Evaluating the SPIKES Model for Improving Peer-to-Peer Feedback Among Internal Medicine Residents: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Feedback improves trainee clinical performance, but the optimal way to provide it remains unclear. Peer feedback offers unique advantages but comes with significant challenges including a lack of rigorously studied methods. The SPIKES framework is a communication tool adapted from the oncology and palliative care literature for teaching trainees how to lead difficult conversations. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a brief educational intervention focused on the SPIKES framework improves peer feedback between internal medicine trainees on inpatient medicine services as compared to usual practice. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial at an academic medical center during academic year 2017-2018. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five PGY1 and 49 PGY2 internal medicine trainees were enrolled. PGY2s were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. INTERVENTION: The intervention entailed a 30-min, case-based didactic on the SPIKES framework followed by a refresher email on SPIKES sent to PGY2s before each inpatient medicine rotation. PGY1s were blinded as to which PGY2s underwent the training. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was PGY1 evaluation of the extent of feedback provided by PGY2s. Secondary outcomes included PGY1 report of feedback quality and PGY2 self-report of feedback quantity and quality. Outcomes were obtained via anonymous online survey and reported using a Likert scale with a range of one to four. KEY RESULTS: PGY1s completed 207 surveys (51% response rate) and PGY2s completed 61 surveys (42% response rate). PGY1s reported a higher extent of feedback (2.5 vs 2.2; p = 0.02; Cohen's d = 0.31), more specific feedback (2.3 vs 2.0; p < 0.01; d = 0.33), and higher satisfaction with feedback (2.6 vs 2.2; p < 0.01; d = 0.47) from intervention PGY2s. There were no significant differences in PGY2 self-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: With modest implementation requirements and notable limitations, a brief educational intervention focused on SPIKES increased PGY1 perception of the extent, specificity, and satisfaction with feedback from PGY2s.

Creation and Expansion of a Mixed Patient Intermediate Care Unit to Improve ICU Capacity.

OBJECTIVES: ICU capacity strain is associated with worsened outcomes. Intermediate care units (IMCs) comprise one potential option to offload ICUs while providing appropriate care for intermediate acuity patients, but their impact on ICU capacity has not been thoroughly characterized. The aims of this study are to describe the creation of a medical-surgical IMC and assess how the IMC affected ICU capacity. DESIGN: Descriptive report with retrospective cohort review. SETTING: Six hundred seventy-three-bed tertiary care academic medical center with 77 ICU beds. PATIENTS: Adult inpatients who were admitted to the IMC. INTERVENTIONS: An interdisciplinary working group created an IMC which was located on a general ward. The IMC was staffed by hospitalists and surgeons and supported by critical care consultants. The initial maximum census was three, but this number increased to six in response to heightened critical care demand. IMC admission criteria also expanded to include advanced noninvasive respiratory support defined as patients requiring high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or mechanical ventilation in patients with tracheostomies. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome entailed the number of ICU bed-days saved. Adverse outcomes, including ICU transfer, intubation, and death, were also recorded. From August 2021 to July 2022, 230 patients were admitted to the IMC. The most frequent IMC indications were respiratory support for medical patients and post-operative care for surgical patients. A total of 1023 ICU bed-days were made available. Most patients were discharged from the IMC to a general ward, while 8% of all patients required transfer to an ICU within 48 hours of admission. Intubation (2%) and death (1%) occurred infrequently within 48 hours of admission. Respiratory support was the indication associated with the most ICU transfers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a modest daily census, an IMC generated substantial ICU bed capacity during a time of peak critical care demand.

Triggered Palliative Care Consults: A Systematic Review of Interventions for Hospitalized and Emergency Department Patients.

CONTEXT: Palliative care improves the quality of care and may reduce utilization, but delays or the absences of such services are common and costly in inpatient and emergency department settings. Triggered palliative care consults (PCCs) offer one way to identify patients who would benefit from palliative care and to connect them with services early in their course. Consensus reports recommend use of triggers to identify patients for PCC, but no standards exist to guide trigger design or implementation. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of published trigger tools for PCC. METHODS: Studies included quality improvement and prospective analyses of triggers for PCC for adults in the emergency department and inpatient settings since 2008. Paired reviewers evaluated the studies for inclusion criteria and extracted data related to study demographics, trigger processes, trigger criteria, and study bias. RESULTS: The search yielded 5773 citations. Twenty studies were included for final analysis with more than 17,000 patients represented. Trigger processes and composition were heterogeneous, although frequently used categories, such as cancer, dementia, and chronic comorbidities, were identified. Three-quarters of the studies were deemed to have moderate or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: We present a range of trigger tools spanning different hospital settings and patient populations. Common themes in implementation and content arose, but the limitations of these studies are notable, and further rigorous randomized comparisons are needed to generate standards of care. In addition, future studies should focus on developing triggers that identify patients requiring primary-level vs. specialty-level palliative care.

Emergency Department-Initiated Palliative Care in Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The delivery of palliative care is not standard of care within most emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVE: To compare quality of life, depression, health care utilization, and survival in ED patients with advanced cancer randomized to ED-initiated palliative care consultation vs care as usual. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A single-blind, randomized clinical trial of ED-initiated palliative care consultation for patients with advanced cancer vs usual care took place from June 2011 to April 2014 at an urban, academic ED at a quaternary care referral center. Adult patients with advanced cancer who were able to pass a cognitive screen, had never been seen by palliative care, spoke English or Spanish, and presented to the ED met eligibility criteria; 136 of 298 eligible patients were approached and enrolled in the ED and randomized via balanced block randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention participants received a comprehensive palliative care consultation by the inpatient team, including an assessment of symptoms, spiritual and/or social needs, and goals of care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Measure (FACT-G) score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included major depressive disorder as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, health care utilization at 180 days, and survival at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 136 participants were enrolled, and 69 allocated to palliative care (mean [SD], 55.1 [13.1] years) and 67 were randomized to usual care (mean [SD], 57.8 [14.7] years). Quality of life, as measured by a change in FACT-G score from enrollment to 12 weeks, was significantly higher in patients randomized to the intervention group, who demonstrated a mean (SD) increase of 5.91 (16.65) points compared with 1.08 (16.00) in controls (P = .03 using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test). Median estimates of survival were longer in the intervention group than the control group: 289 (95% CI, 128-453) days vs 132 (95% CI, 80-302) days, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = .20). There were no statistically significant differences in depression, admission to the intensive care unit, and discharge to hospice. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Emergency department-initiated palliative care consultation in advanced cancer improves quality of life in patients with advanced cancer and does not seem to shorten survival; the impact on health care utilization and depression is less clear and warrants further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01358110.

Emergency department-triggered palliative care in advanced cancer: proof of concept.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend early palliative care consultation for patients with advanced, life-limiting illnesses, such as metastatic cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the process of early referral from the emergency department (ED) to palliative care for patients with advanced, incurable cancer as part of a randomized controlled trial and to compare the proportion and timing of consultation to a care as usual group. METHODS: A single-blind randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01358110) compared early, ED-based referrals to palliative care for patients admitted with advanced, incurable cancer to physician-driven consultation (i.e., care as usual). Participants had to speak English or Spanish and have no history of palliative care consultation. They were randomized via balanced block randomization to the intervention or control group. Each intervention subject was referred by a research staff member to the palliative care team for consultation. The usual care group received palliative care only if requested by the admitting physician. Analysis was based on intention to treat. A chart review was performed to assess proportion and timing of palliative care consults during the index admission, defined as: (1) completed palliative care consult documented in the chart and (2) days from admission to palliative care consult. RESULTS: A total of 134 participants were enrolled and randomized. For patients in the intervention group, 88% (60 of 68) had documented palliative care consultations during their index admissions (95% confidence interval [CI] = 80.5 to 95.5), compared to 18% (12 of 66) in the control group (95% CI = 8.8 to 27.5; p < 0.01). The 60 intervention patients received palliative care consultations on average 1.48 days from admission (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.76), compared to 2.9 days from admission in the 12 control patients (95% CI = 1.03 to 4.79; p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: This study documented a low baseline rate of palliative care involvement as part of usual care in patients with advanced cancer being admitted from the ED. Early referral to palliative care in the context of a research study significantly increased the likelihood that patients received a consult, thus meriting further investigation of how to generalize this approach.