Measuring Patient-Reported Use and Outcomes From Complementary and Integrative Health Therapies: Development of the Complementary and Integrative Health Therapy Patient Experience Survey.

Background: Assessing the use and effectiveness of complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies via survey can be complicated given CIH therapies are used in various locations and formats, the dosing required to have an effect is unclear, the potential health and well-being outcomes are many, and describing CIH therapies can be challenging. Few surveys assessing CIH therapy use and effectiveness exist, and none sufficiently reflect these complexities. Objective: In a large-scale Veterans Health Administration (VA) quality improvement effort, we developed the "Complementary and Integrative Health Therapy Patient Experience Survey", a longitudinal, electronic patient self-administered survey to comprehensively assess CIH therapy use and outcomes. Methods: We obtained guidance from the literature, subject matter experts, and Veteran patients who used CIH therapies in designing the survey. As a validity check, we completed cognitive testing and interviews with those patients. We conducted the survey (March 2021-April 2023), inviting 15,608 Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain with a recent CIH appointment or referral identified in VA electronic medical records (EMR) to participate. As a second validity check, we compared VA EMR data and patient self-reports of CIH therapy utilization a month after survey initiation and again at survey conclusion. Results: The 64-item, electronic survey assesses CIH dosing (amount and timing), delivery format and location, provider location, and payor. It also assesses 7 patient-reported outcomes (pain, global mental health, global physical health, depression, quality of life, stress, and meaning/purpose in life), and 3 potential mediators (perceived health competency, healthcare engagement, and self-efficacy for managing diseases). The survey took 17 minutes on average to complete and had a baseline response rate of 45.3%. We found high degrees of concordance between self-reported and EMR data for all therapies except meditation. Conclusions: Validly assessing patient-reported CIH therapy use and outcomes is complex, but possible.

A novel psychosocial virtual reality intervention (BMT-VR) for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: Pilot randomized clinical trial design and methods.

BACKGROUND: Although patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) must cope with psychological distress and isolation during an extended transplant hospitalization, psychosocial interventions to address these unmet needs are lacking. Virtual reality offers an innovative modality to deliver a patient-centered psychosocial intervention to address psychosocial needs of patients undergoing HSCT. However, there are currently no supportive care interventions leveraging virtual reality in patients undergoing HSCT. OBJECTIVE: To describe the methods of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a self-administered, virtual reality-delivered psychosocial intervention (BMT-VR) to improve psychological distress and quality of life (QOL) for patients hospitalized for HSCT. METHODS: This study entails a single-center RCT of BMT-VR compared to usual transplant care in 80 patients hospitalized for HSCT. Adult patients with hematologic malignancies hospitalized for autologous or allogeneic HSCT are eligible. BMT-VR includes psychoeducation about the HSCT process, psychosocial skill building to promote effective coping and acceptance, and self-care and positive psychology skills to promote post-HSCT recovery. The primary aim is to assess the feasibility defined a priori as ≥60% of eligible patients enrolling in the study, and of those enrolled and randomized to the BMT-VR, ≥ 60% completing 4/6 BMT-VR modules. Secondary objectives include assessing the preliminary effects on psychological distress and QOL. DISCUSSION: This is the first RCT of a virtual reality-delivered psychosocial intervention for the HSCT population. If deemed feasible, a future larger multi-site clinical trial can evaluate the efficacy of BMT-VR on outcomes for patients hospitalized for HSCT.

Identifying provider, patient and practice factors that shape long-term opioid prescribing for cancer pain: a qualitative study of American and Australian providers.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing long-term opioid therapy is a nuanced clinical decision requiring careful consideration of risks versus benefits. Our goal is to understand patient, provider and context factors that impact the decision to prescribe opioids in patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the raw semistructured interview data gathered from 42 prescribers who participated in one of two aligned concurrent qualitative studies in the USA and Australia. We conducted a two-part analysis of the interview: first identifying all factors influencing long-term prescribing and second open coding-related content for themes. RESULTS: Factors that influence long-term opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain clustered under three key domains (patient-related, provider-related and practice-related factors) each with several themes. Domain 1: Patient factors related to provider-patient continuity, patient personality, the patient's social context and patient characteristics including racial/ethnic identity, housing and socioeconomic status. Domain 2: Provider-related factors centred around provider 'personal experience and expertise', training and time availability. Domain 3: Practice-related factors included healthcare interventions to promote safer opioid practices and accessibility of quality alternative pain therapies. CONCLUSION: Despite the differences in the contexts of the two countries, providers consider similar patient, provider and practice-related factors when long-term prescribing opioids for patients with cancer. Some of these factors may be categorised as cognitive biases that may intersect in an already disadvantaged patient and exacerbate disparities in the treatment of their pain. A more systematic understanding of these factors and how they impact the quality of care can inform appropriate interventions.

Primary Palliative Care in Urology: Quality Improvement Summit 2021-2022.

INTRODUCTION: The AUA convened a 2021-2022 Quality Improvement Summit to bring together interdisciplinary providers to inform the current state and to discuss potential strategies for integrating primary palliative care into urology practice. We hypothesized that the Summit findings would inform a scalable primary palliative care model for urology. METHODS: The 3-part summit reached a total of 160 interdisciplinary health care professionals. Webinar 1, "Building a Primary Palliative Care Model for Urology," focused on a urologist's role in palliative care. Webinar 2, "Perspectives on Increasing the Use of Palliative Care in Advanced Urologic Disease," addressed barriers to possible implementation of a primary palliative care model. The in-person Summit, "Laying the Foundation for Primary Palliative Care in Urology," focused on operationalization of primary palliative care, clinical innovations needed, and relevant metrics. RESULTS: Participants agreed that palliative care is needed early in the disease course for patients with advanced disease, including those with benign and malignant conditions. The group agreed about the important domains that should be addressed as well as the interdisciplinary providers who are best suited to address each domain. There was consensus that a primary "quarterback" was needed, encapsulated in a conceptual model-UroPal-with a urologist at the hub of care. CONCLUSIONS: The Summit provides the field of urology with a framework and specific steps that can be taken to move urology-palliative care integration forward. Urologists are uniquely positioned to provide primary palliative care for their many patients with serious illness, both in the surgical and chronic care contexts.

Qualitative interview study of strategies to support healthcare personnel mental health through an occupational health lens.

BACKGROUND: Employee Occupational Health ('occupational health') clinicians have expansive perspectives of the experience of healthcare personnel. Integrating mental health into the purview of occupational health is a newer approach that could combat historical limitations of healthcare personnel mental health programmes, which have been isolated and underused. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to document innovation and opportunities for supporting healthcare personnel mental health through occupational health clinicians. This work was part of a national qualitative needs assessment of employee occupational health clinicians during COVID-19 who were very much at the centre of organisational responses. DESIGN: This qualitative needs assessment included key informant interviews obtained using snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 43 US Veterans Health Administration occupational health clinicians from 29 facilities. APPROACH: This analysis focused on personnel mental health needs and opportunities, using consensus coding of interview transcripts and modified member checking. KEY RESULTS: Three major opportunities to support mental health through occupational health involved: (1) expanded mental health needs of healthcare personnel, including opportunities to support work-related concerns (eg, traumatic deployments), home-based concerns and bereavement (eg, working with chaplains); (2) leveraging expanded roles and protocols to address healthcare personnel mental health concerns, including opportunities in expanding occupational health roles, cross-disciplinary partnerships (eg, with employee assistance programmes (EAP)) and process/protocol (eg, acute suicidal ideation pathways) and (3) need for supporting occupational health clinicians' own mental health, including opportunities to address overwork/burn-out with adequate staffing/resources. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational health can enact strategies to support personnel mental health: to structurally sustain attention, use social cognition tools (eg, suicidality protocols or expanded job descriptions); to leverage distributed attention, enhance interdisciplinary collaboration (eg, chaplains for bereavement support or EAP) and to equip systems with resources and allow for flexibility during crises, including increased staffing.

Role matters in understanding 'quality' in palliative care: a qualitative analysis of patient, caregiver and practitioner perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the discussions from two panels on the concept of palliative care quality for patients with advanced cancer, exploring the priorities reflected in each group's perspectives. DESIGN: We convened two RAND-UCLA appropriateness panel discussions on palliative care quality in advanced cancer. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Panel transcripts were analysed thematically using a matrix approach to examine perceptions and experiences of quality. SETTING: Discussions were framed within the context of advanced cancer care and palliative care. PARTICIPANTS: The patient-caregiver panel had 9 patients with current or a history of cancer and caregivers, and the practitioner panel had 10 expert practitioners representing fields of oncology, primary care, social work, palliative care, nursing, pain management and ethics. RESULTS: Our analysis identified three thematic categories for understanding quality common across both groups and nine subthemes within those categories. At the highest level, quality was conceived as: (1) the patient and caregiver experience of care, (2) technical competence and (3) the structure of health system. Among the subthemes, four were present in only one of the two group's discussions: 'purpose and action' was specific to the patient-caregiver panel, whereas 'adhering to best medical practice', 'mitigating unintended consequences and side effects', and 'health system resources and costs' were specific to the practitioner panel. CONCLUSIONS: While both panels aligned on the three key domains of quality, the particular dimensions through which they perceived quality varied in relation to their experience and role as a professional provider of care versus recipient of healthcare services. These differences suggest the importance of adopting a collaborative approach to quality measurement and improvement so that the values of all interested parties are represented in improvement efforts.

What Patients Facing Cancer and Caregivers Want From Communication in Times of Crisis: A Qualitative Study in the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis. METHODS: We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes. RESULTS: Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time. CONCLUSION: Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises.

"Diving in the deep-end and swimming": a mixed methods study using normalization process theory to evaluate a learning collaborative approach for the implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis centers.

BACKGROUND: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is an implementation theory that can be used to explain how and why implementation strategies work or not in particular circumstances. We used it to understand the mechanisms that lead to the adoption and routinization of palliative care within hemodialysis centers. METHODS: We employed a longitudinal, mixed methods approach to comprehensively evaluate the implementation of palliative care practices among ten hemodialysis centers participating in an Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough- Series learning collaborative. Qualitative methods included longitudinal observations of collaborative activities, and interviews with implementers at the end of the study. We used an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis informed by NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) and implementation outcomes. The NoMAD survey, which measures NPT constructs, was completed by implementers at each hemodialysis center during early and late implementation. RESULTS: The four mechanisms posited in NPT had a dynamic and layered relationship during the implementation process. Collaborative participants participated because they believed in the value and legitimacy of palliative care for patients receiving hemodialysis and thus had high levels of cognitive participation at the start. Didactic Learning Sessions were important for building practice coherence, and sense-making was solidified through testing new skills in practice and first-hand observation during coaching visits by an expert. Collective action was hampered by limited time among team members and practical issues such as arranging meetings with patients. Reflexive monitoring of the positive benefit to patient and family experiences was key in shifting mindsets from disease-centric towards a patient-centered model of care. NoMAD survey scores showed modest improvement over time, with collective action having the lowest scores. CONCLUSIONS: NPT was a useful framework for understanding the implementation of palliative care practices within hemodialysis centers. We found a nonlinear relationship among the mechanisms which is reflected in our model of implementation of palliative care practices through a learning collaborative. These findings suggest that the implementation of complex practices such as palliative care may be more successful through iterative learning and practice opportunities as the mechanisms for change are layered and mutually reinforcing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04125537 . Registered 14 October 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Disparities in Preoperative Goals of Care Documentation in Veterans.

Importance: Preoperative goals of care discussion and documentation are important for patients undergoing surgery, a major health care stressor that incurs risk. Objective: To assess the association of race, ethnicity, and other factors, including history of mental health disability, with disparities in preoperative goals of care documentation among veterans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study assessed data from the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) of 229 737 veterans who underwent surgical procedures between January 1, 2017, and October 18, 2022. Exposures: Patient-level (ie, race, ethnicity, medical comorbidities, history of mental health comorbidity) and system-level (ie, facility complexity level) factors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preoperative life-sustaining treatment (LST) note documentation or no LST note documentation within 30 days prior to or on day of surgery. The standardized mean differences were calculated to assess the magnitude of differences between groups. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated with logistic regression. Results: In this study, 13 408 patients (5.8%) completed preoperative LST from 229 737 VHA patients (209 123 [91.0%] male; 20 614 [9.0%] female; mean [SD] age, 65.5 [11.9] years) who received surgery. Compared with patients who did complete preoperative LST, patients tended to complete preoperative documentation less often if they were female (19 914 [9.2%] vs 700 [5.2%]), Black individuals (42 571 [19.7%] vs 2416 [18.0%]), Hispanic individuals (11 793 [5.5%] vs 631 [4.7%]), or from rural areas (75 637 [35.0%] vs 4273 [31.9%]); had a history of mental health disability (65 974 [30.5%] vs 4053 [30.2%]); or were seen at lowest-complexity (ie, level 3) facilities (7849 [3.6%] vs 78 [0.6%]). Over time, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, patients undergoing surgical procedures completed preoperative LST increasingly more often. Covariate-adjusted estimates of preoperative LST completion demonstrated that patients of racial or ethnic minority background (Black patients: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.80; P <.001; patients selecting other race: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81; P <.001; Hispanic patients: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81; P <.001) and patients from rural regions (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P <.001) had lower likelihoods of completing LST compared with patients who were White or non-Hispanic and patients from urban areas. Patients with any mental health disability history also had lower likelihood of completing preoperative LST than those without a history (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.94; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, disparities in documentation rates within a VHA cohort persisted based on race, ethnicity, rurality of patient residence, history of mental health disability, and access to high-volume, high-complexity facilities.

Remote Symptom Monitoring to Enhance the Delivery of Palliative Cancer Care in Low-Resource Settings: Emerging Approaches from Africa.

This paper brings together researchers, clinicians, technology developers and digital innovators to outline current applications of remote symptom monitoring being developed for palliative cancer care delivery in Africa. We outline three remote symptom monitoring approaches from three countries, highlighting their models of delivery and intended outcomes, and draw on their experiences of implementation to guide further developments and evaluations of this approach for palliative cancer care in the region. Through highlighting these experiences and priority areas for future research, we hope to steer efforts to develop and optimise remote symptom monitoring for palliative cancer care in Africa.

Interdisciplinary interventions that improve patient-reported outcomes in perioperative cancer care: A systematic review of randomized control trials.

INTRODUCTION: Interdisciplinary teams are often leveraged to improve quality of cancer care in the perioperative period. We aimed to identify the team structures and processes in interdisciplinary interventions that improve perioperative patient-reported outcomes for patients with cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized control trials published at any time and screened 7,195 articles. To be included in our review, studies needed to report patient-reported outcomes, have interventions that occur in the perioperative period, include surgical cancer treatment, and include at least one non physician intervention clinical team member: advanced practice providers, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and registered nurses. We narratively synthesized intervention components, specifically roles assumed by intervention clinical team members and interdisciplinary team processes, to compare interventions that improved patient-reported outcomes, based on minimal clinically important difference and statistical significance. RESULTS: We included 34 studies with a total of 4,722 participants, of which 31 reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. The common clinical team member roles featured patient education regarding diagnosis, treatment, coping, and pain/symptom management as well as postoperative follow up regarding problems after surgery, resource dissemination, and care planning. Other intervention components included six or more months of continuous clinical team member contact with the patient and involvement of the patient's caregiver. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions might prioritize supporting clinical team members roles to include patient education, caregiver engagement, and clinical follow-up.

Strategies to Improve Perioperative Palliative Care Integration for Seriously Ill Veterans.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients are at higher risk for adverse surgical outcomes. Palliative care (PC) interventions for seriously ill surgical patients are associated with improved quality of patient care and patient-centered outcomes, yet, they are underutilized perioperatively. OBJECTIVES: To identify strategies for improving perioperative PC integration for seriously ill Veterans from the perspectives of PC providers and surgeons. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, in-depth individual and group interviews with Veteran Health Administration PC team members and surgeons between July 2020 and April 2021. Participants were purposively sampled from high- and low-collaboration sites based on the proportion of received perioperative palliative consults. We performed a team-based thematic analysis with dual coding (inter-rater reliability above 0.8). RESULTS: Interviews with 20 interdisciplinary PC providers and 13 surgeons at geographically distributed Veteran Affairs sites converged on four strategies for improving palliative care integration and goals of care conversations in the perioperative period: 1) develop and maintain collaborative, trusting relationships between palliative care providers and surgeons; 2) establish risk assessment processes to identify patients who may benefit from a PC consult; 3) involve both PC providers and surgeons at the appropriate time in the perioperative workflow; 4) provide sufficient resources to allow for an interdisciplinary sharing of care. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that individual, programmatic, and organizational efforts could facilitate interservice collaboration between PC clinicians and surgeons.

Facilitators of palliative care quality improvement team cohesion: Lessons from a seven-site implementation project in India.

BACKGROUND: The Palliative Care: Promoting Access and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) initiative is a team-based, palliative care (PC) quality improvement (QI) project working to promote high-quality PC in India. As a PC QI initiative, PC-PAICE implementation relied upon building interdisciplinary teams, providing the ideal context for understanding facilitators of team cohesion that compelled clinical, organizational, and administrative team members to work together. There is an opportunity to leverage the intersection between QI implementation and organizational theory to inform and improve implementation science. PURPOSE: As a subaim of a larger implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators of team cohesion within QI implementation context. METHODOLOGY: A quota sampling approach captured the perspectives of 44 stakeholders across three strata (organizational leaders, clinical leaders, and clinical team members) from all seven sites through a semistructured interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used a combination of inductive and deductive approaches informed by organizational theory to identify facilitators. RESULT: We identified three facilitators of PC team cohesion: (a) balancing formalization and flexibility around team roles, (b) establishing widespread awareness of the QI project, and (c) prioritizing a nonhierarchical organizational culture. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Leveraging CFIR to analyze PC-PAICE stakeholder interviews created a data set conducive to understanding complex multisite implementation. Layering role and team theory to our implementation analysis helped us identify facilitators of team cohesion across levels within the team (bounded team), beyond the team (teaming), and surrounding the team (culture). These insights demonstrate the value of team and role theories in implementation evaluation efforts.

Cultivating Relationship-Centered Care: Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Communication Preferences for and Experiences with Prognostic Conversations.

Prognostic conversations present many challenges for patients, caregivers, and providers alike. Most research examining the context of prognostic conversations have used a more siloed approach to gather the range of perspectives of those involved, typically through the lens of patient-centered care. However, the mutual influence evident in prognostic conversations suggests a relationship-centered care model may be useful in cancer communication research. Similarities and differences in preferences for and experiences with prognostic conversations among oncology patients, caregivers, and providers (N = 32) were explored. Identified themes were then mapped to the principles of the relationship-centered care framework to extend our understanding of prognostic conversations and contribute to a new direction in the application of relationship-centered care. Findings suggest fewer similarities than differences, point to important discrepancies among participant perspectives, and reinforce the utility of relationship-centered care in identifying communication practices that enhance the prognostic conversation experience.

Serious illness care quality during COVID-19: Identifying improvement opportunities in narrative reports from a National Bereaved Family Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 significantly impacted care delivery to seriously ill patients, especially around including family and caregivers in patient care. AIM: Based on routinely collected bereaved family reports, actionable practices were identified to maintain and improve care in the last month of life, with potential application to all seriously ill patients. DESIGN: The Veterans Health Administration's Bereaved Family Survey is used nationally to gather routine feedback from families and caregivers of recent in-patient decedents; the survey includes multiple structured items as well as space for open narrative responses. The responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with dual review. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Between February 2020 and March 2021, there were 5372 responses to the free response questions of which 1000 (18.6%) responses were randomly selected. The 445 (44.5%) responses from 377 unique individuals included actionable practices. RESULTS: Bereaved family members and caregivers identified four opportunities with a total of 32 actionable practices. Opportunity 1: Facilitate the use of video communication, included four actionable practices. Opportunity 2: Provide timely and accurate responses to family concerns, included 17 actionable practices. Opportunity 3: Accommodate family/caregiver visitation, included eight actionable practices. Opportunity 4: Offer physical presence to the patient when family/caregivers are unable to visit, included three actionable practices. CONCLUSION: The findings from this quality improvement project are applicable during a pandemic, but also translate to improving the care of seriously ill patients in other circumstances, such as when family members or caregivers are geographically distant from a loved one during the last weeks of life.

Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Involvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations. Objective: To determine whether surgeon-palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: From October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients. Intervention: Surgeon-palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended triggers for palliative care consultation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: In total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon-palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon-palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], -0.07 [0.87] vs -0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: To date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care-associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309.

Integrating Patient and Expert Perspectives to Conceptualize High-Quality Palliative Cancer Care for Symptoms in the US Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study.

Quality measurement is typically the domain of clinical experts and health system leaders; patient/caregiver perspectives are rarely solicited. We aimed to describe and integrate clinician and patient/caregiver conceptualizations of high-quality palliative symptom care for patients receiving care for advanced cancer within the US Veterans Health Administration in the context of existing quality measures. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts from prioritization discussions of process quality measures relevant to cancer palliative care. These discussions occurred during 2 modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness panels: a panel of 10 palliative care clinical expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) and a panel of 9 patients/caregivers with cancer experience. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and independently double-coded using an a priori logical framework. Content analysis was used to identify subthemes within codes and axial coding was used to identify crosscutting themes. Patients/caregivers and clinical experts contributed important perspectives to 3 crosscutting themes. First, proactive elicitation of symptoms is critical. Patients/caregivers especially emphasized importance of comprehensive and proactive screening and assessment, especially for pain and mental health. Second, screening and assessment alone is not enough; information elicited from patients must inform care. Measuring screening/assessment and management care processes separately has important limitations. Lastly, high-quality symptom management can be broadly defined if it is patient-centered; high-quality care takes an individualized approach and might include non-medical or non-pharmacological symptom management. Integrating the perspectives of clinical experts and patients/caregivers is critical for health systems to consider as they design and implement quality measures for palliative cancer care.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Occurrence of Preoperative Goals-of-Care Conversations.

Importance: Communication about patients' goals and planned and potential treatment is central to advance care planning. Undertaking or confirming advance care plans is also essential to preoperative preparation, particularly among patients who are frail or will undergo high-risk surgery. Objective: To evaluate the association between patient risk of hospitalization or death and goals-of-care conversations documented with a completed Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Initiative note among veterans undergoing surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 190 040 veterans who underwent operations between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2020. Statistical analysis took place from November 1, 2021, to November 17, 2022. Exposure: Patient risk of hospitalization or death, evaluated with a Care Assessment Need (CAN) score (range, 0-99, with a higher score representing a greater risk of hospitalization or death), dichotomized as less than 80 or 80 or more. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preoperative LST note completion (30 days before or on the day of surgery) or no LST note completion within the 30-day preoperative period prior to or on the day of the index operation. Results: Of 190 040 veterans (90.8% men; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [11.9] years), 3.8% completed an LST note before surgery, and 96.2% did not complete an LST note. In the groups with and without LST note completion before surgery, most were aged between 65 and 84 years (62.1% vs 56.7%), male (94.3% vs 90.7%), and White (82.2% vs 78.3%). Compared with patients who completed an LST note before surgery, patients who did not complete an LST note before surgery tended to be female (9.3% vs 5.7%), Black (19.2% vs 15.7%), married (50.2% vs 46.5%), and in better health (Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0, 25.9% vs 15.2%); to have a lower risk of hospitalization or death (CAN score <80, 98.3% vs 96.9%); or to undergo neurosurgical (9.8% vs 6.2%) or urologic surgical procedures (5.9% vs 2.0%). Over the 3-year interval, unadjusted rates of LST note completion before surgery increased from 0.1% to 9.6%. Covariate-adjusted estimates of LST note completion indicated that veterans at a relatively elevated risk of hospitalization or death (CAN score ≥80) had higher odds of completing an LST note before surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53) compared with those with CAN scores less than 80. High-risk surgery was not associated with increased LST note completion before surgery (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.01). Veterans who underwent cardiothoracic surgery had the highest likelihood of LST note completion before surgery (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.24-1.47). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite increasing LST note implementation, a minority of veterans completed an LST note preoperatively. Although doing so was more common among veterans with an elevated risk compared with those at lower risk, improving proactive communication and documentation of goals, particularly among higher-risk veterans, is needed. Doing so may promote goal-concordant surgical care and outcomes.