Improving communication about goals of care for hospitalized patients with serious illness: Study protocol for two complementary randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Although goals-of-care discussions are important for high-quality palliative care, this communication is often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness. Electronic health records (EHR) provide an opportunity to identify patients who might benefit from these discussions and promote their occurrence, yet prior interventions using the EHR for this purpose are limited. We designed two complementary yet independent randomized trials to examine effectiveness of a communication-priming intervention (Jumpstart) for hospitalized older adults with serious illness. METHODS: We report the protocol for these 2 randomized trials. Trial 1 has two arms, usual care and a clinician-facing Jumpstart, and is a pragmatic trial assessing outcomes with the EHR only (n = 2000). Trial 2 has three arms: usual care, clinician-facing Jumpstart, and clinician- and patient-facing (bi-directional) Jumpstart (n = 600). We hypothesize the clinician-facing Jumpstart will improve outcomes over usual care and the bi-directional Jumpstart will improve outcomes over the clinician-facing Jumpstart and usual care. We use a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to examine implementation barriers and facilitators. OUTCOMES: For both trials, the primary outcome is EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion within 30 days of randomization; additional outcomes include intensity of end-of-life care. Trial 2 also examines patient- or family-reported outcomes assessed by surveys targeting 3-5 days and 4-8 weeks after randomization including quality of goals-of-care communication, receipt of goal-concordant care, and psychological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This novel study incorporates two complementary randomized trials and a hybrid effectiveness-implementation approach to improve the quality and value of care for hospitalized older adults with serious illness. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: STUDY00007031-A and STUDY00007031-B.

End-of-life healthcare utilization and palliative care use among older adults with limited English proficiency.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about end-of-life healthcare utilization and palliative care use among older adults with serious illness and limited English proficiency (LEP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of seriously-ill older adults (65+) with and without LEP, from a large health system, who died between 2010 and 2018. Primary outcomes were measures of healthcare utilization in the last 30 and 180 days of life: hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day readmission. Secondary outcomes were palliative care consultation and advance care planning documents. We used multivariate analyses adjusted for sociodemographic factors including race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 18,490 decedents, 1363 had LEP. Patients with LEP were older at time of death (median age 80 vs 77 years), more likely to be female (48% vs 44%), of Asian descent (64% vs 4%), of Hispanic ethnicity (10% vs 2%), with <12th grade education (38% vs 9%), and Medicaid (36% vs 6%). In the last 30 days of life, patients with LEP had higher odds of ED visits (33% vs 20%; aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.26-1.72; p < 0.001), readmission (12% vs 8%; aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30-2.07; p < 0.001), and in-hospital death (45% vs 37%; aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.44; p = 0.005) compared to patients without LEP. Findings were similar in the last 180-days of life. Only 14% of patients with LEP and 10% of those without LEP received palliative care consultation in the last month of life. Patients with LEP were less likely to have advance care planning documents than patients without LEP (36% vs 40%; aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.80; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with serious illness and LEP have higher rates of end-of-life healthcare utilization. Additional research is needed to identify drivers of these differences and inform linguistically- and culturally-appropriate interventions to improve end-of-life care in this population.

Optimizing the Global Nursing Workforce to Ensure Universal Palliative Care Access and Alleviate Serious Health-Related Suffering Worldwide.

CONTEXT: Palliative care access is fundamental to the highest attainable standard of health and a core component of universal health coverage. Forging universal palliative care access is insurmountable without strategically optimizing the nursing workforce and integrating palliative nursing into health systems at all levels. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored both the critical need for accessible palliative care to alleviate serious health-related suffering and the key role of nurses to achieve this goal. OBJECTIVES: 1) Summarize palliative nursing contributions to the expansion of palliative care access; 2) identify emerging nursing roles in alignment with global palliative care recommendations and policy agendas; 3) promote nursing leadership development to enhance universal access to palliative care services. METHODS: Empirical and policy literature review; best practice models; recommendations to optimize the palliative nursing workforce. RESULTS: Nurses working across settings provide a considerable untapped resource that can be leveraged to advance palliative care access and palliative care program development. Best practice models demonstrate promising approaches and outcomes related to education and training, policy and advocacy, and academic-practice partnerships. CONCLUSION: An estimated 28 million nurses account for 59% of the international healthcare workforce and deliver up to 90% of primary health services. It has been well-documented that nurses are often the first or only healthcare provider available in many parts of the world. Strategic investments in international and interdisciplinary collaboration, as well as policy changes and the safe expansion of high-quality nursing care, can optimize the efforts of the global nursing workforce to mitigate serious health-related suffering.

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.

A Model to Improve Hospital-Based Palliative Care: The Palliative Care Redistribution Integrated System Model (PRISM).

Many hospitalized patients have unmet palliative care needs that are exacerbated by gaps in the palliative care subspecialty workforce. Training frontline physicians, including hospitalists, to provide primary palliative care has been proposed as one solution to this problem. However, improving palliative care access requires more than development of the physician workforce. Systemlevel change and interdisciplinary approaches are also needed. Using task shifting as a guiding principle, we propose a new workforce framework (the Palliative care Redistribution Integrated System Model, or PRISM), which utilizes physician and nonphysician providers and resources to their maximum potential. We highlight the central role of hospitalists in this model and provide examples of innovations in screening, workflow, quality, and benchmarking to enable hospitalists to be purveyors of quality palliative care.