Distress, demoralization, and fulfillment among palliative care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Prolonged distress is a risk factor for burnout among health-care providers (HCP) and may contribute to demoralization. We examined sources of distress during the COVID-19 pandemic and associations with demoralization. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional survey of HCP was conducted among palliative care providers of an academic medical center. Participants completed a survey evaluating sources of distress and the Demoralization Scale-II (DS-II) to measure the intensity of demoralization. RESULTS: Of 106 eligible participants, 74 (70%) completed the survey. DS-II median (range) score was 2 (0-19). There were no statistically significant associations with demographic characteristics. Participants reported high rates of distress for multiple reasons and high rates of sense of fulfillment (90%) and satisfaction (89%) with their profession. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our study identified high levels of distress but low demoralization rates. Further study to evaluate fulfillment and satisfaction as protective factors against demoralization and burnout is indicated.

Implementation of Patient Reported Outcomes in Outpatient Palliative Care: From Paper to Computer.

BACKGROUND: This quality improvement project aimed to transition completion of Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at our supportive care clinic from paper to electronic format. MEASURES: Proportion of patients who completed electronic ESAS (eESAS). INTERVENTION: Starting July 2018, patients could complete eESAS 24h before check-in (eESAS-before), eESAS after check-in (eESAS-after) or on paper (pESAS). OUTCOMES: A total of 6631 cancer patients had 25,767 clinic visits between July 13, 2018 and November 5, 2021. The ESAS completion rate was 100%. eESAS uptake gradually increased over time, first reaching ≥75% eESAS completion in 5/2019 (eESAS-after 61.9%; eESAS-before 14.0%; pESAS 24.1%). We observed a sharp uptake in eESAS-before since adoption of telehealth during the pandemic (May 2020) and the ≥75% eESAS target was consistently achieved from November 2020 onwards (eESAS-after 0.6%; eESAS-before 76.7%; pESAS 22.7%). In an anonymous survey, we identified several modifiable barriers to implementing eESAS. CONCLUSIONS: Transition to eESAS was a gradual process and was catalyzed by the pandemic.

Patient Engagement With Early Stage Advance Care Planning at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Establishing care preferences and selecting a prepared medical decision-maker (MDM) are basic components of advance care planning (ACP) and integral to treatment planning. Systematic ACP in the cancer setting is uncommon. We evaluated a systematic social work (SW)-driven process for patient selection of a prepared MDM. METHODS: We used a pre/post design, centered on SW counseling incorporated into standard-of-care practice. New patients with gynecologic malignancies were eligible if they had an available family caregiver or an established Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA). Questionnaires were completed at baseline and 3 months to ascertain MPOA document (MPOAD) completion status (primary objective) and evaluate factors associated with MPOAD completion (secondary objectives). RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty patient/caregiver dyads consented to participate. One hundred and sixteen (32%) had MPOADs at baseline. Twenty (8%) of the remaining 244 dyads completed MPOADs by 3 months. Two hundred and thirty-six patients completed the values and goals survey at both baseline and follow-up: at follow-up, care preferences were stable in 127 patients (54%), changed toward more aggressive care in 60 (25%), and toward the focus on the quality of life in 49 (21%). Correlation between the patient's values and goals and their caregiver's/MPOA's perception was very weak at baseline, improving to moderate at follow-up. Patients with MPOADs by study completion had statistically significant higher ACP Engagement scores than those without. CONCLUSION: A systematic SW-driven intervention did not engage new patients with gynecologic cancers to select and prepare MDMs. Change in care preferences was common, with caregivers' knowledge of patients' treatment preferences moderate at best.

Just-in-Time Decision Making: Preliminary Findings of a Goals of Care Rapid Response Team.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic placed the issue of resource utilization front and center. Our comprehensive cancer center developed a Goals of Care Rapid Response Team (GOC RRT) to optimize resource utilization balanced with goal-concordant patient care. OBJECTIVES: Primary study objective was to evaluate feasibility of the GOC RRT by describing the frequency of consultations that occurred from those requested. Secondary objectives included adherence to consultation processes in terms of core team member participation and preliminary efficacy in limiting care escalation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients referred to GOC RRT (3/23/2020-9/30/2020). Analysis was descriptive. Categorical variables were compared with Fisher's exact or Chi-Square tests and continuous variables with Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were referred. Eighty-five percent (76 of 89) underwent a total of 95 consultations. Median (range) patient age was 61 (49, 69) years, 54% (48 of 89) male, 19% (17 of 89) Hispanic, 48% (43/89) White, 73% (65 of 89) married/partnered and 66% (59 of 89) Christian. Hematologic malignancies and solid tumors were evenly balanced (53% [47/89] vs. 47% [42 of 89, P = 0.199]). Most patients (82%, 73 of 89) had metastatic disease or relapsed leukemia. Seven percent (6 of 89) had confirmed COVID-19. Sixty-nine percent (61 of 89) died during the index hospitalization. There was no statistically significant difference in demographic or clinical characteristics among groups (no consultation, 1 consultation, >1 consultation). Core team members were present at 64% (61 of 95) of consultations. Care limitation occurred in 74% (56 of 76) of patients. CONCLUSION: GOC RRT consultations were feasible and associated with care limitation. Adherence to core team participation was fair.

Symptom and Illness Experience for English and Spanish-Speaking Children with Advanced Cancer: Child and Parent Perspective.

Understanding the symptom and illness experience of children with advanced cancer facilitates quality care; yet, obtaining this understanding is complicated by the child's developmental level and physical and psychological health factors that affect communication. The purpose of this study was to describe the symptom and illness experience of English- and Spanish-speaking children with advanced cancer as described by the child and parent. We conducted hermeneutic phenomenological, descriptive, and interpretive interviews with eligible children and parents. The interdisciplinary research team analyzed transcripts hermeneutically until consensus on theme labels was reached. Four themes and associated subthemes were identified from the interviews of the 10 child-parent dyads: 1. symptoms disrupt life (path to diagnosis, life is disrupted), 2. isolation (lack of understanding, family separations/relationships), 3. protection, and 4. death is not for children. Children and parents readily described the impact symptoms and cancer treatment had on their lives and relationships. These findings underscore the salient aspects of daily life disrupted by cancer. With a deeper understanding of symptom burden and its interference, relationship and communication implications, and anticipatory grief, the treating team may better optimize care for children and their families living with advanced cancer.

An Integrated Approach to Selecting a Prepared Medical Decision-Maker.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a systematic multidisciplinary process to engage new outpatients with cancer in selecting and preparing a medical decision-maker. MEASURES: Templated advance care planning notes and medical power of attorney documents were used in the electronic health record by the third office visit. INTERVENTION: Patients were coached to meet with social work from a "culture of yes," viewed a video about the importance of selecting a prepared medical a decision-maker in English or in Spanish, and referenced cards containing simple explanations of advance directives when responding to advance directive questions. OUTCOMES: A total of 351 patients were evaluated. By visit 3, there was no increase in documented social work advance care planning notes in intervention or scanned medical power of attorney documents in the electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: This systematic multidisciplinary approach did not engage new outpatients with cancer in preparing a medical decision-maker. More active physician involvement and varied ways of engagement are needed.

Systematic Approach to Selecting and Preparing a Medical Power of Attorney in the Gynecologic Oncology Center.

PURPOSE: Advance care planning (ACP) supports national priorities of patient engagement, person-centered care, and safety. A systematic approach is uncommon in most care settings. Our institution offers all patients with cancer new to the institution an opportunity to select and prepare a medical decision maker (MDM) after social work counseling. The goals of this study were to determine the success of a systematic institutional process for selecting a prepared MDM. The primary objectives were that (1) 70% or more of new patients would have one or more documented social work ACP discussions by the third office visit within 4 months, and (2) there would be a two-fold increase in scanned medical power of attorney (MPOA) documents available in the electronic health record (EHR). The secondary objectives were (1) improved surrogate preparedness for medical decision making, and (2) to determine whether patients with metastatic disease demonstrated greater readiness for selection of an MDM than those with localized disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive gynecology oncology outpatients. RESULTS: Of 133 patients, 93 (70%) had metastatic disease. The median number of visits was two (one to three). Forty-seven patients (39.3%) met with social work by visit 3. Review of ACP notes suggested that most patients were in the early stages of selecting a prepared MDM. At visit 1, 39 (29.3%) reported having an advance directive document; 14 (10.5%) had an MPOA in the EHR. There was no increase by visit 3. Fewer patients with metastatic disease than those with localized cancer (32.3% v 67.5%; P = .001) had three visits; no other parameter, including presence of MPOA documents in the EHR, achieved statistical significance between groups. CONCLUSION: Current processes fail to engage patients in selecting and preparing an MDM.

Building an Infrastructure and Standard Methodology for Actively Engaging Patients in Advance Care Planning.

PURPOSE: With little to no infrastructure or standardized methodology in place to actively engage patients in advance care planning (ACP), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center set out to identify needed resources, develop an intervention to improve ACP, and evaluate the intervention's effects. METHODS: With the support of executive leadership, a multidisciplinary workgroup enlisted the support of ACP champions, performed a root-cause analysis, developed a detailed ACP process flow by provider role, developed patient and family education resources, and developed faculty and staff training materials. The workgroup also implemented two Plan-Do-Study-Act intervention cycles, which identified difficulty using the ACP note function in our electronic health record (EHR) as a barrier to ACP adoption. By educating patients, families, and providers and improving the EHR's functionality, the workgroup aimed to increase the percentage of ambulatory patients with a diagnosis of advanced or metastatic cancer who had a documented ACP conversation with a provider by their third office visit. Our goal was to improve this percentage from 20% at baseline to 50% after the intervention. Data were obtained from our institution's EHRs. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who had documented ACP conversations increased from 20% at baseline to 34% at the end of fiscal year 2017 and 54% at the end of fiscal year 2018. CONCLUSION: Owing to the dedicated efforts of many individuals across the institution, the postintervention goal was surpassed. Additional efforts to facilitate ACP conversations are ongoing.

Serious Illness Conversations: Paving the Road with Metaphors.

Serious illness conversations can influence the direction of care by supporting decision-making compatible with the patient's goals. Effective use of core communication techniques, such as active listening and empathic statements, allows for a deeper understanding of the patients' goals, concerns, communication preferences, and questions. Metaphors can be used to augment end-of-life care planning. Used inappropriately, metaphors can cause misunderstandings and confusion. Applied skillfully, metaphors can personalize challenging discussions, improving patient comprehension and helping patients and their families to plan ahead. The art of communication is to use the right tool for the right person at the right time. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Discussions with patients about serious illness concerns are especially challenging for the oncologist. This article provides guidance for preparing for such conversations, including examples of the use of metaphors to personalize and improve communication.

Opioid Prescription Trends Among Patients With Cancer Referred to Outpatient Palliative Care Over a 6-Year Period.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, opioid regulations have become increasingly stringent in recent years. Increased regulatory scrutiny, in part, is related to heightened awareness through literature and a recent media blitz on the opioid prescription epidemic. These regulations have the potential to impact prescription trends by health care providers. Our objective was to evaluate changes in the type and dose of opioid prescriptions among patients who are referred by oncologists to an outpatient palliative care clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the electronic health records of 750 patients who were seen as new consultations at MD Anderson Cancer Center's outpatient palliative care clinic between January 1 and April 30 each year from 2010 through 2015. Data collected included demographics, cancer type and stage, symptom assessment, performance status, opioid type, and opioid dose defined as the morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD). RESULTS: Median age was 59 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51 to 67), 383 (51%) were female, 529 (70%) were white, and 654 (87%)of patients had advanced cancer. In 2010, median MEDD before referral was 78 mg/d (IQR, 30 to 150); however, by 2015, the MEDD had progressively decreased to 40 mg/d (IQR, 19 to 80; P = .001). Hydrocodone was the most common opioid prescribed between 2010 and 2015; however, after its reclassification as a schedule II opioid in October 2014, the use of tramadol, a schedule IV opioid, increased ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: During the past several years, the MEDD prescribed by referring oncologists has decreased. After hydrocodone reclassification, the use of tramadol with less stringent prescription limits has increased.

Effect of Lorazepam With Haloperidol vs Haloperidol Alone on Agitated Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial. Objective: To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016. Interventions: Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, -5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival. Results: Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (-4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (-2.3 points) (mean difference, -1.9 points [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, -1.0 mg [95% CI, -2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01949662.

Developing and testing a comprehensive tool to assess family meetings: Empirical distinctions between high- and low-quality meetings.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity with regard to findings on family meetings (or conferences) suggests a need to better understand factors that influence family meetings. While earlier studies have explored frequency or timing of family meetings, little is known about how factors (such as what is said during meetings, how it is said, and by whom) influence family meeting quality. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evaluation tool to assess family meetings (Phase 1); (2) to identify factors that influence meeting quality by evaluating 34 family meetings (Phase 2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For Phase 1, methods included developing a framework, cognitive testing, and finalizing the evaluation tool. The tool consisted of Facilitator Characteristics (i.e., gender, experience, and specialty of the person leading the meeting), and 22 items across 6 Meeting Elements (i.e., Introductions, Information Exchanges, Decisions, Closings, Communication Styles, and Emotional Support) and sub-elements. For Phase 2, methods included training evaluators, assessing family meetings, and analyzing data. We used Spearman's rank-order correlations to calculate meeting quality. Qualitative techniques were used to analyze free-text. RESULTS: No Facilitator Characteristic had a significant correlation with meeting quality. Sub-elements related to communication style and emotional support most strongly correlated with high-quality family meetings, as well as whether "next steps" were outlined (89.66%) and whether "family understanding" was elicited (86.21%). We also found a significant and strong positive association between overall proportion scores and evaluators' ratings (rs=0.731, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We filled a gap by developing an evaluation tool to assess family meetings, and we identified how what is said during meetings impacts quality.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

PC-FACS.

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.