Patient and Family Outcomes of Community Neurologist Palliative Education and Telehealth Support in Parkinson Disease.

Importance: Parkinson disease and related disorders (PDRD) are the fastest growing neurodegenerative illness in terms of prevalence and mortality. As evidence builds to support palliative care (PC) for PDRD, studies are needed to guide implementation. Objective: To determine whether PC training for neurologists and remote access to a PC team improves outcomes in patients with PDRD in community settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, stepped-wedge comparative effectiveness trial enrolled and observed participants from 19 community neurology practices supported by PC teams at 2 academic centers from March 8, 2017, to December 31, 2020. Participants were eligible if they had PDRD and moderate to high PC needs. A total of 612 persons with PDRD were referred; 253 were excluded. Patients were excluded if they had another diagnosis meriting PC, were receiving PC, or were unable or unwilling to follow study procedures. Patients received usual care or the intervention based on when their community neurologist was randomized to start the intervention. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to September 2023. Intervention: The intervention included (1) PC education for community neurologists and (2) team-based PC support via telehealth. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were differences at 6 months in patient quality of life (QOL; measured by the Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease Scale [QOL-AD]) and caregiver burden (Zarit Burden Interview) between the intervention and usual care. Results: A total of 359 patients with PDRD (233 men [64.9%]; mean [SD] age, 74.0 [8.8] years) and 300 caregivers were enrolled. At 6 months, compared with usual care, participants receiving the intervention had better QOL (QOL-AD score, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.82] vs -0.88 [95% CI, -1.62 to -0.13]; treatment effect estimate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.07-1.86; P = .03). No significant difference was observed in caregiver burden (Zarit Burden Interview score, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.16 to 2.23] vs 0.55 [95%, -0.44 to 1.54]; treatment effect estimate, 0.64; 95% CI, -0.62 to 1.90; P = .32). Advance directive completion was higher under the intervention (19 of 38 [50%] vs 6 of 31 [19%] among those without directives at the beginning of the study; P = .008). There were no differences in other outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: PC education for community neurologists and provision of team-based PC via telehealth is feasible and may improve QOL and advance care planning. Overall treatment effects were small and suggest opportunities to improve both the intervention and implementation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03076671.

Recommendations for Integrating Antiracist Practice at the JPSM.

Journals like the JPSM are part of the system of gatekeepers to the academic literature that defines and represents our field. This paper explores how the JPSM leadership, staff and editorial board can design, implement, and foster active antiracist ideas and practice at the individual and system level, focused on an examination of who is represented across the organization, reflective practice on individual attitudes and beliefs, and policy analysis and changes. We explore the current and historical context in the United States that makes this approach foundational to the work of addressing and dismantling systemic racism. We define key terms and a theoretical framework while proposing concrete steps the journal can take in this effort. Together, these actions can actively challenge the ways in which white supremacy shapes the status quo, marginalizing Black Indigenous People of Color, and dehumanizing all. While this paper focuses on discrete actions the JPSM can undertake, it also serves as an invitation to the field at large to commit to the daily practice of antiracism. We do not promote ourselves as experts, only as individuals interested in and committed to antiracism and invite our colleagues to correct, edit, and build upon our suggestions. We hope our proposed approach helps our field to address all forms of oppression, including those due to gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and profession.

Proactive Identification of Palliative Care Needs Among Patients With COVID-19 in the ICU.

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.

Comparison of Integrated Outpatient Palliative Care With Standard Care in Patients With Parkinson Disease and Related Disorders: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Parkinson disease and related disorders (PDRD) have consequences for quality of life (QoL) and are the 14th leading cause of death in the United States. Despite growing interest in palliative care (PC) for persons with PDRD, few studies are available supporting its effectiveness. Objective: To determine if outpatient PC is associated with improvements in patient-centered outcomes compared with standard care among patients with PDRD and their caregivers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at 3 academic tertiary care centers between November 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017, and followed them up for 1 year. A total of 584 persons with PDRD were referred to the study. Of those, 351 persons were excluded by phone and 23 were excluded during in-person screenings. Patients were eligible to participate if they had PDRD and moderate to high PC needs. Patients were excluded if they had urgent PC needs, another diagnosis meriting PC, were already receiving PC, or were unable or unwilling to follow the study protocol. Enrolled participants were assigned to receive standard care plus outpatient integrated PC or standard care alone. Data were analyzed between November 1, 2018, and December 9, 2019. Interventions: Outpatient integrated PC administered by a neurologist, social worker, chaplain, and nurse using PC checklists, with guidance and selective involvement from a palliative medicine specialist. Standard care was provided by a neurologist and a primary care practitioner. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the differences in patient quality of life (QoL; measured by the Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease scale) and caregiver burden (measured by the Zarit Burden Interview) between the PC intervention and standard care groups at 6 months. Results: A total of 210 patients with PDRD (135 men [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.1 [8.2] years) and 175 caregivers (128 women [73.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.1] years) were enrolled in the study; 193 participants (91.9%) were white and non-Hispanic. Compared with participants receiving standard care alone at 6 months, participants receiving the PC intervention had better QoL (mean [SD], 0.66 [5.5] improvement vs 0.84 [4.2] worsening; treatment effect estimate, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.47-3.27; P = .009). No significant difference was observed in caregiver burden (mean [SD], 2.3 [5.0] improvement vs 1.2 [5.6] improvement in the standard care group; treatment effect estimate, -1.62; 95% CI, -3.32 to 0.09; P = .06). Other significant differences favoring the PC intervention included nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, completion of advance directives, caregiver anxiety, and caregiver burden at 12 months. No outcomes favored standard care alone. Secondary analyses suggested that benefits were greater for persons with higher PC needs. Conclusions and Relevance: Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. This study supports efforts to integrate PC into PDRD care. The lack of diversity and implementation of PC at experienced centers suggests a need for implementation research in other populations and care settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02533921.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Parkinson's Disease and Related Disorders.

Parkinson's disease (PD) affects 1%-2% of individuals older than 60 years and is the 14th leading cause of death in the United States. People with PD, across all stages of the disease, suffer from a significant symptom burden that includes many nonmotor symptoms (such as depression, fatigue, pain, and dementia), and most will ultimately die from complications of this degenerative and incurable illness. Even at diagnosis, a palliative care (PC) approach can help the patient adjust to his or her diagnosis and maintain an optimal quality of life. We brought together a team of PD and PC experts to assemble practical tips for the care of people with PD. The "Top 10" format emphasizes the most relevant issues to enable PC clinicians to provide optimal care for those suffering with this complex neurodegenerative disease.

Thromboprophylaxis and Outcomes for Total Joint Arthroplasty in Congenital Bleeding Disorders: A Single-Center Experience.

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) improves the quality of life for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis but is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thus pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended for most patients. Patients with congenital bleeding disorders may develop severe arthropathies due to repeated hemarthroses and derive similar benefit from TJA as the general population. No guidelines for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in this population exist, however, as the risks and benefits are not well defined. We undertook the current study to assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in patients with congenital bleeding disorders undergoing TJA. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with bleeding disorders who underwent TJA at our academic institution between 1987 and 2012. We identified 28 patients who underwent 38 TJA procedures. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was administered in 29 procedures (76%) and was discontinued early in 3 procedures (2 patients) due to nonjoint bleeding. No symptomatic VTE was identified, and no joint or deep wound infections were seen. Twenty-two patients accounting for 31 procedures were contacted to discuss their experience with TJA. All reported decreased pain, and 97% reported improved function after the surgery. Impressively, 97% stated that they would choose to have the surgery again. These results confirm the benefit of TJA in patients with congenital bleeding disorders and end-stage arthropathies and suggest that LMWH thromboprophylaxis is safe. No patient in our cohort developed symptomatic VTE, whether or not thromboprophylaxis was administered, thus necessity of thromboprophylaxis remains an unanswered question.