What Went Right? A Mixed-Methods Study of Positive Feedback Data in a Hospital-Wide Mortality Review Survey.

BACKGROUND: Toxic work culture contributes to healthcare worker burnout and attrition, but little is known about how healthcare organizations can systematically create and promote a culture of civility and collegiality. OBJECTIVE: To analyze peer-to-peer positive feedback collected as part of a systematized mortality review survey to identify themes and recognition dynamics that can inform positive organizational culture change. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods study design. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 388 physicians, 212 registered nurses, 64 advanced practice providers, and 1 respiratory therapist at four non-profit hospitals (2 academic and 2 community). INTERVENTION: Providing optional positive feedback in the mortality review survey. MAIN MEASURES: Key themes and subthemes that emerged from positive feedback data, associations between key themes and positive feedback respondent characteristics, and recognition dynamics between positive feedback respondents and recipients. KEY RESULTS: Approximately 20% of healthcare workers provided positive feedback. Three key themes emerged among responses with free text comments: (1) providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care; (2) demonstrating self-possession and mastery; and (3) exhibiting empathic peer support and effective team collaboration. Compared to other specialties, most positive feedback from medicine (70.2%), neurology (65.2%), hospice and palliative medicine (64.3%), and surgery (58.8%) focused on providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care (p = 0.02), whereas emergency medicine (59.1%) comments predominantly focused on demonstrating self-possession and mastery (p = 0.06). Registered nurses (40.2%) provided multidirectional positive feedback more often than other clinician types in the hospital hierarchy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of positive feedback from a mortality review survey provided meaningful insights into a health system's culture of teamwork and values related to civility and collegiality when providing end-of-life care. Systematic collection and sharing of positive feedback is feasible and has the potential to promote positive culture change and improve healthcare worker well-being.

Pediatric central nervous system tumor survivor and caregiver experiences with multidisciplinary telehealth.

PURPOSE: Telehealth use to facilitate cancer survivorship care is accelerating; however, patient satisfaction and barriers to facilitation have not been studied amongst pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumor survivors. We assessed the telehealth experiences of survivors and caregivers in the Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Clinic at Dana-Farber/ Boston Children's Hospital. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of completed surveys among patients and caregivers with ≥ 1 telehealth multidisciplinary survivorship appointment from January 2021 through March 2022. RESULTS: Thirty-three adult survivors and 41 caregivers participated. The majority agreed or strongly agreed that telehealth visits started on time [65/67 (97%)], scheduling was convenient [59/61 (97%)], clinician's explanations were easy-to-understand [59/61 (97%)], listened carefully/addressed concerns [56/60 (93%)], and spent enough time with them [56/59 (95%)]. However, only 58% (n = 35/60) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they would like to continue with telehealth and 48% (n = 32/67) agreed telehealth was as effective as in person office visits. Adult survivors were more likely than caregivers to prefer office visits for personal connection [23/32 (72%) vs. 18/39 (46%), p = 0.027]. CONCLUSION: Offering telehealth multi-disciplinary services may provide more efficient and accessible care for a subset of pediatric CNS tumor survivors. Despite some advantages, patients and caregivers were divided on whether they would like to continue with telehealth and whether telehealth was as effective as office visits. To improve survivor and caregiver satisfaction, initiatives to refine patient selection as well as enhance personal communication through telehealth systems should be undertaken.

Interdisciplinary Pain Board for Managing Patients with Palliative Care Needs and Substance Use Disorder: A Pilot Study.

Context: Patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent substance use disorder (SUD) present a unique set of challenges for palliative care clinicians. A structured forum for interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to effectively manage this complex population. Objectives: Describe the feasibility and acceptability of a palliative care Complex Pain Board (CPB), an interdisciplinary team meeting to provide concrete care recommendations for patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of cases presented at CPB between May 2021 and June 2022 and a cross-sectional analysis of CBP participant surveys. Results: Among 28 cases included for analysis, gastrointestinal cancers (n = 7, 25.9%) and multiple myeloma (n = 5, 18.5%) were the most frequent cancer diagnoses. Primary reasons for referral were SUD (n = 22, 78.6%) and provider/team distress (n = 13, 46.4%). The most frequent recommendations made at CBP were encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration (n = 18, 64.3%), maintaining healthy boundaries (n = 15, 53.6%), and SUD management (n = 13, 46.4%). Of 14 scheduled meetings, most meetings involved the presentation of ≥1 cases (n = 12, 86%). Among 40 CBP participant surveys, most attendees (n = 38, 95%) were likely or highly likely to continue to attend. Conclusion: CPB is a feasible and acceptable intervention that allows for palliative care clinicians to collaborate and receive interdisciplinary team feedback and peer support on the management of patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity in the ambulatory care setting. Key Message: A regular, interdisciplinary team meeting (CPB) is a feasible and acceptable intervention to help palliative care clinicians manage challenging cases involving patients with cancer and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity.

Clinician Ordering and Management Patterns of Urine Toxicology Results at a Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Opioid therapy is a cornerstone for treatment of cancer-related pain, but standardized management practices for patients with cancer and aberrant urine drug test (UDT) results are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence of UDT ordering (both screening and definitive testing) in the oncology setting and to examine clinician management practices for patients with cancer on opioid therapy with aberrant definitive UDT results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with cancer on opioid therapy at an academic cancer center in the United States. Outcomes included UDT ordering patterns and clinician management practices in response to aberrant definitive UDT results. RESULTS: Our study revealed an overall UDT ordering rate of 3.7% among 10,371 patients with cancer on opioid therapy. Among 143 patients for whom definitive UDTs were ordered, oncologists only ordered 14 (9.8%) UDTs, while palliative care ordered the majority (n = 129; 90.2%). Fifty-five (38.5%) patients had aberrant results, and the most common aberrancy was presence of illicit drugs 22 [15.4%]. Clinicians rarely made medication changes (20 [36.4%]) when UDT results were aberrant, and in the setting of possible fentanyl use (n = 8), only 3 (37.5%) patients were started/switched to methadone, and none were started/switched to buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: Overall UDT ordering was infrequent for patients with cancer on opioid therapy, especially by oncologists, and clinicians rarely made prescribing changes when definitive UDT results were aberrant. More definitive guidance related to UDT ordering and opioid management are needed for patients with cancer and aberrant UDT results.

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.

Clinician Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators for Delivering Early Integrated Palliative Care via Telehealth.

Early integrated palliative care (EIPC) significantly improves clinical outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. Telehealth may be a useful tool to deliver EIPC sustainably and equitably. Palliative care clinicians completed a survey regarding their perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and benefits of using telehealth video visits for delivering EIPC for patients with advanced lung cancer. Forty-eight clinicians across 22 cancer centers completed the survey between May and July 2022. Most (91.7%) agreed that telehealth increases access to EIPC and simplifies the process for patients to receive EIPC (79.2%). Clinicians noted that the elderly, those in rural areas, and those with less-resourced backgrounds have greater difficulty using telehealth. Perceived barriers were largely patient-based factors, including technological literacy, internet and device availability, and patient preferences. Clinicians agreed that several organizational factors facilitated telehealth EIPC delivery, including technological infrastructure (85.4%), training (83.3%), and support from study coordinators (81.3%). Other barriers included systems-based factors, such as insurance reimbursement and out-of-state coverage restrictions. Patient-, organization-, and systems-based factors are all important to providing and improving access to telehealth EIPC services. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of telehealth EIPC and how policies and interventions may improve access to and dissemination of this care modality.

Differences in End-of-Life Care between COVID-19 Inpatient Decedents with English Proficiency and Limited English Proficiency.

Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience lower quality end-of-life (EOL) care. This inequity may have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: Compare health care utilization, EOL, and palliative care outcomes between COVID-19 decedents with and without LEP during the pandemic's first wave in Massachusetts. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients who died from COVID-19 between February 18, 2020 and May 18, 2020 at two academic and four community hospitals within a greater Boston health care system. We performed multivariable regression adjusting for patient sociodemographic variables and hospital characteristics. Primary outcome was place of death (intensive care unit [ICU] vs. non-ICU). Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU length of stay and time to initial palliative care consultation. Results: Among 337 patients, 89 (26.4%) had LEP and 248 (73.6%) were English proficient. Patients with LEP were less often white (24 [27.0%] vs. 193 [77.8%]; p < 0.001); were more often Hispanic or Latinx (40 [45.0%] vs. 13 [5.2%]; p < 0.001); and less often had a medical order for life-sustaining treatment (MOLST) on admission (15 [16.9%] vs. 120 [48.4%]; p < 0.001) versus patients with English proficiency. In the multivariable analyses, LEP was not independently associated with ICU death, ICU length of stay, or time to palliative care consultation, but was independently associated with increased hospital length of stay (mean difference 4.12 days; 95% CI, 1.72-6.53; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Inpatient COVID-19 decedents with LEP were not at increased risk of an ICU death, but were associated with an increased hospital length of stay versus inpatient COVID-19 decedents with English proficiency.

Video and In-Person Palliative Care Delivery Challenges before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) clinicians faced many challenges delivering outpatient care during the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: We described trends for in-person and video visit PC delivery challenges before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis of patient characteristics and PC clinician surveys from a multisite randomized controlled trial at 20 academic cancer centers. Patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (N = 653) were randomly assigned to receive either early in-person or telehealth PC and had at least monthly PC clinician visits. PC clinicians completed surveys documenting PC delivery challenges after each encounter. We categorized patients into 3 subgroups according to their PC visit dates relative to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.-pre-COVID-19 (all visits before March 1, 2020), pre/post-COVID-19 (≥1 visit before and after March 1, 2020), and post-COVID-19 (all visits after March 1, 2020). We performed Pearson's chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine associations. RESULTS: We analyzed 2329 surveys for video visits and 2176 surveys for in-person visits. For video visits, the pre-COVID-19 subgroup (25.8% [46/178]) had the most technical difficulties followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (17.2% [307/1784]) and then the post-COVID-19 subgroup (11.4% [42/367]) (P = 0.0001). For in-person visits, challenges related to absent patients' family members occurred most often in the post-COVID-19 subgroup (6.2% [16/259]) followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (3.6% [50/1374]) and then the pre-COVID-19 subgroup (2.2% [12/543]) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Technical difficulties related to PC video visits improved, whereas in-person visit challenges related to absent patients' family members worsened during the pandemic.

Using Quality Improvement to Increase Access to Palliative Care.

PURPOSE: As part of a larger effort to integrate palliative care into a cancer center, we identified barriers to palliative care referral for patients with breast or gynecologic cancer and developed a pilot program to improve access to palliative care services. METHODS: We developed a multidisciplinary steering committee to uncover barriers to palliative care referral and developed a pilot program, called the Warm Handoff. Through ongoing collaboration and midpilot feedback sessions, we identified several additional barriers and opportunities to increase access to palliative care. RESULTS: Clinicians used the initial Warm Handoff process only 20 times over a period of 7 months. Of those calls, 10 were for issues outside of those that the Warm Handoff pilot was intended to address. During the pilot, we identified lack of access to urgent visits and clinician telephone availability for clinical case discussion as additional barriers to access. Increased collaboration led to the creation of a clinical provider of the day (CPOD) care model, which allowed for a notable increase in the capacity to see urgent consults. After this intervention, we observed an average of 19 patients seen urgently per month. In addition, there was a trend toward increasing referrals from breast oncology after the initiation of the CPOD. CONCLUSION: A CPOD model, developed via close oncology/palliative care collaboration, resulted in increased utilization of palliative care services.

Primary Addiction Medicine Skills for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Physicians: A Modified Delphi Study.

CONTEXT: Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians frequently care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), but there is no consensus on which primary addiction medicine (AM) skills are essential. OBJECTIVES: Identify key primary AM skills that physicians should acquire during an ACGME-accredited HPM fellowship program. METHODS: A modified Delphi study consisting of 18 experts on SUD in HPM and medical education. A literature review and expert input identified initial AM skills. In three Delphi rounds, participants rated each skill on a nine-point scale from "not at all important to include" to "crucial to include." We calculated medians (IQRs), analyzed panelists' comments, and grouped skills using the RAND / UCLA appropriateness method. RESULTS: Among 62 proposed AM skills, 53 skills were rated as appropriate to include (38 of which achieved agreement), and nine skills were rated as uncertain. AM skills most relevant to HPM included 1) defining chemical coping, median 8.5 (IQR 2); 2) balancing life expectancy with risks of opioid use for patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0); 3) explaining best practices to dispose unused opioids postmortem, 8 (IQR 2); 4) managing pain for hospice patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0.75); and 5) partnering with hospice to manage patients on methadone and buprenorphine, 9 (IQR 2). Experts did not achieve consensus on whether HPM physicians should be encouraged to learn to prescribe buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder, 6 (IQR 3). CONCLUSION: HPM fellowships should consider incorporating the primary AM skills identified in this study in their curricula.

Laboratory-Generated Urine Toxicology Interpretations: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians frequently order urine drug testing (UDT) for patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT), yet often have difficulty interpreting test results accurately. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a laboratory-generated urine toxicology interpretation service for clinicians prescribing COT. STUDY DESIGN: Type II hybrid-convergent mixed methods design (implementation) and pre-post prospective cohort study with matched controls (effectiveness). SETTING: Four ambulatory sites (2 primary care, 1 pain management, 1 palliative care) within 2 US academic medical institutions. METHODS: Interpretative reports were generated by the clinical chemistry laboratory and were provided to UDT ordering providers via inbox message in the electronic health record (EHR). The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study.Participants were primary care, pain management, and palliative care clinicians who ordered liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry UDT for COT patients in clinic. Intervention was a laboratory-generated interpretation service that provided an individualized interpretive report of UDT results based on the patient's prescribed medications and toxicology metabolites for clinicians who received the intervention (n = 8) versus matched controls (n = 18).Implementation results included focus group and survey feedback on the interpretation service's usability and its impact on workflow, clinical decision making, clinician-patient relationships, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Effectiveness outcomes included UDT interpretation concordance between the clinician and laboratory, documentation frequency of UDT results interpretation and communication of results to patients, and clinician prescribing behavior at follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 8 intervention clinicians (median age 58 [IQR 16.5] years; 2 women [25%]) on a Likert scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"), 7 clinicians reported at 6 months postintervention that the interpretation service was easy to use (mean 5 [standard deviation {SD}, 0]); improved results comprehension (mean 5 [SD, 0]); and helped them interpret results more accurately (mean 5 [SD, 0]), quickly (mean 4.67 [SD, 0.52]), and confidently (mean 4.83 [SD, 0.41]). Although there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between cohorts, clinician-laboratory interpretation concordance trended toward improvement (intervention 22/32 [68.8%] to 29/33 [87.9%] vs. control 21/25 [84%] to 23/30 [76.7%], P = 0.07) among cases with documented interpretations. LIMITATIONS: This study has a low sample size and was conducted at 2 large academic medical institutions and may not be generalizable to community settings. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretations were well received by clinicians but did not significantly improve laboratory-clinician interpretation concordance, interpretation documentation frequency, or opioid-prescribing behavior.

Artificial intelligence in oncology: Path to implementation.

In recent years, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology has grown exponentially. AI solutions have been developed to tackle a variety of cancer-related challenges. Medical institutions, hospital systems, and technology companies are developing AI tools aimed at supporting clinical decision making, increasing access to cancer care, and improving clinical efficiency while delivering safe, high-value oncology care. AI in oncology has demonstrated accurate technical performance in image analysis, predictive analytics, and precision oncology delivery. Yet, adoption of AI tools is not widespread, and the impact of AI on patient outcomes remains uncertain. Major barriers for AI implementation in oncology include biased and heterogeneous data, data management and collection burdens, a lack of standardized research reporting, insufficient clinical validation, workflow and user-design challenges, outdated regulatory and legal frameworks, and dynamic knowledge and data. Concrete actions that major stakeholders can take to overcome barriers to AI implementation in oncology include training and educating the oncology workforce in AI; standardizing data, model validation methods, and legal and safety regulations; funding and conducting future research; and developing, studying, and deploying AI tools through multidisciplinary collaboration.

Webside Manner during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Maintaining Human Connection during Virtual Visits.

Background: As the death rate numbers in the United States related to COVID-19 are in the tens of thousands, clinicians are increasingly tasked with having serious illness conversations. However, in the setting of infection control policies, visitor restrictions, social distancing, and a lack of personal protective equipment, many of these important conversations are occurring by virtual visits. Objective: From our experience with a multisite study exploring the effectiveness of virtual palliative care, we have identified key elements of webside manner that are helpful when conducting serious illness conversations by virtual visit. Results: The key elements and components of webside manner skills are proper set up, acquainting the participant, maintaining conversation rhythm, responding to emotion, and closing the visit. Other considerations that may require conversion to phone visits include persistent technical difficulties, lack of prerequisite technology to conduct virtual visits, patients who are too ill to participate, or who find virtual visits too technically challenging. Conclusions: Similar to bedside manner, possessing nuanced verbal and nonverbal webside manner skills is essential to conducting serious illness conversations during virtual visits.

Early Integrated Telehealth versus In-Person Palliative Care for Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer: A Study Protocol.

Introduction: Early palliative care (PC) integrated with oncology care improves quality of life (QOL), depression symptoms, illness understanding, and end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with advanced lung cancer. The aims of this trial are to compare the effect of delivering early integrated PC through telehealth versus in-person on patient and caregiver outcomes. We hypothesize that both modalities for delivering early PC would be equivalent for improving patient QOL, communication about EOL care preferences with their oncologist, and length of stay in hospice. Methods: For this comparative effectiveness trial, we will enroll and randomize 1250 adult patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who are not being treated with curative intent, to receive either early integrated telehealth or in-person PC at 20 cancer centers throughout the United States. Patients may also invite a family caregiver to participate in the study. Patients and their caregivers in both study groups meet at least every four weeks with a PC clinician from within 12 weeks of patient diagnosis of advanced NSCLC until death. Participants complete measures of QOL, mood, and quality of communication with oncologists at baseline before randomization and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Information on health care utilization, including length of stay in hospice, will be collected from patients' health records. To test equivalence in outcomes between study groups, we will compute analysis of covariance and mixed linear models, controlling for baseline scores and study site. Study Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure that this comparative effectiveness trial and findings are as patient centered and meaningful as possible, we have incorporated a robust patient and stakeholder engagement plan. Our stakeholder partners include (1) patients/families, (2) PC clinicians, (3) telehealth experts and clinician users, (4) representatives from health care systems and medical insurance providers, and (5) health care policy makers and advocates. These stakeholders will inform and provide feedback about every phase of study implementation.