Search

BackgroundPeople identifying as Black/African American are less likely to engage in advance care planning (ACP) compared to their White peers, despite the association of ACP with improved patient and caregiver outcomes.ObjectivesAssess facilitators/barriers to ACP in the San Francisco (SF) Black community and co-design/implement/test community-based ACP pilot events.DesignCommunity-based participatory research, including qualitative research, intervention development, and implementation.ParticipantsIn partnership with the SF Palliative Care Workgroup (which includes health system, city, and community-based organizations), we formed an African American Advisory Committee (n = 13). We conducted 6 focus groups with Black older adults (age ≥ 55), caregivers, and community leaders (n = 29). The Advisory Committee then selected 5 community-based organizations through a widespread request for proposal. These community-based organizations designed and implemented community-based pilot events to support ACP engagement.Main measuresTwo authors analyzed recorded focus group transcripts using thematic analysis. We assessed pre- vs post-event readiness to engage in ACP (validated ACP Engagement Survey; 1-4 scale, 4 = most ready) using Wilcoxon signed rank tests and assessed event acceptability with open-ended questions.Key resultsThemes included the importance of ACP to the Black community (sub-themes: strengthens families; preserves dignity, particularly for sexual/gender minorities; is tied to financial planning) and facilitators for increasing ACP engagement (sub-themes: culturally relevant materials; events in trusted community spaces including Black-owned businesses). A total of 114 participants attended 5 events; 74% identified as Black, and 16% as sexual/gender minorities. Readiness to engage in ACP was similar pre- vs post-events; 98% would recommend the events to others.ConclusionsCommunity-based ACP events designed and led by and for the Black community are highly acceptable. Novel insights underscored the importance of financial planning as part of ACP and the role of Black-owned businesses as trusted spaces for ACP-related discussions.

ObjectiveThis observational study explores the association between palliative care (PC) involvement and high-cost imaging utilisation for patients with cancer patients during the last 3 months of life.MethodsAdult patients with cancer who died between 1 January 2012 and 31 May 2015 were identified. Referral to PC, intensity of PC service use, and non-emergent oncological imaging utilisation were determined. Associations between PC utilisation and proportion of patients imaged and mean number of studies per patient (mean imaging intensity (MII)) were assessed for the last 3 months and the last month of life. Similar analyses were performed for randomly matched case-control pairs (n = 197). Finally, the association between intensity of PC involvement and imaging utilisation was assessed.Results3784 patients were included, with 3523 (93%) never referred to PC and 261 (7%) seen by PC, largely before the last month of life (61%). Similar proportions of patients with and without PC referral were imaged during the last 3 months, while a greater proportion of patients with PC referral were imaged in the last month of life. PC involvement was not associated with significantly different MII during either time frame. In the matched-pairs analysis, a greater proportion of patients previously referred to PC received imaging in the period between the first PC encounter and death, and in the last month of life. MII remained similar between PC and non-PC groups. Finally, intensity of PC services was similar for imaged and non-imaged patients in the final 3 months and 1 month of life. During these time periods, increased PC intensity was not associated with decreased MII.ConclusionsPC involvement in end-of-life oncological care was not associated with decreased use of non-emergent, high-cost imaging. The role of advanced imaging in the PC setting requires further investigation.

ObjectiveTo determine the availability of palliative care programs in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using the 2016 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey.Setting and participantsLTACHs in the United States.MethodWe used descriptive analyses to compare the prevalence of palliative care programs in LTACHs across the United States in 2016. For LTACHs without a program, we also examined palliative care physician capacity in regions where those LTACHs resided to evaluate if expertise existed in those regions.ResultsOne-third (36.5%) of 405 LTACHs (50.6% response rate) self-reported having a palliative care program. Among LTACHs without palliative care, 42.4% were in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity nationwide.Conclusions and implicationsLTACHs care for patients with serious and prolonged illnesses, many of whom would benefit from palliative care. Despite this, our study finds that specialty palliative care is limited in LTACHs. The limited palliative care availability in LTACHs is mismatched with the needs of this seriously ill population. Greater focus on increasing palliative care in LTACHs is essential and may be feasible as 40% of LTACHs without a palliative care program were located in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity.

Background: Telemedicine visits reduce the physical and financial burdens associated with in-person appointments, especially for patients with serious illness. Little is known about patient and caregiver preferences regarding telemedicine visit timing and the discussion of sensitive topics by telemedicine. Objective: To characterize the experience of patients with serious illness and their caregivers receiving palliative care (PC) by telemedicine. Design: Mixed-methods telephone survey. Setting/Subjects: Patients and family caregivers who had at least one telemedicine visit with the outpatient PC team at our urban academic medical center. Results: A total of 35 patients and 15 caregivers were surveyed. Patient mean age was 61 years, 49% had cancer, and 86% were Caucasian. Caregiver mean age was 62 years. Mean satisfaction with PC telemedicine visits was 8.9 out of 10 for patients; 8.8 for caregivers. Patients (97%) and caregivers (100%) felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics over video. Participants felt telemedicine was an acceptable format to discuss most sensitive topics but 53% of caregivers preferred to receive bad news in person. Participants valued the convenience of telemedicine; they had concerns about rapport building and desired a more user-friendly telemedicine platform. Conclusions: Patients with serious illness and their caregivers rated telemedicine visits highly and felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics by video. Concerns included rapport building and telemedicine platform setup and quality. The rapid growth of telemedicine during coronavirus disease 2019 creates an imperative for research to understand the impact on the quality of care and mitigate any negative effects of telemedicine within a diverse population of patients.

In the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, new strategies are needed to address the unique and significant palliative care (PC) needs of patients with COVID-19 and their families, particularly when health systems are stressed by patient surges. Many PC teams rely on referral-based consultation methods that can result in needs going unidentified and/or unmet. Here, we describe a novel system to proactively identify and meet the PC needs of all patients with COVID-19 being cared for in our hospital's intensive care units. Patients were screened through a combination of chart review and brief provider interview, and PC consultations were provided via telemedicine for those with unmet needs identified. In the first six weeks of operation, our pilot program of proactive screening and outreach resulted in PC consultation for 12 of the 29 (41%) adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 at our institution. Consultations were most commonly for patient and family support as well as for goals of care and advance care planning, consistent with identified PC needs within this unique patient population.

As coronavirus disease 2019 cases increase throughout the country and health care systems grapple with the need to decrease provider exposure and minimize personal protective equipment use while maintaining high-quality patient care, our specialty is called on to consider new methods of delivering inpatient palliative care (PC). Telepalliative medicine has been used to great effect in outpatient and home-based PC but has had fewer applications in the inpatient setting. As we plan for decreased provider availability because of quarantine and redeployment and seek to reach increasingly isolated hospitalized patients in the face of coronavirus disease 2019, the need for telepalliative medicine in the inpatient setting is now clear. We describe our rapid and ongoing implementation of telepalliative medicine consultation for our inpatient PC teams and discuss lessons learned and recommendations for programs considering similar care models.

ContextAlthough palliative care (PC) has been shown to improve symptoms and end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with cancer, data are lacking on the patterns of use and outcomes of PC consultations for hospitalized patients with liver disease.ObjectivesWe sought to characterize the patterns of use and outcomes of PC consultations for hospitalized patients with liver disease compared with patients with cancer.MethodsWe conducted an observational study using data from the Palliative Care Quality Network (PCQN). The PCQN contains prospectively collected data on 135,197 hospitalized patients receiving PC consultations at 88 PCQN sites between January 2013 and December 2017. The PCQN data set includes patient demographics, processes of care, and patient-level clinical outcomes.ResultsThe cohort included 44,933 patients, of whom 4402 (9.8%) had liver disease and 40,531 (90.2%) had cancer. Patients with liver disease were younger (58.9 years vs. 65.2 years, P

ContextStandardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes.MethodsThis study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from five international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In five Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a seven-point "not-at-all" to "extremely important" scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists' input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings.ResultsOrganizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and health care (e.g., utilization). The top five outcomes included 1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); 2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); 3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); 4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and 5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether "care consistent with goals" can be reliably measured.ConclusionA large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly "care consistent with goals."

ContextDespite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.MethodsWe convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.ResultsPanelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

Background/aimPalliative care services (PCS) are recommended to enhance quality of care for hospitalized patients.MethodsWe evaluated the attitudes of liver transplant (LT) providers and perceived barriers to PCS for their patients by conducting a web-based survey of intensive care unit nurses, postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) physician trainees, nurse practitioners, fellows, and attending physicians on the LT service at an academic medical center.ResultsThe response rate was 44% (88/200). Providers agreed that LT and PCS are not mutually exclusive (86%, n = 76). Respondents reported confusion regarding criteria and timing for referral to PCS. Most suggested that referral is appropriate when death is imminent (78%, n = 69). Many providers felt that patients' depression (66%, n = 58) was poorly managed, although few identified that PCS were consulted for depression (28%, n = 25). Overall, 84% (n = 74) identified attending physicians as the main barrier to involving PCS, and attendings (93%, n = 82) were more likely than PGY1 (67%, n = 59) and nurses (55%, n = 48) to describe PCS as end-of-life care (p = 0.03). Nearly all LT providers agreed that patients welcomed goals of care discussions (83%, n = 73), were grateful for PCS (96%, n = 85), and received higher quality care with PCS (96%, n = 85).ConclusionLT providers overwhelmingly report that PCS benefit patients and are consistent with LT goals even while patients are listed for LT. Barriers to PCS include confusion over referral criteria and describing PCS as end-of-life care by attending physicians. PCS teams may expand access for LT patients by establishing clear criteria for PCS referral and targeting educational interventions about palliative care to attendings.

BackgroundThe measurement and reporting of the quality of care in the field of palliation has become a required task for many health care leaders and specialists in palliative care. Such efforts are aided when organizations collaborate together to share lessons learned.MethodsThe authors reviewed examples of quality-improvement collaborations in palliative care to understand the similarities, differences, and future directions of quality measurement and improvement strategies in the discipline.ResultsThree examples were identified that showed areas of robust and growing quality-improvement collaboration in the field of palliative care: the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance, Palliative Care Quality Network, and Project Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends. These efforts exemplify how shared-improvement activities can inform improved practice for organizations participating in collaboration.ConclusionsNational and regional collaboratives can be used to enhance the quality of palliative care and are important efforts to standardize and improve the delivery of palliative care for persons with serious illness, along with their friends, family, and caregivers.

ImportanceFor patients with limited prognosis, some medication risks may outweigh the benefits, particularly when benefits take years to accrue; statins are one example. Data are lacking regarding the risks and benefits of discontinuing statin therapy for patients with limited life expectancy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety, clinical, and cost impact of discontinuing statin medications for patients in the palliative care setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, parallel-group, unblinded, pragmatic clinical trial. Eligibility included adults with an estimated life expectancy of between 1 month and 1 year, statin therapy for 3 months or more for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, recent deterioration in functional status, and no recent active cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomized to either discontinue or continue statin therapy and were monitored monthly for up to 1 year. The study was conducted from June 3, 2011, to May 2, 2013. All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat approach.InterventionsStatin therapy was withdrawn from eligible patients who were randomized to the discontinuation group. Patients in the continuation group continued to receive statins.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included death within 60 days (primary outcome), survival, cardiovascular events, performance status, quality of life (QOL), symptoms, number of nonstatin medications, and cost savings.ResultsA total of 381 patients were enrolled; 189 of these were randomized to discontinue statins, and 192 were randomized to continue therapy. Mean (SD) age was 74.1 (11.6) years, 22.0% of the participants were cognitively impaired, and 48.8% had cancer. The proportion of participants in the discontinuation vs continuation groups who died within 60 days was not significantly different (23.8% vs 20.3%; 90% CI, -3.5% to 10.5%; P=.36) and did not meet the noninferiority end point. Total QOL was better for the group discontinuing statin therapy (mean McGill QOL score, 7.11 vs 6.85; P=.04). Few participants experienced cardiovascular events (13 in the discontinuation group vs 11 in the continuation group). Mean cost savings were $3.37 per day and $716 per patient.Conclusions and relevanceThis pragmatic trial suggests that stopping statin medication therapy is safe and may be associated with benefits including improved QOL, use of fewer nonstatin medications, and a corresponding reduction in medication costs. Thoughtful patient-provider discussions regarding the uncertain benefit and potential decrement in QOL associated with statin continuation in this setting are warranted.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01415934.

Palliative medicine must prioritize the routine assessment of the quality of clinical care we provide. This includes regular assessment, analysis, and reporting of data on quality. Assessment of quality informs opportunities for improvement and demonstrates to our peers and ourselves the value of our efforts. In fact, continuous messaging of the value of palliative care services is needed to sustain our discipline; this requires regularly evaluating the quality of our care. As the reimbursement mechanisms for health care in the U.S. shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value models, palliative care will be expected to report robust data on quality of care. We must move beyond demonstrating to our constituents (including patients and referrers), "here is what we do," and increase the focus on "this is how well we do it" and "let us see how we can do it better." It is incumbent on palliative care professionals to lead these efforts. This involves developing standardized methods to collect data without adding additional burden, comparing and sharing our experiences to promote discipline-wide quality assessment and improvement initiatives, and demonstrating our intentions for quality improvement on the clinical frontline.

BackgroundCommunication about end-of-life issues is difficult across language barriers. Little is known about the experience of health care interpreters in these discussions.ObjectivesObjectives of this study were to: 1) assess the experiences of healthcare interpreters when interpreting discussions about end-of-life issues; 2) identify interpreter characteristics and experiences that may be associated with improved satisfaction and comfort with interpreting these discussions; and 3) describe interpreter training needs.MethodsThe study utilized an electronically administered survey distributed nationally to health care interpreters in the United States. One hundred and forty-two health care interpreters participated. Measurements included general experiences, attitudes, and perceived training needs when interpreting discussions about end-of-life issues.ResultsMost respondents had received a certificate in interpretation (71%, 101/142), completed more than 40 hours of training (89%, 127/142), and had more than 5 years of interpreting experience (65%, 93/142). Overall, 85% (121/142) of respondents had interpreted discussions about end-of-life issues and most interpreted multiple discussions per week. Of those interpreters who had experience with these discussions, the majority (85%, 103/121) reported feeling comfortable, but only half (48%, 58/121) reported that these discussions usually went well. Interpreters who felt clear about their role were more likely than interpreters who did not feel clear about their role to think that discussions went well (51% [57/112] versus 11% [1/9], p=0.02) and to feel comfortable interpreting (88% [98/112] versus 56% [5/9], p=0.01). Eighty percent (97/121) of respondents with experience in end-of-life discussions were personally interested in more specific training for these discussions. Attitudes and perceived training needs did not differ by interpreter demographics or qualifications.ConclusionsThe majority of interpreters have experience with end-of-life discussions but, independent of interpreter training and experience, only half report that these discussions usually go well. Interpreters want and may benefit from targeted educational interventions that could improve the quality of care for vulnerable patients and families in these difficult situations. Health systems and interpreter certification programs should incorporate specific training on how to interpret discussion about end-of-life issues.

BackgroundBioethicists and professional associations give specific recommendations for discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).ObjectiveTo determine whether attending hospitalist physicians' discussions meet these recommendations.DesignCross-sectional observational study on the medical services at two hospitals within a university system between August 2008 and March 2009.ParticipantsAttending hospitalist physicians and patients who were able to communicate verbally about their medical care.Main measuresWe identified code status discussions in audio-recorded admission encounters via physician survey and review of encounter transcripts. A quantitative content analysis was performed to determine whether discussions included elements recommended by bioethicists and professional associations. Two coders independently coded all discussions; Cohen's kappa was 0.64-1 for all reported elements.Key resultsAudio-recordings of 80 patients' admission encounters with 27 physicians were obtained. Eleven physicians discussed code status in 19 encounters. Discussions were more frequent in seriously ill patients (OR 4, 95% CI 1.2-14.6), yet 66% of seriously ill patients had no discussion. The median length of the code status discussions was 1 min (range 0.2-8.2). Prognosis was discussed with code status in only one of the encounters. Discussions of patients' preferences focused on the use of life-sustaining interventions as opposed to larger life goals. Descriptions of CPR as an intervention used medical jargon, and the indication for CPR was framed in general, as opposed to patient-specific scenarios. No physician quantitatively estimated the outcome of or provided a recommendation about the use of CPR.ConclusionsCode status was not discussed with many seriously ill patients. Discussions were brief, and did not include elements that bioethicists and professional associations recommend to promote patient autonomy. Local and national guidelines, research, and clinical practice changes are needed to clarify and systematize with whom and how CPR is discussed at hospital admission.

Background: Members of racial or ethnic minority groups utilize palliative care (PC) services less than non-Hispanic White patients and multiple factors contribute to this disparity. The impact of racial, ethnic, and language (REL) concordance between patients and clinicians has been demonstrated in general medical populations, but not in PC populations. We characterized the racial and ethnic composition and languages spoken of California PC clinicians and patients to examine clinical impacts of REL concordance. Methods: Using Palliative Care Quality Network data, 15 inpatient teams were identified in California that had collected data on patient race/ethnicity and language. Patient and clinician data were analyzed using means and medians for continuous variables, and chi-squared tests to explore similarities and differences between clinician and patient data. Results: 51 clinicians from nine teams completed the survey. The largest non-White and non-English speaking groups among patients and clinicians identified as Hispanic/Latinx (31.5% of patients, 16.3% of clinicians) and as Spanish speakers (22.6% of patients, 7.5% of clinicians). There was a significantly higher proportion of Hispanic/Latinx patients compared to clinicians (p-value 0.01), with Southern California demonstrating the largest difference (30.4% of patients vs. 10.7 % of clinicians, p-value 0.01). Similar proportions of patients and clinicians reported Spanish fluency (22.6% vs 27.5%, p-value 0.31). Discussion: We found significant differences in the racial/ethnic distributions of Hispanic/Latinx patients and clinicians in California, prompting consideration of whether a lack of representation of Hispanic/Latinx clinicians relative to the patient population may contribute to lower palliative care utilization among Hispanic/Latinx patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]