Search

Background: Goals of care conversations explore seriously ill patients' values to guide medical decision making and often inform decisions about life sustaining treatments. Ideally, conversations occur before a health crisis between patients and clinicians in the outpatient setting. In the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, most conversations still occur in the inpatient setting. Strategies are needed to improve implementation of outpatient, primary care goals of care conversations., Methods: We plan a cluster randomized (clinician-level) sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patient implementation strategies on the outcome of goals of care conversation documentation when delivered in combination with clinician implementation strategies. Across three VA healthcare system sites, we will enroll primary care clinicians with low rates of goals of care conversations and their patients with serious medical illness in the top 10th percentile of risk of hospitalization or death. We will compare the effectiveness of sequences of implementation strategies and explore how patient and site factors modify implementation strategy effects. Finally, we will conduct a mixed-methods evaluation to understand implementation strategy success or failure. The design includes two key innovations: (1) strategies that target both clinicians and patients and (2) sequential strategies with increased intensity for non-responders., Conclusion: This study aims to determine the effect of different sequences and combinations of implementation strategies on primary care documentation of goals of care conversations. Study partners, including the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care and Office of Primary Care, can consider policies based on study findings., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis., Methods: We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes., Results: Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time., Conclusion: Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objectives: To compare the discussions from two panels on the concept of palliative care quality for patients with advanced cancer, exploring the priorities reflected in each group's perspectives., Design: We convened two RAND-UCLA appropriateness panel discussions on palliative care quality in advanced cancer. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Panel transcripts were analysed thematically using a matrix approach to examine perceptions and experiences of quality., Setting: Discussions were framed within the context of advanced cancer care and palliative care., Participants: The patient-caregiver panel had 9 patients with current or a history of cancer and caregivers, and the practitioner panel had 10 expert practitioners representing fields of oncology, primary care, social work, palliative care, nursing, pain management and ethics., Results: Our analysis identified three thematic categories for understanding quality common across both groups and nine subthemes within those categories. At the highest level, quality was conceived as: (1) the patient and caregiver experience of care, (2) technical competence and (3) the structure of health system. Among the subthemes, four were present in only one of the two group's discussions: 'purpose and action' was specific to the patient-caregiver panel, whereas 'adhering to best medical practice', 'mitigating unintended consequences and side effects', and 'health system resources and costs' were specific to the practitioner panel., Conclusions: While both panels aligned on the three key domains of quality, the particular dimensions through which they perceived quality varied in relation to their experience and role as a professional provider of care versus recipient of healthcare services. These differences suggest the importance of adopting a collaborative approach to quality measurement and improvement so that the values of all interested parties are represented in improvement efforts., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The Palliative Care: Promoting Access and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) initiative is a team-based, palliative care (PC) quality improvement (QI) project working to promote high-quality PC in India. As a PC QI initiative, PC-PAICE implementation relied upon building interdisciplinary teams, providing the ideal context for understanding facilitators of team cohesion that compelled clinical, organizational, and administrative team members to work together. There is an opportunity to leverage the intersection between QI implementation and organizational theory to inform and improve implementation science., Purpose: As a subaim of a larger implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators of team cohesion within QI implementation context., Methodology: A quota sampling approach captured the perspectives of 44 stakeholders across three strata (organizational leaders, clinical leaders, and clinical team members) from all seven sites through a semistructured interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used a combination of inductive and deductive approaches informed by organizational theory to identify facilitators., Result: We identified three facilitators of PC team cohesion: (a) balancing formalization and flexibility around team roles, (b) establishing widespread awareness of the QI project, and (c) prioritizing a nonhierarchical organizational culture., Practice Implications: Leveraging CFIR to analyze PC-PAICE stakeholder interviews created a data set conducive to understanding complex multisite implementation. Layering role and team theory to our implementation analysis helped us identify facilitators of team cohesion across levels within the team (bounded team), beyond the team (teaming), and surrounding the team (culture). These insights demonstrate the value of team and role theories in implementation evaluation efforts., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Quality measurement is typically the domain of clinical experts and health system leaders; patient/caregiver perspectives are rarely solicited. We aimed to describe and integrate clinician and patient/caregiver conceptualizations of high-quality palliative symptom care for patients receiving care for advanced cancer within the US Veterans Health Administration in the context of existing quality measures. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts from prioritization discussions of process quality measures relevant to cancer palliative care. These discussions occurred during 2 modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness panels: a panel of 10 palliative care clinical expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) and a panel of 9 patients/caregivers with cancer experience. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and independently double-coded using an a priori logical framework. Content analysis was used to identify subthemes within codes and axial coding was used to identify crosscutting themes. Patients/caregivers and clinical experts contributed important perspectives to 3 crosscutting themes. First, proactive elicitation of symptoms is critical. Patients/caregivers especially emphasized importance of comprehensive and proactive screening and assessment, especially for pain and mental health. Second, screening and assessment alone is not enough; information elicited from patients must inform care. Measuring screening/assessment and management care processes separately has important limitations. Lastly, high-quality symptom management can be broadly defined if it is patient-centered; high-quality care takes an individualized approach and might include non-medical or non-pharmacological symptom management. Integrating the perspectives of clinical experts and patients/caregivers is critical for health systems to consider as they design and implement quality measures for palliative cancer care.

Purpose: Seven major palliative care (PC) centers in India were mentored through the Palliative Care-Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) by US and Australian academic institutions to implement a quality improvement (QI) project to improve the accessibility and quality of PC at their respective centers. The objective was to evaluate the experiences of teams in implementing QI methods across diverse geographical settings in India., Methods: A quota sampling approach was used to elicit perspectives of local stakeholders at each site. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed development of a semistructured interview guide. Analysis leveraged deductive and inductive approaches., Results: We interviewed 44 participants (eight organizational leaders, 12 clinical leaders, and 24 team members) at seven sites and identified five themes. (1) Implementing QI methods enabled QI teams to think analytically to solve a complex problem and to identify resources. (2) Developing a problem statement by identifying specific gaps in patient care fostered team collaboration toward a common goal. (3) Making use of QI tools (eg, A3 process) systematically provided a new, straightforward QI toolkit and improved QI teams' conceptual understanding. (4) Enhancing stakeholder engagement allowed shared understanding of QI team members' roles and processes and shaped interventions tailored to the local context. (5) Designing less subjective processes for patient care such as assessment scales to identify patient's symptomatic needs positively changed work practices and culture., Conclusion: Engaging and empowering multiple stakeholders to use QI methods facilitated the expansion and improvement of PC and cancer services in India. PC-PAICE demonstrated an efficient, effective way to apply QI methods in an international context. The impact of PC-PAICE is being magnified by developing a cadre of Indian QI leaders.

Background: The population of patients with cancer requiring palliative care (PC) is on the rise in India. Family caregivers will be essential members of the care team in the provision of PC., Objective: We aimed to characterize provider perspectives of the challenges that Indian families face in taking on a palliative caregiving role., Method: Data for this analysis came from an evaluation of the PC-PAICE project, a series of quality improvement interventions for PC in India. We conducted 44 in-depth semi-structured interviews with organizational leaders and clinical team members at seven geographically and structurally diverse settings. Through thematic content analysis, themes relating to the caregivers' role were identified using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches., Result: Contextual challenges to taking up the PC caregiving role included family members' limited knowledge about PC and cancer, the necessity of training for caregiving responsibilities, and cultural preferences for pursuing curative treatments over palliative ones. Some logistical challenges include financial, time, and mental health limitations that family caregivers may encounter when navigating the expectations of taking on the caregiving role. Strategies to facilitate family buy-in for PC provision include adopting a family care model, connecting them to services provided by Non-Governmental Organizations, leveraging volunteers and social workers to foster PC awareness and training, and responding specifically to family's requests., Conclusion: Understanding and addressing the various challenges that families face in adopting the caregiver role are essential steps in the provision and expansion of PC in India. Locally initiated quality improvement projects can be a way to address these challenges based on the context., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Development and prioritization of quality measures typically relies on experts in clinical medicine, but patients and their caregivers may have different perspectives on quality measurement priorities., Objective: To inform priorities for health system implementation of palliative cancer and end-of-life care quality measures by eliciting perspectives of patients and caregivers., Design: Using modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Panel methods and materials tailored for knowledgeable lay participants, we convened a panel to rate cancer palliative care process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day, in-person meeting., Participants: Nine patients and caregivers with experience living with or caring for patients with cancer., Main Measures: Panelists rated each concept on importance for providing patient- and family-centered care on a nine-point scale and each panelist nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5")., Key Results: Cancer patient and caregiver panelists rated all measure concepts presented as highly important to patient- and family- centered care (median rating ≥ 7) in pre-panel (mean rating range, 6.9-8.8) and post-panel ratings (mean rating range, 7.2-8.9). Forced choice nominations of the "top 5" helped distinguish similarly rated measure concepts. Measure concepts nominated into the "top 5" by three or more panelists included two measure concepts of communication (goals of care discussions and discussion of prognosis), one measure concept on providing comprehensive assessments of patients, and three on symptoms including pain management plans, improvement in pain, and depression management plans. Patients and caregivers nominated one additional measure concept (pain screening) back into consideration, bringing the total number of measure concepts under consideration to 21., Conclusions: Input from cancer patients and caregivers helped identify quality measurement priorities for health system implementation. Forced choice nominations were useful to discriminate concepts with the highest perceived importance. Our approach serves as a model for incorporating patient and caregiver priorities in quality measure development and implementation., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Importance: Quality measures of palliative and end-of-life care relevant to patients with advanced cancer have been developed, but few are in routine use. It is unclear which of these measures are most important for providing patient- and family-centered care and have high potential for improving quality of care. Objective: To prioritize process quality measures for assessing delivery of patient- and family-centered palliative and end-of-life cancer care in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities. Design, Setting, Participants: A panel of 10 palliative and cancer care expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) rated process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day meeting. Measures: Panelists rated 64 measure concepts on a nine-point scale on: (1) importance to providing patient- and family-centered care, and (2) potential for quality improvement (QI). Panelists also nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5") on each attribute. Results: Panelists rated most measure concepts (54 premeeting, 56 post-meeting) as highly important to patient- and family-centered care (median rating ≥7). Considerably fewer (17 premeeting, 22 post-meeting) were rated as having high potential for QI. Measure concepts having postpanel median ratings ≥7 and nominated by one or more panelists as "top 5" on either attribute comprised a shortlist of 20 measure concepts. Conclusions: A panel of expert stakeholders helped prioritize 64 measure concepts into a shortlist of 20. Half of the shortlisted measures were related to communication about patient preferences and decision making, and half were related to symptom assessment and treatment.

Background: Cancer pain is highly prevalent and often managed in primary care or by oncology providers in combination with primary care providers., Objectives: To understand interdisciplinary provider experiences coordinating opioid pain management for patients with chronic cancer-related pain in a large integrated healthcare system., Design: Qualitative research., Participants: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary providers in two large academically affiliated VA Medical Centers and their associated community-based outpatient clinics. Participants included primary care providers (PCPs) and oncology-based personnel (OBPs)., Approach: We deductively identified 94 examples of care coordination for cancer pain in the 20 interviews. We secondarily used an inductive open coding approach and identified themes through constant comparison coming to research team consensus., Results: Theme 1: PCPs and OBPs generally believed one provider should handle all opioid prescribing for a specific patient, but did not always agree on who that prescriber should be in the context of cancer pain. Theme 2: There are special circumstances where having multiple prescribers is appropriate (e.g., a pain crisis). Theme 3: A collaborative process to opioid cancer pain management would include real-time communication and negotiation between PCPs and oncology around who will handle opioid prescribing. Theme 4: Providers identified multiple barriers in coordinating cancer pain management across disciplines., Conclusions: Our findings highlight how real-time negotiation about roles in opioid pain management is needed between interdisciplinary clinicians. Lack of cross-disciplinary role agreement may result in delays in clinically appropriate cancer pain management., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Purpose: Monitoring and improving the quality of palliative and end-of-life cancer care remain pressing needs in the United States. Among existing measures that assess the quality of palliative and end-of-life care, many operationalize similar concepts. We identified existing palliative care process measures and synthesized these measures to aid stakeholder prioritization that will facilitate health system implementation in patients with advanced cancer., Methods: We reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed-indexed articles for process quality measures related to palliative and end-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer, supplemented by expert input. Measures were inductively grouped into "measure concepts" and higher-level groups., Results: Literature review identified 226 unique measures from 23 measure sources, which we grouped into 64 measure concepts within 12 groups. Groups were advance care planning (11 measure concepts), pain (7), dyspnea (9), palliative care-specific issues (6), other specific symptoms (17), comprehensive assessment (2), symptom assessment (1), hospice/palliative care referral (1), spiritual care (2), mental health (5), information provision (2), and culturally appropriate care (1)., Conclusion: Measure concepts covered the spectrum of care from acute symptom management to advance care planning and psychosocial needs, with variability in the number of measure concepts per group. This taxonomy of process quality measure concepts can be used by health systems seeking stakeholder input to prioritize targets for improving palliative and end-of-life care quality in patients with advanced cancer.