A systematic intervention to improve serious illness communication in primary care: Effect on expenses at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: At a population level, conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients exploring patients' goals and values can drive high-value healthcare, improving patient outcomes and reducing spending. METHODS: We examined the impact of a quality improvement intervention to drive better communication on total medical expenses in a high-risk care management program. We present our analysis of secondary expense outcomes from a prospective implementation trial of the Serious Illness Care Program, which includes clinician training, coaching, tools, and system interventions. We included patients who died between January 2014 and September 2016 who were selected for serious illness conversations, using the "Surprise Question," as part of implementation of the program in fourteen primary care clinics. RESULTS: We evaluated 124 patients and observed no differences in total medical expenses between intervention and comparison clinic patients. When comparing patients in intervention clinics who did and did not have conversations, we observed lower average monthly expenses over the last 6 ($6297 vs. $8,876, p = 0.0363) and 3 months ($7263 vs. $11,406, p = 0.0237) of life for patients who had conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Possible savings observed in this study are similar in magnitude to previous studies in advance care planning and specialty palliative care but occur earlier in the disease course and in the context of documented conversations and a comprehensive, interprofessional case management program. IMPLICATIONS: Programs designed to drive more, earlier, and better serious illness communication hold the potential to reduce costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospectively designed trial, non-randomized sample, analysis of secondary outcomes.

Tracheostomy in the COVID-19 era: global and multidisciplinary guidance.

Global health care is experiencing an unprecedented surge in the number of critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The requirement for relatively long periods of ventilation in those who survive means that many are considered for tracheostomy to free patients from ventilatory support and maximise scarce resources. COVID-19 provides unique challenges for tracheostomy care: health-care workers need to safely undertake tracheostomy procedures and manage patients afterwards, minimising risks of nosocomial transmission and compromises in the quality of care. Conflicting recommendations exist about case selection, the timing and performance of tracheostomy, and the subsequent management of patients. In response, we convened an international working group of individuals with relevant expertise in tracheostomy. We did a literature and internet search for reports of research pertaining to tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic, supplemented by sources comprising statements and guidance on tracheostomy care. By synthesising early experiences from countries that have managed a surge in patient numbers, emerging virological data, and international, multidisciplinary expert opinion, we aim to provide consensus guidelines and recommendations on the conduct and management of tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluating an Intervention to Improve Communication Between Oncology Clinicians and Patients With Life-Limiting Cancer: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial of the Serious Illness Care Program.

IMPORTANCE: Earlier clinician-patient conversations about patients' values, goals, and preferences in serious illness (ie, serious illness conversations) are associated with better outcomes but occur inconsistently in cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a communication quality-improvement intervention in improving the occurrence, timing, quality, and accessibility of documented serious illness conversations between oncology clinicians and patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: This cluster randomized clinical trial in outpatient oncology was conducted at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and included physicians, advanced-practice clinicians, and patients with cancer who were at high risk of death. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes (goal-concordant care and peacefulness at the end of life) are published elsewhere. Secondary outcomes are reported herein, including (1) documentation of at least 1 serious illness conversation before death, (2) timing of the initial conversation before death, (3) quality of conversations, and (4) their accessibility in the electronic medical record (EMR). RESULTS: We enrolled 91 clinicians (48 intervention, 43 control) and 278 patients (134 intervention, 144 control). Of enrolled patients, 58% died during the study (n=161); mean age was 62.3 years (95% CI, 58.9-65.6 years); 55% were women (n=88). These patients were cared for by 76 of the 91 enrolled clinicians (37 intervention, 39 control); years in practice, 11.5 (95% CI, 9.2-13.8); 57% female (n=43). Medical record review after patients' death demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of intervention patients had a documented discussion compared with controls (96% vs 79%, P = .005) and intervention conversations occurred a median of 2.4 months earlier (median, 143 days vs 71 days, P < .001). Conversation documentation for intervention patients was significantly more comprehensive and patient centered, with a greater focus on values or goals (89% vs 44%, P < .001), prognosis or illness understanding (91% vs 48%, P < .001), and life-sustaining treatment preferences (63% vs 32%, P = .004). Documentation about end-of-life care planning did not differ between arms (80% intervention vs 68% control, P = .08). Significantly more intervention patients had documentation that was accessible in the EMR (61% vs 11%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This communication quality-improvement intervention resulted in more, earlier, better, and more accessible serious illness conversations documented in the EMR. To our knowledge, this is the first such study to demonstrate improvement in all 4 of these outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01786811.

A National Strategy For Palliative Care.

In 2014 the World Health Organization called for palliative care to be integrated as an essential element of the health care continuum. Yet in 2017 US palliative care services are found largely in hospitals, and hospice care, which is delivered primarily in the home, is limited to people who are dying soon. The majority of Americans with a serious illness are not dying; are living at home, in assisted living facilities, or in nursing homes; and have limited access to palliative care. Most health care providers lack knowledge about and skills in pain and symptom management, communication, and care coordination, and both the public and health professionals are only vaguely aware of the benefits of palliative care and how and when to access it. The lack of policy supports for palliative care contributes to preventable suffering and low-value care. In this article we outline the need for a national palliative care strategy to ensure reliable access to high-quality palliative care for Americans with serious medical illnesses. We review approaches employed by other countries, list the participants needed to develop and implement an actionable strategy, and identify analogous US national health initiatives to inform a process for implementing the strategy.

A Systematic Intervention To Improve Serious Illness Communication In Primary Care.

Improving communication about goals and values for patients with advancing serious illness nearing the end of life is a key opportunity to improve the value of care. The Serious Illness Care Program, implemented at primary care clinics affiliated with Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is a multicomponent intervention designed to support best practices in communication by clinicians to increase conversations with patients with serious illness about their goals and values. We conducted a study of the program in fourteen primary care clinics participating in a high-risk care management program based in an accountable care organization. Patients in the clinics with the program implemented were more likely than those in comparison clinics to have serious illness conversations-including discussion of values and goals-documented in patients' medical records. Clinicians who participated also reported high satisfaction with training they received as part of the program, which they regarded as effective. This work suggests that the Serious Illness Care Program promotes more and better conversations among selected primary care patients, and it highlights the need for further research.

Improving Communication About Serious Illness in Primary Care: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The Institute of Medicine recently called for systematic improvements in clinician-led conversations about goals, values, and care preferences for patients with serious and life-threatening illnesses. Studies suggest that these conversations are associated with improved outcomes for patients and their families, enhanced clinician satisfaction, and lower health care costs; however, the role of primary care clinicians in driving conversations about goals and priorities in serious illness is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To present a review of a structured search of the evidence base about communication in serious illness in primary care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE was searched, via PubMed, on January 19, 2016, finding 911 articles; 126 articles were reviewed and selected titles were added from bibliography searches. FINDINGS: Review of the literature informed 2 major topic areas: the role of primary care in communication about serious illness and clinician barriers and system failures that interfere with effective communication. Literature regarding the role that primary care plays in communication focused primarily on the ambiguity about whether primary care clinicians or specialists are responsible for initiating conversations, the benefits of primary care clinicians and specialists conducting conversations, and the quantity and quality of discussions. Timely and effective communication about serious illness in primary care is hampered by key clinician barriers, which include deficits in knowledge, skills, and attitudes; discomfort with prognostication; and lack of clarity about the appropriate timing and initiation of conversations. Finally, system failures in coordination, documentation, feedback, and quality improvement contribute to lack of conversations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinician and system barriers will challenge primary care clinicians and institutions to meet the needs of patients with serious illness. Ensuring that conversations about goals and values occur at the appropriate time for seriously ill patients will require improved training, validation, and dissemination of patient selection tools, systems for conducting and revisiting conversations, accessible documentation, and incentives for measurement, feedback, and continuous improvement.

ACGME requirements for end-of-life training in selected residency and fellowship programs: a status report.

INTRODUCTION: National recommendations have been developed for physicians' end-of-life (EOL) education. No comprehensive assessment has been done to examine postgraduate (residency and fellowship) EOL training. METHOD: The authors reviewed the EOL content for 46 specialties in postgraduate training programs that affect the care of seriously ill and dying patients, using data from the 2000/2001 AMA Graduate Medical Education Directory. RESULTS: Internal medicine, geriatrics, and neurology contained the most comprehensive EOL requirements. Most surgical specialties contained no EOL requirement except ethics. Ethics (n = 25) and psychosocial care (n = 22) were the most common EOL domains mandated, although specific EOL content was not specified. Training in EOL communication (n = 1), personal awareness (n = 3), and EOL clinical experiences (n = 5) were the least often required instructional domains. Instruction in pain assessment and management was required in only one surgical specialty. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of comprehensive EOL training requirements may help explain the known problems in physicians' EOL care. Major reform in EOL requirements is needed at the level of residency review committees.

Initial voluntary program standards for fellowship training in palliative medicine.

Initial voluntary standards for fellowship programs in palliative medicine were developed through a collaborative process involving the directors of fellowship training programs, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM), and the American Board of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (ABHPM). These groups worked with a consultant and representatives from the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to create a training structure for the programs that will maximize the likelihood for recognition and accreditation of the subspecialty. An accreditation group modeled after an ACGME residency review committee will be formed to review and adopt the standards, then accredit programs voluntarily.

Raising the bar for the care of seriously ill patients: results of a national survey to define essential palliative care competencies for medical students and residents.

PURPOSE: Given the shortage of palliative care specialists in the United States, to ensure quality of care for patients with serious, life-threatening illness, generalist-level palliative care competencies need to be defined and taught. The purpose of this study was to define essential competencies for medical students and internal medicine and family medicine (IM/FM) residents through a national survey of palliative care experts. METHOD: Proposed competencies were derived from existing hospice and palliative medicine fellowship competencies and revised to be developmentally appropriate for students and residents. In spring 2012, the authors administered a Web-based, national cross-sectional survey of palliative care educational experts to assess ratings and rankings of proposed competencies and competency domains. RESULTS: The authors identified 18 comprehensive palliative care competencies for medical students and IM/FM residents, respectively. Over 95% of survey respondents judged the competencies as comprehensive and developmentally appropriate (survey response rate = 72%, 71/98). Using predefined cutoff criteria, experts identified 7 medical student and 13 IM/FM resident competencies as essential. Communication and pain/symptom management were rated as the most critical domains. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey of palliative care experts defines comprehensive and essential palliative care competencies for medical students and IM/FM residents that are specific, measurable, and can be used to report educational outcomes; provide a sequence for palliative care curricula in undergraduate and graduate medical education; and highlight the importance of educating medical trainees in communication and pain management. Next steps include seeking input and endorsement from stakeholders in the broader medical education community.