Palliative care models for patients living with advanced cancer: a narrative review for the emergency department clinician.

Eighty-one percent of persons living with cancer have an emergency department (ED) visit within the last 6 months of life. Many cancer patients in the ED are at an advanced stage with high symptom burden and complex needs, and over half is admitted to an inpatient setting. Innovative models of care have been developed to provide high quality, ambulatory, and home-based care to persons living with serious, life-limiting illness, such as advanced cancer. New care models can be divided into a number of categories based on either prognosis (e.g., greater than or less than 6 months), or level of care (e.g., lower versus higher intensity needs, such as intravenous pain/nausea medication or frequent monitoring), and goals of care (e.g., cancer-directed treatment versus symptom-focused care only). We performed a narrative review to (1) compare models of care for seriously ill cancer patients in the ED and (2) examine factors that may hasten or impede wider dissemination of these models.

Developing a decision instrument to guide abdominal-pelvic imaging of blunt trauma patients: Methodology and protocol of the NEXUS abdominal-pelvic imaging study.

Although computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis (A/P) can provide crucial information for managing blunt trauma patients, liberal and indiscriminant imaging is expensive, can delay critical interventions, and unnecessarily exposes patients to ionizing radiation. Currently no definitive recommendations exist detailing which adult blunt trauma patients should receive A/P CT imaging and which patients may safely forego CT. Considerable benefit could be realized by identifying clinical criteria that reliably classify the risk of abdominal and pelvic injuries in blunt trauma patients. Patients identified as "very low risk" by such criteria would be free of significant injury, receive no benefit from imaging and therefore could be safely spared the expense and radiation exposure associated with A/P CT. The goal of this two-phase nationwide multicenter observational study is to derive and validate the use of clinical criteria to stratify the risk of injuries to the abdomen and pelvis among adult blunt trauma patients. We estimate that nation-wide implementation of a rigorously developed decision instrument could safely reduce CT imaging of adult blunt trauma patients by more than 20%, and reduce annual radiographic charges by $180 million, while simultaneously expediting trauma care and decreasing radiation exposure with its attendant risk of radiation-induced malignancy. Prior to enrollment we convened an expert panel of trauma surgeons, radiologists and emergency medicine physicians to develop a consensus definition for clinically significant abdominal and pelvic injury. In the first derivation phase of the study, we will document the presence or absence of preselected candidate criteria, as well as the presence or absence of significant abdominal or pelvic injuries in a cohort of blunt trauma victims. Using recursive partitioning, we will examine combinations of these criteria to identify an optimal "very low risk" subset that identifies injuries with a sensitivity exceeding 98%, excludes injury with a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 98%, and retains the highest possible specificity and potential to decrease imaging. In Phase 2 of the study we will validate the performance of a decision rule based on these criteria among a new cohort of patients to ensure that the criteria retain high sensitivity, NPV and optimal specificity. Validating the sensitivity of the decision instrument with high statistical precision requires evaluations on 317 blunt trauma patients who have significant abdominal-pelvic injuries, which will in turn require evaluations on approximately 6,340 blunt trauma patients. We will estimate potential reductions in CT imaging by counting the number of abdominal-pelvic CT scans performed on "very low risk" patients. Reductions in charges and radiation exposure will be determined by respectively summing radiographic charges and lifetime decreases in radiation morbidity and mortality for all "very low risk" cases. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov trial registration number: NCT04937868.

United States Best Practice Guidelines for Primary Palliative Care in the Emergency Department.

The growing palliative care needs of emergency department (ED) patients in the United States have motivated the development of ED primary palliative care principles. An expert panel convened to develop best practice guidelines for ED primary palliative care to help guide frontline ED clinicians based on available evidence and consensus opinion of the panel. Results include recommendations for screening and assessment of palliative care needs, ED management of palliative care needs, goals of care conversations, ED palliative care and hospice consults, and transitions of care.

Pragmatic Considerations in Incorporating Stakeholder Engagement Into a Palliative Care Transitions Study.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder involvement in health care research has been shown to improve research development, processes, and dissemination. The literature is developing on stakeholder engagement methods and preliminarily validated tools for evaluating stakeholder level of engagement have been proposed for specific stakeholder groups and settings. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the methodology for engaging a Study Advisory Committee (SAC) in research and reports on the use of a stakeholder engagement survey for measuring level of engagement. METHODS: Stakeholders with previous research connections were recruited to the SAC during the planning process for a multicenter randomized control clinical trial, which is ongoing at the time of this writing. All SAC meetings undergo qualitative analysis, while the Stakeholder Engagement Survey instrument developed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is distributed annually for quantitative evaluation. RESULTS: The trial's SAC is composed of 18 members from 3 stakeholder groups: patients and their caregivers; patient advocacy organizations; and health care payers. After an initial in-person meeting, the SAC meets quarterly by telephone and annually in-person. The SAC monitors research progress and provides feedback on all study processes. The stakeholder engagement survey reveals improved engagement over time as well as continued challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder engagement in the research process has meaningfully contributed to the study design, patient recruitment, and preliminary analysis of findings.