Randomized trial of a hospice video educational tool for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have substantial misperceptions regarding hospice, which contributes to its underuse. METHODS: The authors conducted a single-site randomized trial of a video educational tool versus a verbal description of hospice in 150 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients without a caregiver were eligible. Intervention participants (75 patients and 18 caregivers) viewed a 6-minute video depicting hospice. Control participants (75 patients and 26 caregivers) received a verbal description identical to the video narrative. The primary outcome was patient preference for hospice. Secondary outcomes included patient and/or caregiver knowledge and perceptions of hospice, and hospice use. RESULTS: Between February 2017 and January 2019, approximately 55.7% of eligible patients (150 of 269 eligible patients) and 44 caregivers were enrolled. After the intervention, there was no difference noted with regard to patients' preferences for hospice (86.7% vs 82.7%; P = .651). Patients in the video group reported greater knowledge regarding hospice (9.0 vs 8.4; P = .049) and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (6.7% vs 21.6%; P = .010). Among deceased patients, those assigned to the intervention were more likely to have used hospice (85.2% vs 63.6%; P = .01) and to have had a longer hospice length of stay (median, 12 days vs 3 days; P < .001). After the intervention, caregivers assigned to view the video were more likely to prefer hospice for their loved ones (94.4% vs 65.4%; P = .031), reported greater knowledge concerning hospice (9.7% vs 8.0%; P = .001), and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (0.0% vs 23.1%; P = .066). CONCLUSIONS: A hospice video did not significantly impact patients' preferences for hospice care. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers who were assigned to view the video were more informed regarding hospice and reported more favorable perceptions of hospice. Patients were more likely to use hospice and to have a longer hospice length of stay.

STAAR: improving the reliability of care coordination and reducing hospital readmissions in an academic medical centre.

SETTING: Massachusetts General Hospital embarked on a 4-year project to reduce readmissions in a high volume general medicine unit (November 2009 to September 2013). OBJECTIVE: To reduce 30-day readmissions to 10% through improved care coordination. DESIGN: As a before-after study, a total of 7586 patients admitted to the medicine unit during the intervention period included 2620 inpatients meeting high risk for readmission criteria. Of those, 2620 patients received nursing interventions and 539 patients received pharmacy interventions. INTERVENTION: The introduction of a Discharge Nurse (D/C RN) for patient/family coaching and a Transitional Care Pharmacist (TC PharmD) for predischarge medication reconciliation and postdischarge patient phone calls. Other interventions included modifications to multidisciplinary care rounds and electronic medication reconciliation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: Readmission rates decreased by 30% (21% preintervention to 14.5% postintervention) (p<0.05). From July 2010 to December 2011, rates of readmission among high-risk patients who received the D/C RN intervention with or without the TC PharmD medication reconciliation/education intervention decreased to 15.9% (p=0.59). From January to June 2010, rates of readmission among high-risk patients who received the TC PharmD postdischarge calls decreased to 12.9% (p=0.55). From June 2010 to December 2011, readmission rates for patients on the medical unit that did not receive the designated D/C RN or TC PharmD interventions decreased to 15.8% (p=0.61) and 16.2% (0.31), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach to improving care coordination reduced avoidable readmissions both among those who received interventions and those who did not. This further demonstrated the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration.