Interventions to reduce aggressive care at end of life among patients with cancer: a systematic review.

Little is known about effective interventions to reduce aggressive end-of-life care in patients with cancer. We did a systematic review to assess what interventions are associated with reductions in aggressive end-of-life cancer care. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PsychINFO for randomised control trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies published before Jan 19, 2018, which aimed to improve measures of aggressive end-of-life care for patients with cancer. We developed a taxonomy of interventions using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to summarise existing interventions that addressed aggressive care for patients with cancer. Of the 6451 studies identified by our search, five RCTs and 31 observational studies met the final inclusion criteria. Using the SEIPS framework, 16 subcategories of interventions were identified. With the exception of documentation of end-of-life discussions in the electronic medical record, no single intervention type or SEIPS domain led to consistent improvements in aggressive end-of-life care measures. The ability to discern the interventions' effectiveness was limited by inconsistent use of validated measures of aggressive care. Seven (23%) of 31 observational studies and no RCTs were at low risk of bias according to Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Evidence for improving aggressive end-of-life cancer care is limited by the absence of standardised measurements and poor study design. Policies and studies to address the gaps present in end-of-life care for cancer are necessary.

Language Matters: Is There Gender Bias in Internal Medicine Grand Rounds Introductions?

PURPOSE:  We performed an exploratory evaluation of gender-specific differences in speakers and their introductions at internal medicine grand rounds. METHOD:  Internal medicine grand rounds video archives from three sites between December 2013 and September 2020 were manually transcribed and analyzed using natural language processing techniques. Differences in word usage by gender were compared. RESULTS:  Four hundred and sixty-two grand rounds held at three institutions were examined. There were 167 (34.6%) speakers who were women and 316 (65.4%) who were men. The proportion of women speakers was significantly lower than that of women in the internal medicine workforce (34.6% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.04). Among 191 external speakers, only 57 (29.8%) were women. The use of professional titles was equivalent between genders. Despite equal mention of specific achievements in both male and female speaker introductions, there was a trend toward casting female speakers as being less established. CONCLUSION:  There is a need to adopt processes that will decrease inequities in the representation of women in grand rounds and in their introductions.

Interprofessional geriatric and palliative care intervention associated with fewer hospital days.

BACKGROUND: With increasing complexity of our aging inpatient population, we implemented an interprofessional geriatric and palliative care intervention on a hospitalist service. This study aimed to measure the intervention's impact on length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and the daily intensity of inpatient services utilization. METHODS: Using a nonrandomized controlled intervention at a 1000-bed U.S. academic quaternary medical center, we studied 13,941 individuals admitted to a general medicine hospitalist service (of which 5644 were age > =65 years); 1483 were on intervention teams (576 age > =65 years), 5413 concurrent controls, and 7045 historical controls. On 2 of 11 hospitalist teams, a geriatrician, palliative care physician and social worker attended multidisciplinary discharge rounds twice weekly, to recommend inpatient geriatric or palliative care consult (GPCC), postacute nursing or home care, versus postdischarge outpatient consultation. We measured the difference in improvement over time between intervention and control team patients for the following: (1) LOS adjusted for case-mix index, (2) 30-day readmissions, and (3) intensity of hospital service utilization (mean services provided per patient per day). RESULTS: Adjusted LOS (in hospital days) was decreased by 0.36 days (p = 0.039) for the 1483 patients in the intervention teams, with greater LOS reduction of 0.55 days per admission (p = 0.022) on average among the subset of 576 older patient admissions. Readmissions were unchanged (-1.17%, p = 0.48 for all patients; 1.91%, p = 0.46 for older patients). However, the daily relative value unit (RVU) utilization was modestly increased for both the overall and older subgroup, 0.35 RVUs (p = 0.041) and 0.74 RVUs (p < 0.001) per patient-day on average across the intervention teams, respectively. CONCLUSION: An interprofessional intervention of geriatric and palliative care consultation in collaboration with a hospitalist service may reduce LOS, especially for geriatric patients, without an increase in readmissions. This model may have broader implications for hospital care and should be further studied.

Perspectives on Patient Experience: A National Survey of Hospitalists.

Despite efforts to improve patient experience (PX), little is known about the perspective of hospitalists regarding PX initiatives and priorities. A survey was distributed to hospitalist groups across the country assessing involvement in PX initiatives and their perceived effectiveness, what PX means to providers, and facilitators/barriers in improving PX. Ninety-nine percent of respondents had encountered some improvement activity around PX. The most prevalent were communication training, group Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems data, and interdisciplinary bedside rounding. Respondents rated most initiatives a 5 to 6 out of 10 for their effectiveness, with the perception of effectiveness increasing with respondents' assessment of patient experience priority. Learning about others' experiences in improving PX and learning about potential collaborations for quality improvement or research in these areas were areas of interest for future work. Qualitative work highlighted potential barriers in improving PX such as workload and staffing constraints, uncontrollable environmental factors, and unrealistic patient expectations. Improving PX is a priority, and there are many initiatives in place with perceived variable success and perceived barriers in improving PX.

Interprofessional Intervention to Improve Geriatric Consultation Timing on an Acute Medical Service.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an interprofessional intervention would improve the use and timing of a geriatric consultation on a hospitalist service. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences (DID), which measures the difference in improvement over time between intervention and control team patients attributable to the intervention. SETTING: 1,000-bed U.S. academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 60 and older admitted to a general medicine hospitalist service (N=7,038; n = 718 on intervention teams, n = 686 historical controls, n = 5,634 on control teams (concurrent and historic). INTERVENTION: On 2 of 11 hospitalist teams, a geriatrician attended multidisciplinary discharge rounds twice weekly and advised on the benefits of a geriatric consultation for individuals aged 60 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was percentage of hospitalizations resulting in a geriatric consultation. Secondary outcome was days to geriatric consultation. Both outcomes were controlled for age, sex, comorbidity, mean daily intensity of inpatient care utilization, and admission in the prior 30 days. In the primary analysis, length of stay was controlled. RESULTS: Intervention participants were more likely to have a geriatric consultation (DID = 2.35% absolute percentage points, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59-4.39%) and to have a consultation sooner (DID = 3.61 fewer days, 95% CI = -1 to -7). CONCLUSION: An interprofessional intervention that focused on hospitalist ordering practices increased use of appropriate geriatric consultation and decreased time to consultation. This model of interprofessional effort is effective. Future adaptations are needed to target scarce geriatric resources without increasing overall use. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2372-2376, 2018.

Interprofessional Rounds Improve Timing of Appropriate Palliative Care Consultation on a Hospitalist Service.

Despite known benefits, palliative care (PC) consultation for hospitalized patients remains underutilized. The objective was to improve frequency and timeliness of appropriate inpatient PC consultation. On 2 of 11 hospitalist teams, a PC representative attended discharge rounds twice a week. Control teams' discharge rounds were unenhanced. Subjects were all patients admitted to a hospitalist service in a quaternary academic medical center. The primary outcome was change in provision of PC consultation over time; the secondary outcome was change in time-to-consult (days). Hospitalists were surveyed regarding the intervention. The unadjusted proportion of patients receiving PC consultation increased from 2.7% to 5.2% on the intervention teams. Compared to control teams over time and adjusting for multiple covariates, the intervention increased PC consultation (difference-in-difference [DID] = 1.0 percentage-point increase [95% CI = 0.3%-1.8%]) and decreased time to consult (DID = -5 days [95% CI = -11 to -1]) in patients admitted for noncancer diagnoses. Hospitalists thought the intervention facilitated effective patient care without increased burden.