Search

Patient understanding of chest low-dose CT (LDCT) scan results for lung cancer screening (LCS) may impact outcomes.What are patient- and clinician-identified gaps in understanding and communication of LCS results and how might communication be improved through a patient-oriented tool?We performed a mixed-methods study of participants recruited from a multisite LCS program to understand knowledge gaps after receiving LCS results and to guide development of a commonly asked questions (CAQ) after LCS information sheet. Initial patient surveys assessed understanding and reactions to LCS results (n = 190). We then conducted patient interviews and focus group discussions (n = 31) to understand experiences receiving LDCT scan results and reactions to results letters and the proposed CAQ; we also interviewed clinicians (n = 6) for feedback on these resources. We summarized survey responses and used thematic analysis to identify major themes in focus groups and interviews.Of 190 survey respondents (43% response rate), although 88% agreed that they "understood" their LCS results, only 55% reported understanding what a lung nodule is. Approximately two-thirds thought it was "very important" to receive more information regarding lung nodules and incidental lung and heart disease. In interviews and focus groups, although patients believed that brief results letters for normal LDCT scan results generally were acceptable, most found letters explaining abnormal LDCT scan and incidental findings to be concerning and not a substitute for discussion with their clinician. Nearly all patients expressed that the CAQ sheet provided helpful information on nodules, provided results reporting and incidental findings, and helped them form questions to ask their clinicians.We identified patient-reported information needs regarding LCS results and developed a CAQ information sheet that was refined with patient and clinician input. The CAQ may represent a simple and feasible way to improve LCS results reporting and to augment clinician-patient discussions.

© 2022 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative MedicineContext: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted variability in intensity of care. We aimed to characterize intensity of care among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Examine the prevalence and predictors of admission code status, palliative care consultation, comfort-measures-only orders, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: This cross-sectional study examined data from an international registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A proportional odds model evaluated predictors of more aggressive code status (i.e., Full Code) vs. less (i.e., Do Not Resuscitate, DNR). Among decedents, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of palliative care consultation, comfort measures only, and CPR at time of death. Results: We included 29,923 patients across 179 sites. Among those with admission code status documented, Full Code was selected by 90% (n = 15,273). Adjusting for site, Full Code was more likely for patients who were of Black or Asian race (ORs 1.82, 95% CIs 1.5–2.19; 1.78, 1.15–3.09 respectively, relative to White race), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.89, CI 1.35–2.32), and male sex (OR 1.16, CI 1.0–1.33). Of the 4951 decedents, 29% received palliative care consultation, 59% transitioned to comfort measures only, and 29% received CPR, with non-White racial and ethnic groups less likely to receive comfort measures only and more likely to receive CPR. Conclusion: In this international cohort of patients with COVID-19, Full Code was the initial code status in the majority, and more likely among patients who were Black or Asian race, Hispanic ethnicity or male. These results provide direction for future studies to improve these disparities in care.

Seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goals are understood by their clinicians are likely better positioned to receive goal-concordant care.To examine the proportion of seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goal is accurately perceived by their clinician and identify factors associated with accurate perception.Secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness and their clinicians. Approximately two weeks after a clinic visit, patients reported their current prioritized healthcare goal- extending life over relief of pain and discomfort, or relief of pain and discomfort over extending life - and clinicians reported their perception of their patients' current prioritized healthcare goal; matching these items defined accurate perception.Of 252 patients with a prioritized healthcare goal, 60% had their goal accurately perceived by their clinician, 27% were cared for by clinicians who perceived prioritization of the alternative goal, and 13% had their clinician answer unsure. Patients who were older (OR 1.03 per year; 95%CI 1.01, 1.05), had stable goals (OR 2.52; 95%CI 1.26, 5.05), and had a recent goals-of-care discussion (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.00, 3.16) were more likely to have their goals accurately perceived.A majority of seriously ill outpatients are cared for by clinicians who accurately perceive their patients' prioritized healthcare goals. However, a substantial portion are not and may be at higher risk for goal-discordant care. Interventions that facilitate goals-of-care discussions may help align care with goals, as recent discussions were associated with accurate perceptions of patients' prioritized goals.

ImportanceDiscussions about goals of care are important for high-quality palliative care yet are often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness.ObjectiveTo evaluate a communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care discussions between clinicians and hospitalized older patients with serious illness.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA pragmatic, randomized clinical trial of a clinician-facing communication-priming intervention vs usual care was conducted at 3 US hospitals within 1 health care system, including a university, county, and community hospital. Eligible hospitalized patients were aged 55 years or older with any of the chronic illnesses used by the Dartmouth Atlas project to study end-of-life care or were aged 80 years or older. Patients with documented goals-of-care discussions or a palliative care consultation between hospital admission and eligibility screening were excluded. Randomization occurred between April 2020 and March 2021 and was stratified by study site and history of dementia.InterventionPhysicians and advance practice clinicians who were treating the patients randomized to the intervention received a 1-page, patient-specific intervention (Jumpstart Guide) to prompt and guide goals-of-care discussions.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with electronic health record–documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. There was also an evaluation of whether the effect of the intervention varied by age, sex, history of dementia, minoritized race or ethnicity, or study site.ResultsOf 3918 patients screened, 2512 were enrolled (mean age, 71.7 [SD, 10.8] years and 42% were women) and randomized (1255 to the intervention group and 1257 to the usual care group). The patients were American Indian or Alaska Native (1.8%), Asian (12%), Black (13%), Hispanic (6%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.5%), non-Hispanic (93%), and White (70%). The proportion of patients with electronic health record–documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days was 34.5% (433 of 1255 patients) in the intervention group vs 30.4% (382 of 1257 patients) in the usual care group (hospital- and dementia-adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 0.4% to 7.8%]). The analyses of the treatment effect modifiers suggested that the intervention had a larger effect size among patients with minoritized race or ethnicity. Among 803 patients with minoritized race or ethnicity, the hospital- and dementia-adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 10.2% (95% CI, 4.0% to 16.5%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. Among 1641 non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 1.6% (95% CI, −3.0% to 6.2%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. There was no evidence of differential treatment effects of the intervention on the primary outcome by age, sex, history of dementia, or study site.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04281784

CONTEXT: Documented goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric for patients with serious illness. Natural language processing (NLP) is a promising approach for identifying goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVES: To compare three NLP modeling approaches for identifying EHR documentation of goals-of-care discussions and generate hypotheses about differences in performance. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate performance and misclassification for three NLP featurization approaches modeled with regularized logistic regression: bag-of-words (BOW), rule-based, and a hybrid approach. From a prospective cohort of 150 patients hospitalized with serious illness over 2018–2020, we collected 4,391 inpatient EHR notes; 99 (2.3%) contained documented goals-of-care discussions. We used leave-one-out cross-validation to estimate performance by comparing pooled NLP predictions to human abstractors with receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall (PR) analyses. We qualitatively examined a purposive sample of 70 NLP-misclassified notes using content analysis to identify linguistic features that allowed us to generate hypotheses underpinning misclassification. RESULTS: All three modeling approaches discriminated between notes with and without goals-of-care discussions (AUC(ROC): BOW, 0.907; rule-based, 0.948; hybrid, 0.965). Precision and recall were only moderate (precision at 70% recall: BOW, 16.2%; rule-based, 50.4%; hybrid, 49.3%; AUC(PR): BOW, 0.505; rule-based, 0.579; hybrid, 0.599). Qualitative analysis revealed patterns underlying performance differences between BOW and rule-based approaches. CONCLUSION: NLP holds promise for identifying EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions. However, the rarity of goals-of-care content in EHR data limits performance. Our findings highlight opportunities to optimize NLP modeling approaches, and support further exploration of different NLP approaches to identify goals-of-care discussions.

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: Despite its widespread implementation, it is unclear whether Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) are safe and improve the delivery of care that patients desire. We sought to systematically review the influence of POLST on treatment intensity among patients with serious illness and/or frailty. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of POLST and similar programs using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO, from inception through February 28, 2020. We included adults with serious illness and/or frailty with life expectancy

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.

Background Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it However the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life despite robust evidence for improved outcomes Goals This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society ATS and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this Methods An international and interprofessional expert committee including patients and caregivers achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary critical care palliative care bioethics health law and policy geriatrics nursing physiotherapy social work pharmacy patient advocacy psychology and sociology Results The committee developed fundamental values principles and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains 1 delivery models 2 comprehensive symptom assessment and management 3 advance care planning and goals of care discussions 4 caregiver support 5 health disparities 6 mass casualty events and emergency preparedness and 7 research priorities The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers Conclusions This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration Copyright 2022 by the American Thoracic Society

Goals-of-care discussions are important for patient-centered care among hospitalized patients with serious illness. However, there are little data on the occurrence, predictors, and timing of these discussions.To examine the occurrence, predictors, and timing of electronic health record (EHR)-documented goals-of-care discussions for hospitalized patients.This retrospective cohort study used natural language processing (NLP) to examine EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions for adults with chronic life-limiting illness or age ≥80 hospitalized 2015-2019. The primary outcome was NLP-identified documentation of a goals-of-care discussion during the index hospitalization. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with baseline characteristics.Of 16,262 consecutive, eligible patients without missing data, 5,918 (36.4%) had a documented goals-of-care discussion during hospitalization; approximately 57% of these discussions occurred within 24 hours of admission. In multivariable analysis, documented goals-of-care discussions were more common for women (OR=1.26, 95%CI 1.18-1.36), older patients (OR=1.04 per year, 95%CI 1.03-1.04), and patients with more comorbidities (OR=1.11 per Deyo-Charlson point, 95%CI 1.10-1.13), cancer (OR=1.88, 95%CI 1.72-2.06), dementia (OR=2.60, 95%CI 2.29-2.94), higher acute illness severity (OR=1.12 per National Early Warning Score point, 95%CI 1.11-1.14), or prior advance care planning documents (OR=1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.30). Documentation of these discussions was less common for racially or ethnically minoritized patients (OR=0.823, 95%CI 0.75-0.90).Among hospitalized patients with serious illness, documented goals-of-care discussions identified by NLP were more common among patients with older age and increased burden of acute or chronic illness, and less common among racially or ethnically minoritized patients. This suggests important disparities in goals-of-care discussions.

ImportanceMany clinical trial outcomes are documented in free-text electronic health records (EHRs), making manual data collection costly and infeasible at scale. Natural language processing (NLP) is a promising approach for measuring such outcomes efficiently, but ignoring NLP-related misclassification may lead to underpowered studies.ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance, feasibility, and power implications of using NLP to measure the primary outcome of EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial of a communication intervention.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis diagnostic study compared the performance, feasibility, and power implications of measuring EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions using 3 approaches: (1) deep-learning NLP, (2) NLP-screened human abstraction (manual verification of NLP-positive records), and (3) conventional manual abstraction. The study included hospitalized patients aged 55 years or older with serious illness enrolled between April 23, 2020, and March 26, 2021, in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial of a communication intervention in a multihospital US academic health system.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were natural language processing performance characteristics, human abstractor-hours, and misclassification-adjusted statistical power of methods of measuring clinician-documented goals-of-care discussions. Performance of NLP was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and precision-recall (PR) analyses and examined the effects of misclassification on power using mathematical substitution and Monte Carlo simulation.ResultsA total of 2512 trial participants (mean [SD] age, 71.7 [10.8] years; 1456 [58%] female) amassed 44 324 clinical notes during 30-day follow-up. In a validation sample of 159 participants, deep-learning NLP trained on a separate training data set identified patients with documented goals-of-care discussions with moderate accuracy (maximal F1 score, 0.82; area under the ROC curve, 0.924; area under the PR curve, 0.879). Manual abstraction of the outcome from the trial data set would require an estimated 2000 abstractor-hours and would power the trial to detect a risk difference of 5.4% (assuming 33.5% control-arm prevalence, 80% power, and 2-sided α = .05). Measuring the outcome by NLP alone would power the trial to detect a risk difference of 7.6%. Measuring the outcome by NLP-screened human abstraction would require 34.3 abstractor-hours to achieve estimated sensitivity of 92.6% and would power the trial to detect a risk difference of 5.7%. Monte Carlo simulations corroborated misclassification-adjusted power calculations.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this diagnostic study, deep-learning NLP and NLP-screened human abstraction had favorable characteristics for measuring an EHR outcome at scale. Adjusted power calculations accurately quantified power loss from NLP-related misclassification, suggesting that incorporation of this approach into the design of studies using NLP would be beneficial.

High-quality goals-of-care communication is critical to delivering goal-concordant, patient-centered care to hospitalized patients with chronic life-limiting illness. However, implementation and documentation of goals-of-care discussions remain important shortcomings in many health systems.To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care communication for patients hospitalized with serious illness.This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from November 6, 2018, to February 18, 2020. The setting was 2 hospitals in an academic health care system in Seattle, Washington. Participants included hospitalized adults with chronic life-limiting illness, aged 65 years or older and with markers of frailty, or aged 80 years or older. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to August 2021.Patients were randomized to usual care with baseline questionnaires (control) vs the Jumpstart communication-priming intervention. Patients or surrogates in the intervention group and their clinicians received patient-specific Jumpstart Guides populated with data from questionnaires and the electronic health records (EHRs) that were designed to prompt and guide a goals-of-care discussion.The primary outcome was EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion between randomization and hospital discharge. Additional outcomes included patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions, patient-reported or surrogate-reported quality of communication, and intervention feasibility and acceptability.Of 428 eligible patients, this study enrolled 150 patients (35% enrollment rate; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [13.6] years; 66 women [44%]; 132 [88%] by patient consent and 18 [12%] by surrogate consent). Seventy-five patients each were randomized to the intervention and control groups. Compared with the control group, the cumulative incidence of EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions between randomization and hospital discharge was higher in the intervention group (16 of 75 patients [21%] vs 6 of 75 patients [8%]; risk difference, 13% [95% CI, 2%-24%]; risk ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.10-6.44]; P = .04). Patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions did not differ significantly between groups (30 of 66 patients [45%] vs 36 of 66 patients [55%]), although the intrarater consistency of patient and surrogate reports was poor. Patient-rated or surrogate-rated quality of communication did not differ significantly between groups. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients, surrogates, and clinicians.In this randomized clinical trial, a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication priming intervention for seriously ill, hospitalized patients promoted EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions before discharge with good feasibility and acceptability. Communication-priming interventions should be reexamined in a larger randomized clinical trial to better understand their effectiveness in the inpatient setting.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03746392.

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.

Study objective Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms are intended to help prevent the provision of unwanted medical interventions among patients with advanced illness or frailty who are approaching the end of life. We seek to evaluate how POLST form completion, treatment limitations, or both influence intensity of treatment among patients who present to the emergency department (ED). Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adults who presented to the ED at an academic medical center in Oregon between April 2015 and October 2016. POLST form completion and treatment limitations were the main exposures. Primary outcome was hospital admission; secondary outcomes included ICU admission and a composite measure of aggressive treatment. Results A total of 26,128 patients were included; 1,769 (6.8%) had completed POLST forms. Among patients with POLST, 52.1% had full treatment orders, and 6.4% had their forms accessed before admission. POLST form completion was not associated with hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.12), ICU admission (aOR=0.82; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22), or aggressive treatment (aOR=1.06; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.51). Compared with POLST forms with full treatment orders, those with treatment limitations were not associated with hospital admission (aOR=1.12; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.37) or aggressive treatment (aOR=0.87; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.52), but were associated with lower odds of ICU admission (aOR=0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.61). Conclusion Among patients presenting to the ED with POLST, the majority of POLST forms had orders for full treatment and were not accessed by emergency providers. These findings may partially explain why we found no association of POLST with treatment intensity. However, treatment limitations on POLST forms were associated with reduced odds of ICU admission. Implementation and accessibility of POLST forms are crucial when considering their effect on the provision of treatment consistent with patients’ preferences.

RATIONALE Adherence to follow-up lung cancer screening (LCS) in real-world settings is suboptimal. Patient understanding of screening results and anticipated follow-up may be crucial to adherence. OBJECTIVE To determine patient-factors associated with identification of follow-up recommendations as a measure of patient understanding of screening results after LCS , and to determine whether misidentification of follow-up is associated with lower adherence to recommendations. METHODS We performed a prospective study of patients in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS registry who underwent an initial LCS exam between June 2017- September 2019. We mailed potential participants a survey following initial LCS exam, with additional data abstracted from the electronic health record and LCS registry. Participants were asked to identify the timing and next step for their follow-up, with answers corresponding to Lung-RADS recommendations. We examined associations between incorrect identification of recommended follow-up and patient-level characteristics, self-perceived benefit/harm of LCS, LCS knowledge, Lung-RADS score, and patient-reported method of LCS results communication (letter, telephone or in-person). We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with incorrect identification of recommendations and assessed incorrect identification of recommendations as a potential mechanism for poor adherence in a separate regression model. RESULTS One-hundred eighty-eight participants completed the survey (response rate 44%); 47% misidentified their follow-up recommendation. Those with lung-RADS scores ≥3 had higher odds of incorrectly identifying follow-up recommendations compared to those with scores

Brazil has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, placing a high burden on ICUs.Are perceptions of ICU resource availability associated with end-of-life decisions and burnout among health care providers (HCPs) during COVID-19 surges in Brazil?We electronically administered a survey to multidisciplinary ICU HCPs during two 2-week periods (in June 2020 and March 2021) coinciding with COVID-19 surges. We examined responses across geographical regions and performed multivariate regressions to explore factors associated with reports of: (1) families being allowed less input in decisions about maintaining life-sustaining treatments for patients with COVID-19 and (2) emotional distress and burnout.We included 1,985 respondents (57% physicians, 14% nurses, 12% respiratory therapists, 16% other HCPs). More respondents reported shortages during the second surge compared with the first (P .05 for all comparisons), including lower availability of intensivists (66% vs 42%), ICU nurses (53% vs 36%), ICU beds (68% vs 22%), and ventilators for patients with COVID-19 (80% vs 70%); shortages were highest in the North. One-quarter of HCPs reported that families were allowed less input in decisions about maintaining life-sustaining treatments for patients with COVID-19, which was associated with lack of intensivists (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) and ICU beds (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.16-2.62) during the first surge and lack of N95 masks (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10-1.85), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (aRR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07), and oxygen concentrators (aRR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00) during the second surge. Burnout was higher during the second surge (60% vs 71%; P .001), associated with witnessing colleagues at one's hospital contract COVID-19 during both surges (aRR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.25-1.93] and 1.31 [95% CI, 1.11-1.55], respectively), as well as worries about finances (aRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.61) and lack of ICU nurses (aRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.53) during the first surge.During the COVID-19 pandemic, ICU HCPs in Brazil experienced substantial resource shortages, health care disparities between regions, changes in end-of-life care associated with resource shortages, and high proportions of burnout.

Although goals-of-care discussions are important for high-quality palliative care, this communication is often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness. Electronic health records (EHR) provide an opportunity to identify patients who might benefit from these discussions and promote their occurrence, yet prior interventions using the EHR for this purpose are limited. We designed two complementary yet independent randomized trials to examine effectiveness of a communication-priming intervention (Jumpstart) for hospitalized older adults with serious illness.We report the protocol for these 2 randomized trials. Trial 1 has two arms, usual care and a clinician-facing Jumpstart, and is a pragmatic trial assessing outcomes with the EHR only (n = 2000). Trial 2 has three arms: usual care, clinician-facing Jumpstart, and clinician- and patient-facing (bi-directional) Jumpstart (n = 600). We hypothesize the clinician-facing Jumpstart will improve outcomes over usual care and the bi-directional Jumpstart will improve outcomes over the clinician-facing Jumpstart and usual care. We use a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to examine implementation barriers and facilitators.For both trials, the primary outcome is EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion within 30 days of randomization; additional outcomes include intensity of end-of-life care. Trial 2 also examines patient- or family-reported outcomes assessed by surveys targeting 3-5 days and 4-8 weeks after randomization including quality of goals-of-care communication, receipt of goal-concordant care, and psychological symptoms.This novel study incorporates two complementary randomized trials and a hybrid effectiveness-implementation approach to improve the quality and value of care for hospitalized older adults with serious illness.STUDY00007031-A and STUDY00007031-B.

For more than three decades, both medical professionals and the public have worried that many patients receive non-beneficial care in US intensive care units during their final months of life. Some of these patients wish to avoid severe cognitive and physical impairments, and protracted deaths in the hospital setting. Recognising when intensive care will not restore a person's health, and helping patients and families embrace goals related to symptom relief, interpersonal connection, or spiritual fulfilment are central challenges of critical care practice in the USA. We review trials from the past decade of interventions designed to address these challenges, and present reasons why evaluating, comparing, and implementing these interventions have been difficult. Careful scrutiny of the design and interpretation of past trials can show why improving goal concordant care has been so elusive, and suggest new directions for the next generation of research.

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

Rationale: New isolation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) is generally treated with inhaled antipseudomonal antibiotics such as tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS). A therapeutic approach that complements traditional antimicrobial therapy by reducing the risk of pulmonary exacerbation and inflammation may ultimately prolong the time to Pa recurrence. Objectives: To test the hypothesis that the addition of azithromycin to TIS in children with cystic fibrosis and early Pa decreases the risk of pulmonary exacerbation and prolongs the time to Pa recurrence. Methods: The OPTIMIZE (Optimizing Treatment for Early Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection in Cystic Fibrosis) trial was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 18-month trial in children with CF, 6 months to 18 years of age, with early Pa. Azithromycin or placebo was given 3× weekly with standardized TIS. Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint was the time to pulmonary exacerbation requiring antibiotics and the secondary endpoint was the time to Pa recurrence, in addition to other clinical and safety outcomes. A total of 221 participants (111 placebo, 110 azithromycin) out of a planned 274 were enrolled. Enrollment was stopped early by the NHLBI because the trial had reached the prespecified interim boundary for efficacy. The risk of pulmonary exacerbation was reduced by 44% in the azithromycin group as compared with the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.83; P = 0.004). Weight increased by 1.27 kg in the azithromycin group compared with the placebo group (95% confidence interval, 0.01–2.52; P = 0.046). No significant differences were seen in microbiological or other clinical or safety endpoints. Conclusions: Azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation and a sustained improvement in weight, but had no impact on microbiological outcomes in children with early Pa. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02054156).

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.

Palliative care is an interprofessional specialty and an approach to care that focuses on improving the quality of life of patients and their families who are facing serious illness. Palliative care can address many domains of symptoms and needs that are important to patients and families of critically ill patients including symptom assessment and management, communication to establish goals of care, alignment of treatments with patient preferences, attention to psychosocial and spiritual needs of both patients and their families, and planning for care transitions. Given these goals, palliative care principles and services can potentially benefit not only patients who are critically ill but also those who survive critical illness as many patients and families have palliative care needs that extend for months or years after critical illness. Older adults, people with fraility, and those with chronic critical illness might benefit most from palliative care services after critical illness. Several opportunities exist to integrate palliative care into post-ICU recovery either through integration into post-ICU clinics or in the delivery of community-based palliative care services, including enhancing communication to establish goals of care, aligning treatment plans with patient preferences for future medical care, supporting families, and helping plan and coordinate care transitions, and encouraging advance care planning.

Background Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective at reducing mortality for high-risk smokers. Mortality benefits go beyond early cancer detection, because shared decision-making (SDM) may present a “teachable moment” to reinforce cessation and provide resources. Research Question How well is smoking cessation performed during LCS SDM encounters, and what patient and provider characteristics are associated with smoking cessation assistance? Study Design and Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of current smokers participating in initial LCS SDM through a multisite program in Seattle, Washington, between 2015-2018. The LCS tracking database and electronic health record were reviewed for demographics, comorbidity data, and clinical encounter information. The primary outcome was provision of a smoking cessation resource, defined as referral to cessation resources, recommendation for nicotine replacement, or prescription for cessation medication. Participant and provider factor associations with the outcome were evaluated using χ2 testing and multivariable logistic regression. Results Most of the 423 study participants were men (70%), with a median age of 61 (IQR, 58-66) years and median of 50 (41-72) pack-years of smoking. Only 26% of encounters had documentation consistent with SDM. Thirty-nine percent of participants received at least one smoking cessation resource, and only 5% received both counseling referrals and medication. In a multivariable model, the provision of any smoking cessation resource was half as likely in participants with higher levels of comorbidity (Charlson Index >2; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81), and half as likely if the ordering provider was not the patient’s PCP or their specialist (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96). Interpretation Overall provision of smoking cessation resources was moderate during SDM encounters for LCS, and lower in patients with more comorbidities and when not performed by the patient’s PCP or specialist. Interventions are needed to improve smoking cessation counseling and resource utilization at the time of LCS encounters.

Background: Palliative care-related postdoctoral training opportunities are critical to increase the quantity and quality of palliative care research. Objective: To describe the history, activities, challenges, and future goals of the National Postdoctoral Palliative Care Research Training Collaborative. Design: National web-based survey of participating program leaders. Measurements: Information about participating programs, trainees, challenges faced, and future goals. Results: Nine participating programs at academic institutions across the United States focus on diverse aspects of palliative care research. The majority of 73 current and former fellows are female (75%) and white (84%). In total, 38% of fellows (n = 28) have MD backgrounds, of whom less than half (n = 12) completed hospice and palliative medicine fellowships. An additional 38% of fellows (n = 28) have nursing PhD backgrounds and 23% (n = 17) have other diverse types of PhD backgrounds. Key challenges relate to recruiting diverse trainees, fostering a shared identity, effectively advocating for trainees, and securing funding. Future goals include expanding efforts to engage clinician and nonclinician scientists, fostering the pipeline of palliative care researchers through expanded mentorship of predoctoral and clinical trainees, increasing the number of postdoctoral palliative care training programs, and expanding funding support for career development grants. Conclusion: The National Postdoctoral Palliative Care Research Training Collaborative fills an important role in creating a community for palliative care research trainees and developing strategies to address shared challenges.

Background Assessing the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on intensive care unit (ICU) providers’ perceptions of resource availability and evaluating the factors associated with emotional distress/burnout can inform interventions to promote provider well-being. Methods Between 23 April and 7 May 2020, we electronically administered a survey to physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists (RTs), and advanced practice providers (APPs) caring for COVID-19 patients in the United States. We conducted a multivariate regression to assess associations between concerns, a reported lack of resources, and 3 outcomes: a primary outcome of emotional distress/burnout and 2 secondary outcomes of (1) fear that the hospital is unable to keep providers safe; and (2) concern about transmitting COVID-19 to their families/communities. Results We included 1651 respondents from all 50 states: 47% were nurses, 25% physicians, 17% RTs, and 11% APPs. Shortages of intensivists and ICU nurses were reported by 12% and 28% of providers, respectively. The largest supply restrictions reported were for powered air purifying respirators (56% reporting restricted availability). Provider concerns included worries about transmitting COVID-19 to their families/communities (66%), emotional distress/burnout (58%), and insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE; 40%). After adjustment, emotional distress/burnout was significantly associated with insufficient PPE access (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32–1.55), stigma from community (aRR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24–1.41), and poor communication with supervisors (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06–1.21). Insufficient PPE access was the strongest predictor of feeling that the hospital is unable to keep providers safe and worries about transmitting infection to their families/communities. Conclusions Addressing insufficient PPE access, poor communication from supervisors, and community stigma may improve provider mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Context Goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric in palliative care. However, goals-of-care discussions are often documented as free text in diverse locations. It is difficult to identify these discussions in the electronic health record (EHR) efficiently. Objectives To develop, train, and test an automated approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR, using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). Methods From the electronic health records of an academic health system, we collected a purposive sample of 3183 EHR notes (1435 inpatient notes and 1748 outpatient notes) from 1426 patients with serious illness over 2008–2016, and manually reviewed each note for documentation of goals-of-care discussions. Separately, we developed a program to identify notes containing documentation of goals-of-care discussions using NLP and supervised ML. We estimated the performance characteristics of the NLP/ML program across 100 pairs of randomly partitioned training and test sets. We repeated these methods for inpatient-only and outpatient-only subsets. Results Of 3183 notes, 689 contained documentation of goals-of-care discussions. The mean sensitivity of the NLP/ML program was 82.3% (SD 3.2%), and the mean specificity was 97.4% (SD 0.7%). NLP/ML results had a median positive likelihood ratio of 32.2 (IQR 27.5–39.2) and a median negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (IQR 0.16–0.20). Performance was better in inpatient-only samples than outpatient-only samples. Conclusion Using NLP and ML techniques, we developed a novel approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR. NLP and ML represent a potential approach toward measuring goals-of-care discussions as a research outcome and quality metric.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Many older persons with chronic illness use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document portable medical orders for emergency care. However, some POLSTs contain combinations of orders that do not translate into a cohesive care plan (eg, cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] without intensive care, or intensive care without antibiotics). This study characterizes the prevalence and predictors of POLSTs with conflicting orders. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large academic health system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3,123 POLST users with chronic life-limiting illness who died between 2010 and 2015 (mean age = 69.7 years). MEASUREMENTS: In a retrospective review of all POLSTs in participants’ electronic health records, we describe the prevalence of POLSTs with conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and use clustered logistic regression to evaluate potential predictors of conflicting orders. We also examine the prevalence of conflicts between POLST orders for antibiotics and artificial nutrition with orders for cardiac arrest or medical interventions. RESULTS: Among 3,924 complete POLSTs belonging to 3,123 decedents, 209 (5.3%) POLSTs contained orders to “attempt CPR” paired with orders for “limited interventions” or “comfort measures only”; 745/3169 (23.5%) POLSTs paired orders to restrict antibiotics with orders to deliver non-comfort-only care; and, 170/3098 (5.5%) POLSTs paired orders to withhold artificial nutrition with orders to deliver CPR or intensive care. Among POLSTs with orders to avoid intensive care, orders to attempt CPR were more likely to be present in POLSTs completed earlier in the patient’s illness course (adjusted odds ratio = 1.27 per twofold increase in days from POLST to death; 95% confidence interval = 1.18–1.36; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although most POLSTs are actionable by clinicians, 5% had conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and 24% had one or more conflicts between orders for cardiac arrest, medical interventions, antibiotics, and artificial nutrition. These conflicting orders make implementation of POLST challenging for clinicians in acute care settings.

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) represents a paradigm shift in research methods aimed to create the body of evidence that supports clinical practice and informs health care decisions. PCOR integrates patients and other key stakeholders including family members, policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates and advocacy groups as research partners throughout all stages of the research process. The importance of PCOR has received increased recognition, yet there is little evidence available to help guide researchers interested in the design and conduct of PCOR. In May 2014, we convened a workshop to identify key issues related to designing, conducting, and disseminating findings from PCOR studies. Workshop participants included a diverse group of patients, patient advocates, clinicians (physicians, nurses, psychologists, and advanced practice providers), researchers, administrators, and funders within and beyond the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine communities. Participants identified important issues and considerations to address when undertaking PCOR. In this report, we summarize the results of this workshop to inform members of the pulmonary, sleep, and critical care community interested in participating in PCOR. Key findings include the following: 1) requirements for research to be considered PCOR; 2) the potential significant impact of PCOR on patients, clinicians, and researchers; 3) guiding principles and practical strategies to form successful patient-centered research partnerships, conduct PCOR, and disseminate study results to a broad audience of stakeholders; 4) benefits and challenges of PCOR for researchers; and 5) resources available within the American Thoracic Society to help with the conduct of PCOR.

Objective:To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU.Methods:We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We a

Background: We conducted a randomized trial of a simulation-based multisession workshop to improve palliative care communication skills (Codetalk). Standardized patient assessments demonstrated improved communication skills for trainees receiving the intervention; however, patient and family assessments failed to demonstrate improvement. This article reports findings from trainees’ self-assessments. Aim: To examine whether Codetalk resulted in improved self-assessed communication competence by trainees. Design: Trainees were recruited from the University of Washington and the Medical University of South Carolina. Internal medicine residents, medicine subspecialty fellows, nurse practitioner students, or community-based advanced practice nurses were randomized to Codetalk, a simulation-based workshop, or usual education. The outcome measure was self-assessed competence discussing palliative care needs with patients and was assessed at the start and end of the academic year. We used robust linear regression models to predict self-assessed competency, both as a latent construct and as individual indicators, including randomization status and baseline self-assessed competency. Results: We randomized 472 trainees to the intervention (n = 232) or usual education (n = 240). The intervention was associated with an improvement in trainee’s overall self-assessment of competence in communication skills ( P < .001). The intervention was also associated with an improvement in trainee self-assessments of 3 of the 4 skill-specific indicators—expressing empathy, discussing spiritual issues, and eliciting goals of care. Conclusion: Simulation-based communication training was associated with improved self-assessed competency in overall and specific communication skills in this randomized trial. Further research is needed to fully understand the importance and limitations of self-assessed competence in relation to other outcomes of improved communication skill.

Objectives: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them.\ud \ud Design: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data.\ud \ud Setting: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents.\ud \ud Subjects: Clinicians from 21 sites.\ud \ud Measurement and Main Results: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of “ICU follow-up clinics” were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of “peer support groups” were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising.\ud \ud Conclusions: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles.

Objective: Identify the key mechanisms which clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post ICU programs. Methods: Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Thrive collaboratives from over 20 centres in the UK, Australia and US (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework Analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. Results: Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: 1) Identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs - new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. 2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU - former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. 3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them - clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. 4) Changing clinician's own understanding of patient experience - there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. 5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work - this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. Conclusions: The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further testing of whether these mechanisms drive improvements in patient and family-centered care, and whether these programs enhance clinician well-being and ICU culture, is warranted. Funding Statement: K Haines, J McPeake, L Boehm, C Sevin and Tara Quasim are currently receiving funding from SCCM to undertake this work. L Boehm is funded by NIH/NHLBI (K12 HL137943) as is T J Iwashyna (K12 HL138039). Declaration of Interests: : K Haines, J McPeake, L Boehm, C Sevin and Tara Quasim are currently receiving funding from SCCM to undertake this work. L Boehm is funded by NIH/NHLBI (K12 HL137943) as is T J Iwashyna (K12 HL138039). No conflicts of interest declared by other authors. Ethics Approval Statement: The institutional ethics committee of the principal investigator (KH) approved the study (HREC/17/WH/170) and consent was implied through participation.

Family members of ICU survivors report long-term psychologic symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. We describe patient- and family-member risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among family members of survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome.Prospective cohort study of family members of acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors.Single tertiary care center in Seattle, Washington.From 2010 to 2015, we assembled an inception cohort of adult acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors who identified family members involved in ICU and post-ICU care. One-hundred sixty-two family members enrolled in the study, corresponding to 120 patients.None.Family members were assessed for self-reported psychologic symptoms 6 months after patient discharge using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Civilian Version, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression scale, and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. The primary outcome was posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression and anxiety. We used clustered multivariable logistic regression to identify patient- and family-member risk factors for psychologic symptoms. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms were present in 31% (95% CI, 24-39%) of family participants. Family member risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms included preexisting mental health disorders (adjusted odds ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.42-7.31), recent personal experience of serious physical illness (adjusted odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.40-6.75), and female gender (adjusted odds ratio, 5.18; 95% CI, 1.74-15.4). Family members of previously healthy patients (Charlson index of zero) had higher frequency of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.06-4.77). Markers of patient illness severity were not associated with family posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.The prevalence of long-term posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among family members of acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors is high. Family members with preexisting mental health disorders, recent experiences of serious physical illness, and family members of previously healthy patients are at increased risk for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.

CONTEXT: Prioritizing amongst potentially conflicting end-of-life values may help patients discriminate amongst treatments and allow clinicians to align treatments with values. OBJECTIVES: To investigate end-of-life values that patients prioritize when facing explicit trade-offs and identify predictors of patients whose values and treatment preferences seem inconsistent. METHODS: Analysis of surveys from a multi-center cluster-randomized trial of patients with serious illness. Respondents prioritized end-of-life values and identified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in two health states. RESULTS: Of 535 patients, 60% prioritized relief of discomfort over extending life, 17% prioritized extending life over relief of discomfort, and 23% were unsure. Patients prioritizing extending life were most likely to prefer CPR, with 93% preferring CPR in current health and 67% preferring CPR if dependent on others, compared to 69% and 21% respectively for patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, and 78% and 33% respectively for patients unsure of their prioritized value (p