Hospice and palliative care utilization in 16 004 232 medicare claims: comparing trauma to surgical and medical inpatients.

Background: Hospice and palliative care (PC) utilization is increasing in geriatric inpatients, but limited research exists comparing rates among trauma, surgical and medical specialties. The goal of this study was to determine whether there are differences among these three groups in rates of hospice and PC utilization. Methods: Patients from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Standard Analytical Files for 2016-2020 aged ≥65 years were analyzed. Patients with a National Trauma Data Standard-qualifying ICD-10 injury code with abbreviated injury score ≥2 were classified as 'trauma'; the rest as 'surgical' or 'medical' using CMS MS-DRG definitions. Patients were classified as having PC if they had an ICD-10 diagnosis code for PC (Z51.5) and as hospice discharge (HD) if their hospital disposition was 'hospice' (home or inpatient). Use proportions for specialties were compared by group and by subgroups with increasing risk of poor outcome. Results: There were 16M hospitalizations from 1024 hospitals (9.3% trauma, 26.3% surgical and 64.4% medical) with 53.7% women, 84.5% white and 38.7% >80 years. Overall, 6.2% received PC and 4.1% a HD. Both rates were higher in trauma patients (HD: 3.6%, PC: 6.3%) versus surgical patients (HD: 1.5%, PC: 3.0%), but lower than in medical patients (HD: 5.2%, PC: 7.5%). PC rates increased in higher risk patient subgroups and were highest for inpatient HD. Conclusions: In this large study of Medicare patients, HD and PC rates varied significantly among specialties. Trauma patients had higher HD and PC utilization rates than surgical, but lower than medical. The presence of comorbidities, frailty and/or severe traumatic brain injury (in addition to advanced age) may be valuable criteria in selection of trauma patients for hospice and PC services. Further studies are needed to inform the most efficient use of hospice and PC resources, with particular focus on both timing and selection of subgroups most likely to benefit from these valuable yet limited resources. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic/care management.

Would you be surprised? Prospective multicenter study of the Surprise Question as a screening tool to predict mortality in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) ("Would I be surprised if the patient died within the next year?") is a validated tool used to identify patients with limited life expectancy. Because it may have potential to expedite palliative care interventions per American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Palliative Care Best Practices Guidelines, we sought to determine if trauma team members could use the SQ to accurately predict 1-year mortality in trauma patients. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study collected data (August 2020 to February 2021) on trauma team members' responses to the SQ at 24 hours from admission. One-year mortality was obtained via social security death index records. Positive/negative predictive values and accuracy were calculated overall, by provider role and by patient age. RESULTS: Ten Level I/II centers enrolled 1,172 patients (87.9% blunt). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 36-74 years), and the median Injury Severity Score was 10 (interquartile range, 5-14 years). Overall 1-year mortality was 13.3%. Positive predictive value was low (30.5%) regardless of role. Mortality prediction minimally improved as age increased (positive predictive value highest between 65 and 74 years old, 34.5%) but consistently trended to overprediction of death, even in younger patients. CONCLUSION: Trauma team members' ability to forecast 1-year mortality using the SQ at 24 hours appears limited perhaps because of overestimation of injury effects, preinjury conditions, and/or team bias. This has implications for the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Guidelines and suggests that more research is needed to determine the optimal time to screen trauma patients with the SQ. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Development of surgical palliative care as a field and community building in palliative care: past, present, and future directions.

The professionalization of hospice and palliative medicine has been well documented, as has its associated rise to specialty status. The movement to formalize hospice and palliative medicine in the United States included ten sponsoring boards for initial certification through a practice pathway. Thus, it began with the potential for subspecialty interests, advocacy, and training. This review will examine the emergence of surgical palliative care as a field within hospice and palliative medicine as well as its unique place within the specialty of surgery, where it is sometimes hailed as an inherent, historically present body of knowledge and skill, and just as often, remarked upon as an ahistorical oxymoron. The phases of formation, early adoption, popularization, and normalization will be described and illustrated by the benchmarks of formal education requirements, board eligibility and certification, and professional relationships fostered by medical societies and online communities. Community building in palliative care must acknowledge the diversity of its constituents and the differences in subspecialty identity formation and sources of professional credibility and legitimacy. Metaphors for practitioners of surgical palliative care range from the rarity of the unicorn to the swarm intelligence principles of the beehive. Future directions include facing the questions about the role of specialty training and practice in surgical palliative care compared to renewed emphasis on palliative principles in general surgical training and practice.

Tracheostomies and PEGs: When Are They Really Indicated?

Surgeons are often asked to perform tracheostomies and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies for a wide variety of patients. As consultants, surgeons are tasked with honoring the relationship between the referring provider and the patient while also assessing whether the consult is appropriate given the patient's prognosis and goals of care. This article discusses the most common conditions for which these procedures are requested and reviews the evidence supporting either the placement or avoidance of these tubes in each condition. It provides a framework for surgeons to use when discussing these procedures in the context of goals of care.