vulnerable patients were reluctant to participate in ACP due to mistrust of the health care system or cultural beliefs that preclude discussions about death and dying. Second, these preconceptions led to clinicians feeling anxious while discussing ACP with vulnerable patients, resulting in their avoiding ACP altogether or undertaking only cursory explorations of these patients’ goals and values. Third, clinicians had fixed beliefs about successful ACP (eg, identifying a single decision maker, completing legal documents) that were often discordant with preferences among vulnerable patients. Fourth, clinicians reported insufficient institutional resources to properly engage vulnerable patients, including in‐person translators with training in discussing ACP. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several clinician‐ and institution‐level factors that may mediate low uptake of ACP among vulnerable patients, suggesting that observed differences in rates of ACP between vulnerable patients and others may be modifiable. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: Current efforts to promote ACP, including Medicare’s ACP billing codes, may not be effective in all patient populations due to clinician‐ and institution‐level barriers to ACP that are unlikely to be addressed by financial incentives. Additional research is needed to more completely characterize clinician decision making regarding ACP among vulnerable patients, including developing interventions to modify heuristics that may lead to disparities with a goal of ensuring equitable access to ACP among all patients. Institutions should also consider investing in more robust translator programs to facilitate ACP discussions with non‐English and non‐native English speakers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

This cohort study examines the association between billed advance care planning encounters and subsequent health care utilization among seriously ill patients near the end of life., Key Points Question Is advance care planning associated with health care utilization among seriously ill patients? Findings In this cohort study of 18 484 seriously ill Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, patients with billed advance care planning encounters were more likely than those without these encounters to require hospitalization, enroll in hospice, and die and less likely to receive intensive therapies, such as chemotherapy. Meaning Among seriously ill patients near the end of life, advance care planning may not be assoicated with reduced health care utilization., Importance Although advance care planning is known to increase patient and caregiver satisfaction, its association with health care utilization is not well understood. Objective To examine the association between billed advance care planning encounters and subsequent health care utilization among seriously ill patients. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study conducted from October 1, 2015, to May 31, 2018, used a national commercial insurance claims database to retrieve data from 18 484 Medicare Advantage members 65 years or older who had a claim that contained a serious illness diagnosis. Exposure A claim that contained an advance care planning billing code between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures Receipt of intensive therapies, hospitalization, emergency department use, hospice use, costs, and death during the 6-month follow-up period. Results The final study sample included 18 484 seriously ill patients (mean [SD] age, 79.7 [7.9] years; 10 033 [54.3%] female), 864 (4.7%) of whom had a billed advanced care planning encounter between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. In analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and a propensity score for advance care planning, the presence of a billed advance care planning encounter was associated with a higher likelihood of hospice enrollment (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.52; 95% CI, 2.22-2.86) and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.79-2.88) compared with no billed advance care planning encounter. Although patients with billed advance care planning encounters were also more likely to be hospitalized (IRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49), including in the intensive care unit (IRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.08-1.45), they were less likely to receive any intensive therapies (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92), such as chemotherapy (IRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78). Similar results were observed in a propensity score–matched analysis (99% matched) and in a decedent analysis of patients who died during the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusions and Relevance Patients with billed advance care planning encounters were more likely than those without these encounters to receive hospice services and less likely to receive any intensive therapies, such as chemotherapy. However, they were also hospitalized more frequently than patients without billed advance care planning encounters. Although these findings were robust to multiple analytic methods, the results may be attributable to residual confounding because of a higher unmeasured severity of illness in the advance care planning group. Additional evidence appears to be needed to understand the effect of advance care planning on these outcomes.

This cohort study compares mortality among Black and White patients with equivalent Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Scores and their odds of death with equivalent priority in Crisis Standards of Care., Key Points Question Is reliance on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to estimate the risk of in-hospital mortality associated with bias against Black patients in Crisis Standards of Care (CSC)? Findings In this cohort study of 95 549 patients in the intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality was lower among Black patients compared with White patients who had equivalent SOFA scores. This overestimation of mortality risk for Black patients was associated with deprioritization of Black patients in CSC. Meaning This study's findings that SOFA is associated with overestimated mortality among Black patients compared with White patients suggest that CSC are associated with systematic deprioritization of Black patients., Importance Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) are guidelines for rationing health care resources during public health emergencies. The CSC adopted by US states ration intensive care unit (ICU) admission using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, which is used to compare expected in-hospital mortality among eligible patients. However, it is unknown if Black and White patients with equivalent SOFA scores have equivalent in-hospital mortality. Objective To investigate whether reliance on SOFA is associated with bias against Black patients in CSC. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was conducted using data from the eICU Collaborative Research Database of patients admitted to 233 US ICUs in 2014 to 2015. Included individuals were Black and White adult patients in the ICU, who were followed up to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed from May 2020 through April 2021. Exposure SOFA scores at ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures Hierarchical logistic regression with hospital fixed effects was used to measure the interaction between race and SOFA as a factor associated with in-hospital mortality, as well as the odds of death among Black and White patients with equivalent priority for resource allocation according to the SOFA-based ranking rules of 3 statewide CSC (denoted A, B, and C) under shortage conditions that were severe (ie, only patients with the highest priority would be eligible for allocation), intermediate (ie, patients in the highest 2 tiers would be eligible for allocation), or low (ie, only patients with the lowest priority would be at risk of exclusion). Results Among 111 885 ICU encounters representing 95 549 patients, there were 16 688 encounters with Black patients (14.9%) and 51 464 (46.0%) encounters with women and the mean (SD) age was 63.3 (16.9) years. The median (interquartile range) SOFA score was not statistically significantly different between Black and White patients (4 [2-6] for both groups; P = .19), but mortality was lower among Black individuals compared with White individuals with equivalent SOFA scores (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P

Introduction The number of older adults who receive life support in an intensive care unit (ICU), now 2 million per year, is increasing while survival remains unchanged. Because the quality of ICU-based palliative care is highly variable, we developed a mobile app intervention that integrates into the electronic health records (EHR) system called PCplanner (Palliative Care planner) with the goal of improving collaborative primary and specialist palliative care delivery in ICU settings. Objective To describe the methods of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) being conducted to compare PCplanner vs. usual care. Methods and analysis The goal of this two-arm, parallel group mixed methods RCT is to determine the clinical impact of the PCplanner intervention on outcomes of interest to patients, family members, clinicians, and policymakers over a 3-month follow up period. The primary outcome is change in unmet palliative care needs measured by the NEST instrument between baseline and 1 week post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal concordance of care, patient-centeredness of care, and quality of communication at 1 week post-randomization; length of stay; as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder at 3 months post-randomization. We will use general linear models for repeated measures to compare outcomes across the main effects and interactions of the factors. We hypothesize that compared to usual care, PCplanner will have a greater impact on the quality of ICU-based palliative care delivery across domains of core palliative care needs, psychological distress, patient-centeredness, and healthcare resource utilization.