Outcomes of a Multisite Mentored Implementation Approach to Promoting Goals of Care Conversations.

CONTEXT: The Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment (PACT) Project is a multisite quality improvement effort that has been shown to increase the frequency of goals of care (GOC) conversations in hospitalized patients with serious illness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of PACT on goal-discordant care and resource utilization. METHODS: Hospitals enrolled in a multiyear mentored implementation quality improvement initiative to facilitate GOC conversations for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with care discordant with stated preferences, assessed by comparing documented wishes to Medicare claims data for patients who were admitted to intervention units and died over the study period. Secondary outcomes evaluated end-of-life resource utilization by comparing Medicare claims data for intervention patients with propensity score-matched controls. RESULTS: In the 9 hospitals included in the study, 1347 intervention group patients were compared to 4019 in the control group. Rates of discordance between wishes and care were generally low in the intervention group. Compared to the control group, patients in the intervention group had lower costs (-976.05 dollars, P = 0.010), were less likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR 0.9, P = 0.005), less likely to be on a ventilator or undergo CPR or cardioversion, more likely to enroll in hospice (OR 1.81, P < 0.001) and had a longer hospice stay (3.35 more days, P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: A multisite mentored implementation quality improvement intervention for seriously ill hospitalized patients resulted in care aligned with goals and decreased resource utilization at the end of life.

The PACT Project: Feasibility of a Multidisciplinary, Multi-Faceted Intervention to Promote Goals of Care Conversations.

BACKGROUND: Patients living with serious illness generally want their physicians to facilitate Goals of Care conversations (GoCc), yet physicians may lack time and skills to engage in these conversations in the outpatient setting. The problem may be addressed by supporting multiple members of the clinical team to facilitate GoCc with the patient while admitted to the hospital. METHODS: A multi-modal training and mentored implementation program was developed. A group of 10 hospitals were recruited to participate. Each hospital selected a primary inpatient unit on which to start the intervention, then expanded to a secondary unit later in the project. The number of trained facilitators (champions) and the number of documented GoCc were tracked over time. RESULTS: Nine of 10 hospitals completed the 3-year project. Most of the units were general medical-surgical units. Forty-eight champions were trained at the kick-off conference, attended primarily by nurses, physicians, and social workers. By the end of the project, 153 champions had been trained. A total of 51 087 patients were admitted to PACT units with 85.4% being screened for eligibility. Of the patients who were eligible, over 68% had documented GoCc. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted quality improvement intervention focused on serious illness communication skills can support a diverse clinical workforce to facilitate inpatient GoCc over time.

Identifying Patients in Need of Goals of Care Conversations: Reliability, Acceptability, and Prognostic Significance of the Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment Conversation Trigger Tool for Patients with Cancer.

Background: Simple methods to help teams identify patients with goals of care (GOC) conversation needs are lacking. Objectives: To develop a tool to identify hospitalized patients who may benefit from GOC conversations. Methods: The Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment (PACT) Conversation Trigger Tool was implemented as part of a quality improvement initiative in 10 Illinois hospitals and validated in a cohort of patients admitted to the coordinating site's oncology unit (n = 135). Results: The tool was reliable and acceptable to clinicians using it across sites. Thirty percent (n = 40) of patients screened at the coordinating site's oncology unit triggered positive. These patients were more likely to have a do-not-resuscitate order (43% vs. 11%) and palliative care consult (53% vs. 20%) and had lower mean survival time (125 vs. 248 days) than those who did not trigger (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The tool is reliable, acceptable, and can identify hospitalized oncology patients who may benefit from GOC conversations.

Medical oncologist perspectives on palliative care reveal physician-centered barriers to early integration.

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care referral for patients with advanced cancer has demonstrable benefits but is underutilized. We sought to characterize medical oncologists' perceptions about palliative care referral in their clinical practices. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups with a national sample of medical oncologists to elicit perspectives about the optimal timing of and barriers to palliative care referral for patients with cancer. We used qualitative content analysis to uncover themes related to early integration of palliative care into standard oncologic practice. RESULTS: Study participants readily acknowledged the evidence supporting early palliative care referral. However, medical oncologists identified patient-centered and physician-centered barriers to widespread adoption of early palliative care. Patient-centered barriers included patients' and families' perceptions or misperceptions of the role of palliative care. Additionally, physicians themselves described acting as a barrier to palliative care referral because they were concerned that palliative care physicians may interfere with the plan of care, or offer options that were not endorsed by the medical oncologist. Medical oncologists depicted themselves having authority over the timing of palliative care referral, and as granting limited autonomy to other clinical team members in counseling patients about advanced care planning. CONCLUSIONS: Medical oncologists are hesitant to adopt the practice of early palliative care referral because they are concerned that other physicians may disrupt a patient's treatment plan. Physician-centered barriers may delay integration of palliative care, and future efforts to promote a collaborative approach to advanced care planning may improve patient-centered outcomes through access to early palliative care.

Use and Meaning of "Goals of Care" in the Healthcare Literature: a Systematic Review and Qualitative Discourse Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The specific phrase "goals of care" (GOC) is pervasive in the discourse about serious illness care. Yet, the meaning of this phrase is ambiguous. We sought to characterize the use and meaning of the phrase GOC within the healthcare literature to improve communication among patients, families, clinicians, and researchers. METHODS: A systematic review of the English language healthcare literature indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus was performed in October of 2018. We searched for all publications with the exact phrase "goals of care" within the title or abstract; no limitations on publication date or format were applied; conference abstracts were excluded. We used qualitative, discourse analysis to identify key themes and generate an operational definition and conceptual model of GOC. RESULTS: A total of 214 texts were included in the final analysis. Use of GOC increased over time with 87% of included texts published in the last decade (2009-2018). An operational definition emerged from consensus within the published literature: the overarching aims of medical care for a patient that are informed by patients' underlying values and priorities, established within the existing clinical context, and used to guide decisions about the use of or limitation(s) on specific medical interventions. Application of the GOC concept was described as important to the care of patients with serious illness, in order to (1) promote patient autonomy and patient-centered care, (2) avoid unwanted care and identify valued care, and (3) provide psychological and emotional support for patients and their families. DISCUSSION: The use of the phrase "goals of care" within the healthcare literature is increasingly common. We identified a consensus, operational definition that can facilitate communication about serious illness among patients, families, and clinicians and provide a framework for researchers developing interventions to improve goal-concordant care.

Preventing Readmissions Through Effective Partnerships-Communication and Palliative Care (PREP-CPC): A Multisite Intervention for Encouraging Goals of Care Conversations for Hospitalized Patients Facing Serious Illness.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence showing that goals of care (GOC) conversations increase the likelihood that patients facing a serious illness receive care that is concordant with their wishes, only a minority of at-risk patients receive the opportunity to engage in such conversations. OBJECTIVE: The Preventing Readmissions through Effective Partnerships-Communication and Palliative Care (PREP-CPC) intervention was designed to increase the frequency of GOC conversations for hospitalized patients facing serious illness. METHODS: The PREP-CPC employed a sequential, multicohort design using a yearlong mentored implementation approach to support nonpalliative care health-care professionals at participating hospitals to implement quality improvement projects focused on GOC conversations. RESULTS: Over the 3-year study period, 134 clinicians from 29 hospital teams were trained to facilitate GOC conversations. After the kickoff conference, participants reported improvements in their confidence in facilitating GOC conversations. The hospital teams then instituted site-specific pilot interventions to promote GOC conversations, identifying essential elements required for ongoing improvement. Since projects varied by hospital, results did as well, but reported positive outcomes included increased GOC conversations, increased Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form completion rates, new screening and documentation methods, and increased support from leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The PREP-CPC pilot successfully engaged a diverse set of hospitals to participate in quality improvement collaborative promoting primary palliative care and more frequent GOC conversations. This initiative revealed several lessons that should guide future interventions.

Radiation Oncologists' Role in End-of-Life Care: A Perspective From Medical Oncologists.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary communication and collaboration are key to planning and delivering end-of-life care for patients with advanced and metastatic cancer. We sought to characterize medical oncologists' perspectives on the role of radiation oncologists in end-of-life care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of US medical oncologists was recruited using snowball sampling methods. Audio recordings of 4 professionally moderated focus groups were transcribed. Investigators from diverse backgrounds (medical oncology, radiation oncology, critical care medicine, palliative care, and public health) independently reviewed each transcript. Qualitative content analysis was used to create consensus codes that were applied to subsequent focus group transcripts in an iterative process. RESULTS: Medical oncologists expressed complex views regarding the role of radiation oncologists in end-of-life care. Identified themes included the limited role of radiation oncologists, territorial concerns, capability, and desire of radiation oncologists in this realm, and the need for communication between providers. Radiation oncologists were compared with surgeons, whose interaction with patients ceased after their service had been performed. In this regard, control of palliative care referral or end-of-life care discussions was thought to be in the territory of medical oncologists who had longitudinal relationships with patients from diagnosis. Medical oncologists were concerned about the capability of radiation oncologists to accurately prognosticate, and stated radiation oncologists lacked knowledge of subsequent lines of systemic therapy available to patients. Radiation oncologists' fear of upsetting medical oncologists was thought to be justified if they engaged in end-of-life care planning without direct permission from the referring medical oncologist. CONCLUSIONS: Participation of radiation oncologists in end-of-life care planning was viewed with skepticism by medical oncologists. Radiation oncologists should focus on increasing open communication and teamwork with medical oncologists and demonstrate their ability to prognosticate and counsel patients regarding end-of-life care decisions.

Pre-Ventricular Assist Device Palliative Care Consultation: A Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a mandate requiring that all patients undergoing destination therapy ventricular assist device (DT VAD) implantation have access to a palliative care team before surgery. Subsequently, many VAD programs implemented a mandatory preimplantation palliative care consultation for patients considering DT VAD. However, little is known about the quality of these consults. METHODS: All patients undergoing DT VAD implantation at Northwestern Memorial Hospital from October 30, 2013 (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision date), through March 1, 2018, were included. Palliative care consultation notes were qualitatively analyzed for elements of "palliative care assessment" and preparedness planning. RESULTS: Sixty-eight preimplantation palliative care consultations were analyzed. Fifty-six percent of the consults occurred in the intensive care unit, and the median time from consult to VAD implant was six days. General palliative care elements were infrequently discussed. Furthermore, the elements of preparedness planning-device failure, post-VAD health-related quality of life, device complications, and progressive comorbidities-were discussed in only 10%, 54%, 49%, and 12% of consultations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: One-time preimplantation palliative care consultations at our institution do not lead to completion of preparedness planning or even general palliative care assessment. Further work is needed to determine the most effective way to integrate palliative care into preimplantation care.

Palliative Workforce Development and a Regional Training Program.

AIMS: Our primary aims were to assess growth in the local hospital based workforce, changes in the composition of the workforce and use of an interdisciplinary team, and sources of support for palliative medicine teams in hospitals participating in a regional palliative training program in Chicago. METHODS: PC program directors and administrators at 16 sites were sent an electronic survey on institutional and PC program characteristics such as: hospital type, number of beds, PC staffing composition, PC programs offered, start-up years, PC service utilization and sources of financial support for fiscal years 2012 and 2014. RESULTS: The median number of consultations reported for existing programs in 2012 was 345 (IQR 109 - 2168) compared with 840 (IQR 320 - 4268) in 2014. At the same time there were small increases in the overall team size from a median of 3.2 full time equivalent positions (FTE) in 2012 to 3.3 FTE in 2013, with a median increase of 0.4 (IQR 0-1.0). Discharge to hospice was more common than deaths in the acute care setting in hospitals with palliative medicine teams that included both social workers and advanced practice nurses ( p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Given the shortage of palliative medicine specialist providers more emphasis should be placed on training other clinicians to provide primary level palliative care while addressing the need to hire sufficient workforce to care for seriously ill patients.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize and provide context for the updated guidelines recommendations regarding hospice and end-of-life (EOL) care. Updates for 2017 include revisions to and restructuring of the algorithms that address important EOL concerns. These recommendations were revised to provide clearer guidance for oncologists as they care for patients with cancer who are approaching the transition to EOL care. Recommendations for interventions and reassessment based on estimated life expectancy were streamlined and reprioritized to promote hospice referrals and improved EOL care.

Evaluation of a Mastery Learning Intervention on Hospitalists' Code Status Discussion Skills.

CONTEXT: Although code status discussions (CSD) occur frequently in the hospital setting, discussions often lack content necessary for informed decision making. Simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) has been used to improve clinical skills among resident physicians and may provide a novel way to improve hospitalists' CSD skills. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to develop and evaluate a CSD SBML intervention for hospitalists. METHODS: Twenty hospitalists were randomized to control vs. a CSD SBML intervention. Hospitalists conducted a baseline standardized patient encounter (pretest) that was scored using a 19-item CSD checklist and controls completed a repeat standardized patient encounter six months later (post-test). Intervention group hospitalists received at least one two-hour training session featuring deliberate practice and feedback and were expected to meet a minimum passing score (MPS) on the post-test of 84% set by an expert panel. RESULTS: Only two of the 20 hospitalists met the MPS at pretest. Seventy percentage of intervention hospitalists achieved the MPS after a single training session. Post-test median checklist scores were higher for intervention hospitalists compared with controls (16.5 vs. 12.0, P = 0.0001). Intervention hospitalists were significantly more likely to ask about previous experiences with end-of-life decision making (70% vs. 20%, P = 0.03), explore values/goals (100% vs. 50%, P = 0.01), ask permission to make a recommendation regarding code status (60% vs. 0%, P = 0.003), and align recommendations with patient values/goals (90% vs. 40%, P = 0.02) than controls. CONCLUSION: Few hospitalists demonstrated mastery of CSD skills at baseline; SBML was an effective way to improve these skills.

Palliative Care Version 1.2016.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. The NCCN Guidelines are intended to provide guidance to the primary oncology team on the integration of palliative care into oncology. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel's recommendations seek to ensure that each patient experiences the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory. Accordingly, the NCCN Guidelines outline best practices for screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and after-death care.

Palliative care in COPD: an unmet area for quality improvement.

COPD is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Patients suffer from refractory breathlessness, unrecognized anxiety and depression, and decreased quality of life. Palliative care improves symptom management, patient reported health-related quality of life, cost savings, and mortality though the majority of patients with COPD die without access to palliative care. There are many barriers to providing palliative care to patients with COPD including the difficulty in prognosticating a patient's course causing referrals to occur late in a patient's disease. Additionally, physicians avoid conversations about advance care planning due to unique communication barriers present with patients with COPD. Lastly, many health systems are not set up to provide trained palliative care physicians to patients with chronic disease including COPD. This review analyzes the above challenges, the available data regarding palliative care applied to the COPD population, and proposes an alternative approach to address the unmet needs of patients with COPD with proactive primary palliative care.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Inpatient Palliative Care Consultation for Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Inpatient palliative care consultation (IPCC) may help address barriers that limit the use of hospice and the receipt of symptom-focused care for racial/ethnic minorities, yet little is known about disparities in the rates of IPCC. We evaluated the association between race/ethnicity and rates of IPCC for patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic cancer who were hospitalized between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010, at an urban academic medical center participated in the study. Patient-level multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and IPCC. RESULTS: A total of 6,288 patients (69% non-Hispanic white, 19% African American, and 6% Hispanic) were eligible. Of these patients, 16% of whites, 22% of African Americans, and 20% of Hispanics had an IPCC (overall P < .001). Compared with whites, African Americans had a greater likelihood of receiving an IPCC (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.44), even after adjusting for insurance, hospitalizations, marital status, and illness severity. Among patients who received an IPCC, African Americans had a higher median number of days from IPCC to death compared with whites (25 v 17 days; P = .006), and were more likely than Hispanics (59% v 41%; P = .006), but not whites, to be referred to hospice. CONCLUSION: Inpatient settings may neutralize some racial/ethnic differences in access to hospice and palliative care services; however, irrespective of race/ethnicity, rates of IPCC remain low and occur close to death. Additional research is needed to identify interventions to improve access to palliative care in the hospital for all patients with advanced cancer.

A qualitative study of unmet healthcare needs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A potential role for specialist palliative care?

RATIONALE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have high symptom burdens and poor health-related quality of life. The American Thoracic Society issued a consensus statement outlining the need for palliative care for patients with chronic respiratory diseases. A better understanding of the unmet healthcare needs among patients with COPD may help determine which aspects of palliative care are most beneficial. OBJECTIVES: To identify the unmet healthcare needs of patients with COPD hospitalized for exacerbation using qualitative methods. METHODS: We conducted 20 semistructured interviews of patients admitted for acute exacerbations of COPD focused on patient understanding of diagnosis and prognosis, effect of COPD on daily life and social relationships, symptoms, healthcare needs, and preparation for the end of life. Transcribed interviews were evaluated using thematic analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. (1) Understanding of disease: Most participants correctly identified their diagnosis and recognized their symptoms worsening over time. Only half understood their disease severity and prognosis. (2) SYMPTOMS: Breathlessness was universal and severe. (3) Physical limitations: COPD prevented participation in activities. (4) Emotional distress: Depressive symptoms and/or anxiety were present in most participants. (5) Social isolation: Most participants identified social limitations and felt confined to their homes. (6) Concerns about the future: Half of participants expressed fear about their future. CONCLUSIONS: There are many unmet healthcare needs among patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation. Relief of symptoms, physical limitations, emotional distress, social isolation, and concerns about the future may be better managed by integrating specialist palliative care into our current care model.

Outpatient palliative care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have well-documented symptoms that affect quality of life. Professional societies recommend palliative care for such patients, but the optimal way of delivering this care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe an outpatient palliative medicine program for patients with COPD. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Thirty-six patients with COPD followed in a United States academic outpatient palliative medicine clinic. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic data, disease severity and comorbidities, treatments, hospitalizations, mortality, topic discussion, and symptom assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (representing 5% of the total number of patients with COPD seen in a specialty pulmonary clinic) were seen over 11 months and followed for 2 years. Seventy-seven percent of patients were Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 3-4 and 72% were on oxygen at home. No patients had documented advanced directives at the initial visit but documentation increased to 61% for those who had follow-up appointments. The most commonly documented topics included symptoms (100%), social issues (94%), psychological issues (78%), and advance care planning (75%). Of symptoms assessed, pain was the least prevalent (51.6%), and breathlessness and fatigue were the most prevalent (100%). Symptoms were often undertreated prior to the palliative care appointment. During the 3-year study period, there were 120 hospital admissions (median, 2) and 12 deaths (33%). CONCLUSIONS: The patients with COPD seen in the outpatient palliative medicine clinic had many comorbid conditions, severe illness, and significant symptom burden. Many physical and psychological symptoms were untreated prior to the palliative medicine appointment. Whether addressing these symptoms through a palliative medicine intervention affects outcomes in COPD is unknown but represents an important topic for future research.

Unpacking resident-led code status discussions: results from a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of code status discussions (CSDs) is suboptimal as physicians often fail to discuss patients' goals of care and resuscitation outcomes. We previously demonstrated that internal medicine residents randomized to a communication skills intervention scored higher than controls on a CSD checklist using a standardized patient. However, the impact of this training on CSD content is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Compare CSD content between intervention and control residents. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative analysis of simulated CSDs. Augmenting a priori codes with constant comparative analysis, we identified key themes associated with resident determination of code status. We dichotomized each theme as present or absent. We used chi-square tests to evaluate the association between training and presence of each theme. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-six residents rotating on the internal medicine service in July 2010 were randomized to intervention (n = 25) or control (n = 31). INTERVENTION: Intervention residents completed CSD skills training (lectures, deliberate practice, and self-study). Six months later, all 56 residents completed a simulated CSD. MAIN MEASURE: Comparison of key themes identified in CSDs among intervention and controls. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-one transcripts were recorded and reviewed. Themes identified included: exploration of patient values/goals, framing code status as a patient decision, discussion of resuscitation outcomes and quality of life, and making a recommendation regarding code status. Intervention residents were more likely than controls to explore patient values/goals (p = 0.002) and make a recommendation (p < 0.001); and less likely to frame the decision as one solely to be made by the patient (p = 0.01). Less than one-third of residents discussed resuscitation outcomes or quality of life. CONCLUSION: Training positively influenced CSD content in key domains, including exploration of patient values/goals, making a recommendation regarding code status, and not framing code status as solely a patient decision. However, despite the intervention, residents infrequently discussed resuscitation outcomes and quality of life.

A predictive model to identify hospitalized cancer patients at risk for 30-day mortality based on admission criteria via the electronic medical record.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to develop a predictive model for 30-day mortality in hospitalized cancer patients, by using admission information available through the electronic medical record. METHODS: Observational cohort study of 3062 patients admitted to the oncology service from August 1, 2008, to July 31, 2009. Matched numbers of patients were in the derivation and validation cohorts (1531 patients). Data were obtained on day 1 of admission and included demographic information, vital signs, and laboratory data. Survival data were obtained from the Social Security Death Index. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate of the derivation and validation samples were 9.5% and 9.7% respectively. Significant predictive variables in the multivariate analysis included age (P < .0001), assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs; P = .022), admission type (elective/emergency) (P = .059), oxygen use (P < .0001), and vital signs abnormalities including pulse oximetry (P = .0004), temperature (P = .017), and heart rate (P = .0002). A logistic regression model was developed to predict death within 30 days: Score = 18.2897 + 0.6013*(admit type) + 0.4518*(ADL) + 0.0325*(admit age) - 0.1458*(temperature) + 0.019*(heart rate) - 0.0983*(pulse oximetry) - 0.0123 (systolic blood pressure) + 0.8615*(O2 use). The largest sum of sensitivity (63%) and specificity (78%) was at -2.09 (area under the curve = -0.789). A total of 25.32% (100 of 395) of patients with a score above -2.09 died, whereas 4.31% (49 of 1136) of patients below -2.09 died. Sensitivity and positive predictive value in the derivation and validation samples compared favorably. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors available via the electronic medical record within 24 hours of hospital admission can be used to identify cancer patients at risk for 30-day mortality. These patients would benefit from discussion of preferences for care at the end of life.