Provider Perceptions Regarding Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Surgical Patients with Frailty.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the perceptions of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and geriatricians regarding perioperative CPR in surgical patients with frailty. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The population of patients undergoing surgery is growing older and more frail. Despite a growing focus on goal-concordant care, frailty assessment, and debate regarding the appropriateness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with frailty, providers' views regarding frailty and perioperative CPR are unknown. METHODS: We performed qualitative thematic analysis of transcripts from semi-structured interviews of anesthesiologists (8), surgeons (10), and geriatricians (9) who care for high-risk surgical patients at two academic medical centers in Boston, MA. The interview guide elicited clinicians' understanding of frailty, approach to decision-making regarding perioperative CPR, and perceptions of perioperative CPR in frail surgical patients. RESULTS: We identified 5 themes: perceptions of perioperative CPR in patients with frailty vary by provider specialty; judgments regarding appropriateness of CPR in surgical patients with frailty are typically multifactorial and include patient goals, age, comorbidities, and arrest etiology; resuscitation in patients with frailty is sometimes associated with moral distress; biases such as ableism and ageism may skew clinicians' perceptions of appropriateness of perioperative CPR in patients with frailty; and evidence to guide risk stratification for patients with frailty undergoing perioperative CPR is inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists, surgeons, and geriatricians offer different accounts of frailty's relevance to judgments regarding CPR in surgical patients. Divergent views regarding frailty and perioperative CPR may impede efforts to deliver goal-concordant care and suggest a need for research to inform risk stratification, predict patient-centered outcomes, and understand the role of potential biases such as ageism and ableism.

Surgeon-reported Factors Influencing Adoption of Quality Standards for Goal-concordant Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored surgical oncologists' perspectives on factors influencing adoption of quality standards in patients with advanced cancer. BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program includes communication standards designed to facilitate goal-concordant care, yet little is known about how surgeons believe these standards align with clinical practice. METHODS: Semistructured video-based interviews were conducted from November 2020 to January 2021 with academic surgical oncologists purposively sampled based on demographics, region, palliative care certification, and years in practice. Interviews addressed: (1) adherence to standards documenting care preferences for life-sustaining treatment, surrogate decision-maker, and goals of surgery; and (2) factors influencing their adoption into practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, qualitatively analyzed, and conducted until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-six surgeons participated (57.7% male, 8.5 mean years in practice, 19.2% palliative care board-certified). Surgeons reported low adherence to documenting care preferences and surrogate decision-maker and high adherence to discussing, but not documenting, goals of surgery. Participants held conflicting views about the relevance of care preferences to preoperative conversations and surrogate decision-maker documentation by the surgeon and questioned the direct connection between documentation of quality standards and higher value patient care. Key themes regarding factors influencing adoption of quality standards included organizational culture, workflow, and multidisciplinary collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Although surgeons routinely discuss goals of surgery, documentation is inconsistent; care preferences and surrogate decision-makers are rarely discussed or documented. Adherence to these standards would be facilitated by multidisciplinary collaboration, institutional standardization, and evidence linking standards to higher value care.

Which Geriatric Variables Most Strongly Inform Discharge Disposition After Emergency Surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Older adults account for an increasing proportion of emergency surgical procedures and have longer hospital lengths of stay than their elective counterparts. Identifying those at greatest risk of discharge to a postacute care facility would improve postoperative planning. We aimed to examine the role of preoperative cognitive and functional status on discharge disposition after emergency surgery in older adults. METHODS: We used American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Geriatric Pilot Project data from 2014 to 2018 to identify patients ≥65 y who underwent inpatient emergency surgery. The primary outcome was nonhome discharge, defined as discharge to an acute rehabilitation facility, a skilled nursing facility, or a nonhome unskilled facility. Logistic regression controlling for patient characteristics was used to determine the association of preoperative geriatric-specific variables with nonhome discharge. RESULTS: Of 3494 patients, 53.9% were not discharged home. In multivariable analysis, a fall within the past year (odds ratio [OR] = 5.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4-6.5) was most strongly associated with nonhome discharge. The outcome was also independently associated with preoperative use of a mobility aid (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.7-2.4), partially dependent functional status (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4-2.5), and surrogate consent (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1-1.8), but not cognitive impairment (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.7-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing for a history of falls and impaired mobility at the initial surgical evaluation can rapidly identify patients most likely to need postacute care. Further work is needed to assess the association between pre-existing cognitive impairment and discharge disposition after emergency surgery.

Beyond the Do-not-resuscitate Order: An Expanded Approach to Decision-making Regarding Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Older Surgical Patients.

American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines recommend that anesthesiologists revisit do-not-resuscitate orders preoperatively and revise them if necessary based on patient preferences. In patients without do-not-resuscitate orders or other directives limiting treatment however, "full code" is the default option irrespective of clinical circumstances and patient preferences. It is time to revisit this approach based on (1) increasing understanding of the power of default options in healthcare settings, (2) changing demographics and growing evidence suggesting that an expanding subset of patients is vulnerable to poor outcomes after perioperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and (3) recommendations from multiple societies promoting risk assessment and goal-concordant care in older surgical patients. The authors reconsider current guidelines in the context of these developments and advocate for an expanded approach to decision-making regarding CPR, which involves identifying high-risk elderly patients and eliciting their preferences regarding CPR irrespective of existing or presumed code status.

Prioritizing Primary Care Patients for a Communication Intervention Using the "Surprise Question": a Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Communication about priorities and goals improves the value of care for patients with serious illnesses. Resource constraints necessitate targeting interventions to patients who need them most. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a clinician screening tool to identify patients for a communication intervention. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care clinics in Boston, MA. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (PCPs) and nurse care coordinators (RNCCs) identified patients at high risk of dying by answering the Surprise Question (SQ): "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 2 years?" MEASUREMENTS: Performance of the SQ for predicting mortality, measured by the area under receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Sensitivity of PCP response to the SQ at 2 years was 79.4% and specificity 68.6%; for RNCCs, sensitivity was 52.6% and specificity 80.6%. In univariate regression, the odds of 2-year mortality for patients identified as high risk by PCPs were 8.4 times higher than those predicted to be at low risk (95% CI 5.7-12.4, AUC 0.74) and 4.6 for RNCCs (3.4-6.2, AUC 0.67). In multivariate analysis, both PCP and RNCC prediction of high risk of death remained associated with the odds of 2-year mortality. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted in the context of a high-risk care management program, including an initial screening process and training, both of which affect the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: When used in combination with a high-risk algorithm, the 2-year version of the SQ captured the majority of patients who died, demonstrating better than expected performance as a screening tool for a serious illness communication intervention in a heterogeneous primary care population.

Opening the Door: The Experience of Chronic Critical Illness in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Chronically critically ill patients have recurrent infections, organ dysfunction, and at least half die within 1 year. They are frequently cared for in long-term acute care hospitals, yet little is known about their experience in this setting. Our objective was to explore the understanding and expectations and goals of these patients and surrogates. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews with chronically critically ill long-term acute care hospital patients or surrogates. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. SETTING: One long-term acute care hospital. SUBJECTS: Chronically critically ill patients, defined by tracheotomy for prolonged mechanical ventilation, or surrogates. INTERVENTION: Semi-structured conversation about quality of life, expectations, and planning for setbacks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 50 subjects (30 patients and 20 surrogates) were enrolled. Thematic analyses demonstrated: 1) poor quality of life for patients; 2) surrogate stress and anxiety; 3) optimistic health expectations; 4) poor planning for medical setbacks; and 5) disruptive care transitions. Nearly 80% of patient and their surrogate decision makers identified going home as a goal; 38% were at home at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Our study describes the experience of chronically critically ill patients and surrogates in an long-term acute care hospital and the feasibility of patient-focused research in this setting. Our findings indicate overly optimistic expectations about return home and unmet palliative care needs, suggesting the need for integration of palliative care within the long-term acute care hospital. Further research is also needed to more fully understand the challenges of this growing population of ICU survivors.

Recommendations for Best Communication Practices to Facilitate Goal-concordant Care for Seriously Ill Older Patients With Emergency Surgical Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To address the need for improved communication practices to facilitate goal-concordant care in seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Improved communication is increasingly recognized as a central element in providing goal-concordant care and reducing health care utilization and costs among seriously ill older patients. Given high rates of surgery in the last weeks of life, high risk of poor outcomes after emergency operations in these patients, and barriers to quality communication in the acute setting, we sought to create a framework to support surgeons in communicating with seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 23 national leaders was convened for a 1-day conference at Harvard Medical School to provide input on concept, content, format, and usability of a communication framework. A prototype framework was created. RESULTS: Participants supported the concept of a structured approach to communication in these scenarios, and delineated 9 key elements of a framework: (1) formulating prognosis, (2) creating a personal connection, (3) disclosing information regarding the acute problem in the context of the underlying illness, (4) establishing a shared understanding of the patient's condition, (5) allowing silence and dealing with emotion, (6) describing surgical and palliative treatment options, (7) eliciting patient's goals and priorities, (8) making a treatment recommendation, and (9) affirming ongoing support for the patient and family. CONCLUSIONS: Communication with seriously ill patients in the acute setting is difficult. The proposed communication framework may assist surgeons in delivering goal-concordant care for high-risk patients.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Serious Illness Conversation Quality during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients. However, little is known about the quality of serious illness communication in these communities during this time. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether racial and ethnic disparities manifested in serious illness conversations during the pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study of adult patients with a documented serious illness conversation from March 2020 to April 2021. Serious illness conversation documentation quality was assessed by counting the median number (IQR) of conversation domains and their elements included in the documentation. Domains included (1) values and goals, (2) prognosis and illness understanding, (3) end-of-life care planning, and (4) life-sustaining treatment preferences. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between differences in serious illness documentation quality with patient race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 291 patients, 149 (51.2%) were non-Hispanic White; 81 (27.8%) were non-Hispanic Black; and 61 (21.0%) were Hispanic patients. Non-Hispanic Black patients were associated with fewer domains (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.25, 0.84]; P=.01) included in their serious illness conversation documentation compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Both non-Hispanic Black (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.20, 0.62]; P<.001) and Hispanic patients (OR 0.29 [95% CI 0.14, 0.58]; P<.001) were associated with fewer elements in the values and goals domain compared to non-Hispanic White patients in their serious illness documentation. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, serious illness conversation documentation among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients was less comprehensive compared to non-Hispanic White patients.

Evaluation of interdisciplinary care pathway implementation in older elective surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program outlines best practices for surgical care in older adults. These recommendations have guided institutions to create workflows to better support needs specific to older surgical patients. This qualitative study explored clinician experiences to understand influences on implementation of frailty screening and an interdisciplinary care pathway in older elective colorectal surgery and neurosurgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Semi-structured in-person and video-based interviews were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022 with clinicians caring for patients ≥70 years on the colorectal surgery and neurosurgery services. Interviews addressed familiarity with and beliefs about the intervention, intervention alignment with routine workflow and workflow adaptations, and barriers and facilitators to performing the intervention. Interviews were analyzed using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to find themes related to ongoing implementation. RESULTS: Thirty-two clinicians participated (56.3% female, 58.8% White). Fifteen relevant CFIR constructs were identified. Key themes to implementation success included strong participant belief in effectiveness of the intervention and its advantage over standard care; the importance of training, reference materials, and champions; and the need for institution-level investment in resources to amplify the impact of the intervention on patients and expand the capacity to address their needs. CONCLUSION: Systematic evaluation found implementation of frailty screening and an interdisciplinary care pathway in elective colorectal surgery and neurosurgery patients to be supported by participating clinicians, yet sustainability of the intervention and further adoption across surgical services to better meet the needs of older patients would necessitate organizational resource allocation.

Frailty and Outcomes Following Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Perioperative Cardiac Arrest.

Importance: Frailty is associated with mortality following surgery and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Despite the growing focus on frailty as a basis for preoperative risk stratification and concern that CPR in patients with frailty may border on futility, the association between frailty and outcomes following perioperative CPR is unknown. Objective: To determine the association between frailty and outcomes following perioperative CPR. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cohort study of patients used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, including more than 700 participating hospitals in the US, from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2020. Follow-up duration was 30 days. Patients 50 years or older undergoing noncardiac surgery who received CPR on postoperative day 0 were included; patients were excluded if data required to determine frailty, establish outcome, or perform multivariable analyses were missing. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, through January 30, 2023. Exposures: Frailty defined as Risk Analysis Index (RAI) of 40 or greater vs less than 40. Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day mortality and nonhome discharge. Results: Among the 3149 patients included in the analysis, the median age was 71 (IQR, 63-79) years, 1709 (55.9%) were men, and 2117 (69.2%) were White. Mean (SD) RAI was 37.73 (6.18), and 792 patients (25.9%) had an RAI of 40 or greater, of whom 534 (67.4%) died within 30 days of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for race, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, sepsis, and emergency surgery demonstrated a positive association between frailty and mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.11-1.65]; P = .003). Spline regression analysis demonstrated steadily increasing probability of mortality and nonhome discharge with increasing RAI above 37 and 36, respectively. Association between frailty and mortality following CPR varied by procedure urgency (AOR for nonemergent procedures, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.23-1.97]; AOR for emergent procedures, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.68-1.37]; P = .03 for interaction). An RAI of 40 or greater was associated with increased odds of nonhome discharge compared with an RAI of less than 40 (AOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.31-2.62]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that although roughly 1 in 3 patients with an RAI of 40 or greater survived at least 30 days following perioperative CPR, higher frailty burden was associated with increased mortality and greater risk of nonhome discharge among survivors. Identifying patients who are undergoing surgery and have frailty may inform primary prevention strategies, guide shared decision-making regarding perioperative CPR, and promote goal-concordant surgical care.

Preoperative Code Status Discussion Workflows: Targets for Improvement in Multidisciplinary Pathways.

CONTEXT: Discussion of perioperative code status is an important element of preoperative care and a component of the American College of Surgeons' Geriatric Surgery Verification (GSV) program. Evidence suggests code status discussions (CSDs) are not routinely performed and are inconsistently documented. OBJECTIVES: Because preoperative decision making is a complex process spanning multiple providers, this study aims to utilize process mapping to highlight challenges associated with CSDs and inform efforts to improve workflows and implement elements of the GSV program. METHODS: Using process mapping, we detailed workflows relating to (CSDs) for patients undergoing thoracic surgery and a possible workflow for implementing GSV standards for goals and decision-making. RESULTS: We generated process maps for outpatient and day-of-surgery workflows relating to CSDs. In addition, we generated a process map for a potential workflow to address limitations and integrate GSV Standards for Goals and Decision Making. CONCLUSION: Process mapping highlighted challenges associated with the implementation of multidisciplinary care pathways and indicated a need for centralization and consolidation of perioperative code status documentation.

Adaptations within Palliative Care Delivery Models Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Tertiary Care Hospital.

Background: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, all facets of palliative care provision for patients with serious illness have faced unparalleled challenges. Methods: We describe our palliative care program's response to the increased clinical volume associated with the pandemic by adapting workflows for inpatient and outpatient palliative care teams caring for oncology and nononcology populations. Results: During the initial surge, the demand for palliative care consultation for patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 was high, accounting for 75% of all inpatient palliative care referral requests for oncology and nononcology patients. Furthermore, our ambulatory clinic experienced a 40% increase in visits for complex oncology patients between February and December of 2020. Discussion: This article highlights transformations in palliative care delivery implemented in response to the pandemic and reflects on how these transformations have shaped our current care delivery models. We further delineate our intentional reliance on key population health principles to drive ongoing innovation in palliative care provision across our clinical teams.

A Pilot Study of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide in a Dialysis Clinic.

Clinician-led conversations about future care priorities occur infrequently with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on dialysis. This was a pilot study of structured serious illness conversations using the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) in a single dialysis clinic to assess acceptability of the approach and explore conversation themes and potential outcomes among patients with ESRD. Twelve individuals with ESRD on dialysis from a single outpatient dialysis clinic participated in this study. Participants completed a baseline demographics survey, engaged in a clinician-led structured serious illness conversation, and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Conversations were recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. The average age of participants was 68.8 years. The conversations averaged 20:53 in length. Ten participants (83%) felt that the conversation was held at the right time in their clinical course and eleven participants (91%) felt that it was worthwhile. Most participants (73%) reported neutral feelings about clinician use of a printed guide. Eleven participants (91%) reported no change in anxiety about their illness following the conversation, and five participants (42%) reported that the conversation increased their hopefulness about future quality of life. Thematic analysis revealed common perspectives on dialysis including that participants view in-center hemodialysis as temporary, compartmentalize their kidney disease, perceive narrowed life experiences and opportunities, and believe dialysis is their only option. This pilot study suggests that clinician-led structured serious illness conversations may be acceptable to patients with ESRD on dialysis. The themes identified can inform future serious illness conversations with dialysis patients.

Feasibility of frailty screening among patients with advanced heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common among patients with advanced heart failure (HF), and screening for frailty to guide care is recommended. Although multiple tools are available to screen for frailty, the feasibility of routinely incorporating frailty screening into daily clinical practice among hospitalised advanced HF patients has not been rigorously tested. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-centre, quality improvement study. Two brief frailty screening tools were incorporated into palliative care consultations for all patients ≥50 years from August 2021 to October 2022. In the first phase, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was implemented, followed by the Study of Osteoporotic Fracture (SOF) tool or a modified SOF (mSOF) version in the second phase. The primary outcome was feasibility (%) of performing frailty screenings for this high-risk population. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients (mean age 69±10 years, 69% male, 79% white, 30% with ischaemic HF) were referred for palliative care consultation during the study period. Overall, frailty screens were completed in 86% (n=183) of patients. CFS and mSOF reached >80% of adoption, while SOF adoption was 54%. Altogether, 52% of the population screened frail by use of CFS and 52% also by mSOF. All clinicians (n=6) participating in the study reported that frailty screening tools were useful and acceptable, and 83% reported plans for continued utilisation in future clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty screening with CFS or mSOF tools was feasible in hospitalised patients with advanced HF. Tools that require physical assessment were more challenging to implement. These data support the feasibility of incorporating questionnaire-based frailty screening in a busy hospital setting.

Geriatric surgical service interventions in older emergency general surgery patients: Preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Older adults comprise an increasing proportion of emergency general surgery (EGS) admissions and face high morbidity and mortality. We created a geriatric surgical service with geriatric and palliative expertise to mitigate risks of hospitalization most hazardous to older patients. We sought to identify geriatric surgical service interventions most relevant to EGS patients. METHODS: We prospectively identified patients ≥75 years admitted to the EGS service at an urban tertiary care hospital from January 2020-March 2021 who screened positive for frailty (FRAIL score ≥3 [scale 0-5, higher being worse]) or with cognitive impairment. A pilot geriatric surgical service, led by a dually-board certified geriatric and palliative care specialist, conducted a comprehensive geriatric assessment and modified Rockwood Frailty Index calculation for each eligible patient. Patient, hospital admission, and geriatric consultation characteristics were collected via chart review. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients (median age 82 years [IQR 78-90], 56% female) received geriatric consultation (median time 3 days [IQR 1-6] from admission). The most common admission diagnosis was bowel obstruction (32%). Sixty-four percent of patients underwent ≥1 surgical procedure. Using the Frailty Index, 64% were moderately or severely frail. Interventions most frequently performed by the geriatric team included delirium prevention and management (66%), consideration of swallowing function (52%), individualized pain management (50%), and facilitation of serious illness conversations (58%). CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric service involvement addresses a high burden of both geriatric and palliative care needs in older EGS patients. Geriatric recommendations may direct interventions for surgical education in fundamental geriatric and palliative care knowledge to maximize geriatric resources for the most high-risk patients.

Development, Implementation, and Outcomes of a Serious Illness Care Community of Practice.

CONTEXT: Communities of Practice (CoP) can help geographically separated individuals who share a joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a repertoire of tools to gain, maintain, and implement new skills, including serious illness communication. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the health system uptake, implementation and outcomes of the Serious Illness Community of Practice (SICoP). METHODS: Participants included members of the online SICoP, including participants from all 50 states in the United States and 44 countries, interested in implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program. Yearly surveys asked members about their program's composition, completed trainings, number of serious illness conversations, and utilization of the online SICoP tools and resources. RESULTS: Over four years, membership in the SICoP increased from 429 to 1,912, with an estimated 17,785 clinicians trained and 38,945 serious illness conversations conducted. Members have continued to utilize and modify the SICoP resources. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a CoP has contributed to improving the health care system implementation and process outcomes of serious illness communication training. KEY MESSAGE: This article describes the implementation and health system outcomes of a Community of Practice developed to support serious illness communication. The results indicate that the membership of the community grew and that the community supported growth in the number of trained clinicians and the number of serious illness conversations conducted.

Understanding the role of informal caregivers in postoperative care transitions for older patients.

BACKGROUND: Older adults may have new care needs and functional limitations after surgery. Many rely on informal caregivers (unpaid family or friends) after discharge but the extent of informal support is unknown. We sought to examine the role of informal postoperative caregiving on transitions of care for older adults undergoing routine surgical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using ACS NSQIP Geriatric Pilot Project data, 2014-2018. Patients were ≥65 years and underwent an inpatient surgical procedure. Patients who lived at home alone were compared with those who lived with support from informal caregivers (family and/or friends). Primary outcomes were discharge destination (home vs. post-acute care) and readmission within 30 days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between support at home, discharge destination, and readmission. RESULTS: Of 18,494 patients, 25% lived alone before surgery. There was no difference in loss of independence (decline in functional status or new use of mobility aid) after surgery between patients who lived alone or with others (18.7% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.24). Nevertheless, twice as many patients who lived alone were discharged to a non-home location (10.2% vs. 5.1%; OR: 2.24, CI: 1.93-2.56). Patients who lived alone and were discharged home with new informal caregivers had increased odds of readmission (OR: 1.43, CI: 1.09-1.86). CONCLUSION: Living alone independently predicts discharge to post-acute care, and patients who received new informal caregiver support at home have higher odds of readmission. These findings highlight opportunities to improve discharge planning and care.

Clinicians' Perspectives After Implementation of the Serious Illness Care Program: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Discussions about goals of care with patients who are seriously ill typically occur infrequently and late in the illness trajectory, are of low quality, and focus narrowly on the patient's resuscitation preferences (ie, code status), risking provision of care that is inconsistent with patients' values. The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a multifaceted communication intervention that builds capacity for clinicians to have earlier, more frequent, and more person-centered conversations. Objective: To explore clinicians' experiences with the SICP 1 year after implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. The SICP was implemented at Hamilton General Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) from March 1, 2017, to January 19, 2018, and at Foothills Medical Centre (Calgary, Alberta) from March 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. A total of 45 clinicians were invited to participate in the study, and 23 clinicians (51.1%) were enrolled and interviewed. Semistructured interviews of clinicians were conducted between August 2018 and May 2019. Content analysis was used to evaluate information obtained from these interviews between May 2019 and May 2020. Exposures: The SICP includes clinician training, communication tools, and processes for system change. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of the SICP. Results: Among 23 clinicians interviewed, 15 (65.2%) were women. The mean (SD) number of years in practice was 14.6 (9.1) at the Hamilton site and 12.0 (6.9) at the Calgary site. Participants included 19 general internists, 3 nurse practitioners, and 1 social worker. The 3 main themes were the ways in which the SICP (1) supported changes in clinician behavior, (2) shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status, and (3) influenced clinicians personally and professionally. Changes in clinician behavior were supported by having a unit champion, interprofessional engagement, access to copies of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, and documentation in the electronic medical record. Elements of the program, especially the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status and influenced clinicians on personal and professional levels. Concerns with the program included finding time to have conversations, building transient relationships, and limiting conversation fluidity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, hospital clinicians described components of the SICP as supporting changes in their behavior and facilitating meaningful patient interactions that shifted the focus of goals-of-care conversations beyond discussion of code status. The perceived benefits of SICP implementation stimulated uptake within the medical units. These findings suggest that the SICP may prompt hospital culture changes in goals-of-care dialogue with patients and the care of hospitalized patients with serious illness.