The burden of pre-admission pain, depression, and caregiving on palliative care needs for seriously ill trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing numbers of individuals admitted to hospitals for trauma are older adults, many of whom also have underlying serious illnesses. Older adults with serious illness benefit from palliative care, but the palliative care needs of seriously ill older adults with trauma have not been elucidated. We hypothesize that older adults with serious illness have a high prevalence of pain, depression, and unpaid caregiving hours before trauma admission. METHODS: Using Health and Retirement Study data (2008-2018) linked to Medicare claims, we identified patients 66 years or older who met an established definition of serious illness in surgery and were admitted with trauma. Descriptive analyses were performed for baseline patient characteristics, pre-admission pain (dichotomized as none/mild vs. moderate/severe), depression (dichotomized as no, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale [CES-D] < 3 vs. yes, CES-D ≥ 3), and unpaid caregiving hours (dichotomized as low (<30 h/month), high (≥30 h/month)). RESULTS: We identified 1741 patients, 67.4% were female and 86.8% White. Mean age was 83 (SD 7.5), and 60.3% had ≥4 comorbidities. The majority (62.9%) were admitted due to falls, 33.5% had isolated hip fracture. The prevalence of baseline moderate/severe pain and depression were 38.1% and 42.6%, respectively. Among the cohort, 42.2% had unpaid caregiving, of those 27.7% had ≥30 h/week of unpaid caregiving hours. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to trauma admission, older adults with serious illness have a high prevalence of pain, depression, and unpaid caregiving hours. These findings may inform targeted palliative care interventions to reduce symptom burden and post-discharge healthcare utilization.

Advance Care Planning, Shared Decision Making, and Serious Illness Conversations in Onconephrology.

Advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness conversations are communication processes designed to promote patient-centered care. In onconephrology, patients face a series of complex medical decisions regarding their care at the intersection of oncology and nephrology. Clinicians who aim to ensure that patient preferences and values are integrated into treatment planning must work within a similarly complex care team comprising multiple disciplines. In this review, we describe key decision points in a patient's care trajectory, as well as guidance on how and when to engage in advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness discussions. Further research on these processes in the complex context of onconephrology is needed.

Advance Care Planning Experiences Among Sexual and Gender Minority People.

Importance: Advance care planning (ACP) can promote patient-centered end-of-life (EOL) care and is intended to ensure that medical treatments are aligned with patient's values. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people face greater discrimination in health care settings compared with heterosexual, cisgender people, but it is unknown whether such discrimination occurs in ACP and how it might affect the ACP experiences of SGM people. Objectives: To increase understanding of barriers and facilitators of ACP facing SGM individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods national study of ACP included a telephone survey of self-identified SGM and non-SGM participants in a nationally representative sample drawn from a larger omnibus national panel by SSRS. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of survey participants who identified as SGM. Data were collected from October 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Self-identified SGM. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey included 4 items from the validated ACP Engagement Survey, adapted to capture experiences of discrimination. Interviews asked about participants' experiences with ACP, including the appointment of medical decision-makers, sharing preferences, and experiences within the health care system more broadly. Results: A total of 603 adults participated in the survey, with 201 SGM individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.7 [18.7] years; 101 [50.2%] female; 22 [10.9%] Black, 37 [18.4%] Hispanic, and 140 [69.7%] White individuals) and 402 non-SGM individuals (mean [SD] age, 53.7 [19.2] years; 199 [49.5%] female; 35 [8.7%] Black, 41 [10.2%] Hispanic, and 324 [80.6%] White individuals). Regarding reasons for not completing ACP, SGM respondents, compared with non-SGM respondents, were more likely to say "I don't see the need" (72 [73.5%] vs 131 [57.2%], P = .006) and "I feel discriminated against by others" (12 [12.2%] vs 6 [2.6%], P < .001). Of 25 completed interviews among SGM participants, 3 main themes were identified: how fear and experiences of discrimination affect selection of clinicians and whether to disclose SGM identity; concerns about whether EOL preferences and medical decision-makers would be supported; and a preference to discuss EOL decisions and values outside of clinical settings. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that fear of disclosing sexual orientation or gender identity information and discrimination are important barriers to ACP for SGM in clinical settings, but discussions of preferences and values still occur between many SGM people and medical decision-makers. More SGM-specific patient-centered care might better support these discussions within the health care system. Furthermore, health systems can facilitate improved engagement by supporting clinician sensitivity training, including guidance on documentation and requirements.