Predictors of Documented Goals-of-Care Discussion for Hospitalized Patients With Chronic Illness.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are important for patient-centered care among hospitalized patients with serious illness. However, there are little data on the occurrence, predictors, and timing of these discussions. OBJECTIVES: To examine the occurrence, predictors, and timing of electronic health record (EHR)-documented goals-of-care discussions for hospitalized patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used natural language processing (NLP) to examine EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions for adults with chronic life-limiting illness or age ≥80 hospitalized 2015-2019. The primary outcome was NLP-identified documentation of a goals-of-care discussion during the index hospitalization. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 16,262 consecutive, eligible patients without missing data, 5,918 (36.4%) had a documented goals-of-care discussion during hospitalization; approximately 57% of these discussions occurred within 24 hours of admission. In multivariable analysis, documented goals-of-care discussions were more common for women (OR=1.26, 95%CI 1.18-1.36), older patients (OR=1.04 per year, 95%CI 1.03-1.04), and patients with more comorbidities (OR=1.11 per Deyo-Charlson point, 95%CI 1.10-1.13), cancer (OR=1.88, 95%CI 1.72-2.06), dementia (OR=2.60, 95%CI 2.29-2.94), higher acute illness severity (OR=1.12 per National Early Warning Score point, 95%CI 1.11-1.14), or prior advance care planning documents (OR=1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.30). Documentation of these discussions was less common for racially or ethnically minoritized patients (OR=0.823, 95%CI 0.75-0.90). CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients with serious illness, documented goals-of-care discussions identified by NLP were more common among patients with older age and increased burden of acute or chronic illness, and less common among racially or ethnically minoritized patients. This suggests important disparities in goals-of-care discussions.

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.

Identifying Goals of Care Conversations in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric in palliative care. However, goals-of-care discussions are often documented as free text in diverse locations. It is difficult to identify these discussions in the electronic health record (EHR) efficiently. OBJECTIVES: To develop, train, and test an automated approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR, using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). METHODS: From the electronic health records of an academic health system, we collected a purposive sample of 3183 EHR notes (1435 inpatient notes and 1748 outpatient notes) from 1426 patients with serious illness over 2008-2016, and manually reviewed each note for documentation of goals-of-care discussions. Separately, we developed a program to identify notes containing documentation of goals-of-care discussions using NLP and supervised ML. We estimated the performance characteristics of the NLP/ML program across 100 pairs of randomly partitioned training and test sets. We repeated these methods for inpatient-only and outpatient-only subsets. RESULTS: Of 3183 notes, 689 contained documentation of goals-of-care discussions. The mean sensitivity of the NLP/ML program was 82.3% (SD 3.2%), and the mean specificity was 97.4% (SD 0.7%). NLP/ML results had a median positive likelihood ratio of 32.2 (IQR 27.5-39.2) and a median negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (IQR 0.16-0.20). Performance was better in inpatient-only samples than outpatient-only samples. CONCLUSION: Using NLP and ML techniques, we developed a novel approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR. NLP and ML represent a potential approach toward measuring goals-of-care discussions as a research outcome and quality metric.

Association of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment With ICU Admission Among Patients Hospitalized Near the End of Life.

Importance: Patients with chronic illness frequently use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document treatment limitations. Objectives: To evaluate the association between POLST order for medical interventions and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients hospitalized near the end of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of patients with POLSTs and with chronic illness who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and were hospitalized 6 months or less before death in a 2-hospital academic health care system. Exposures: POLST order for medical interventions ("comfort measures only" vs "limited additional interventions" vs "full treatment"), age, race/ethnicity, education, days from POLST completion to admission, histories of cancer or dementia, and admission for traumatic injury. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the association between POLST order and ICU admission during the last hospitalization of life; the secondary outcome was receipt of a composite of 4 life-sustaining treatments: mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, dialysis, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For evaluating factors associated with POLST-discordant care, the outcome was ICU admission contrary to POLST order for medical interventions during the last hospitalization of life. Results: Among 1818 decedents (mean age, 70.8 [SD, 14.7] years; 41% women), 401 (22%) had POLST orders for comfort measures only, 761 (42%) had orders for limited additional interventions, and 656 (36%) had orders for full treatment. ICU admissions occurred in 31% (95% CI, 26%-35%) of patients with comfort-only orders, 46% (95% CI, 42%-49%) with limited-interventions orders, and 62% (95% CI, 58%-66%) with full-treatment orders. One or more life-sustaining treatments were delivered to 14% (95% CI, 11%-17%) of patients with comfort-only orders and to 20% (95% CI, 17%-23%) of patients with limited-interventions orders. Compared with patients with full-treatment POLSTs, those with comfort-only and limited-interventions orders were significantly less likely to receive ICU admission (comfort only: 123/401 [31%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.45-0.62]; limited interventions: 349/761 [46%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.87]). Across patients with comfort-only and limited-interventions POLSTs, 38% (95% CI, 35%-40%) received POLST-discordant care. Patients with cancer were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without cancer (comfort only: 41/181 [23%] vs 80/220 [36%], aRR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43-0.85]; limited interventions: 100/321 [31%] vs 215/440 [49%], aRR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.51-0.78]). Patients with dementia and comfort-only orders were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without dementia (23/111 [21%] vs 98/290 [34%], aRR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.29-0.67]). Patients admitted for traumatic injury were significantly more likely to receive POLST-discordant care (comfort only: 29/64 [45%] vs 92/337 [27%], aRR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.08-2.14]; limited interventions: 51/91 [56%] vs 264/670 [39%], aRR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09-1.68]). In patients with limited-interventions orders, older age was significantly associated with less POLST-discordant care (aRR, 0.93 per 10 years [95% CI, 0.88-1.00]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with POLSTs and with chronic life-limiting illness who were hospitalized within 6 months of death, treatment-limiting POLSTs were significantly associated with lower rates of ICU admission compared with full-treatment POLSTs. However, 38% of patients with treatment-limiting POLSTs received intensive care that was potentially discordant with their POLST.

Pragmatic methods to avoid intensive care unit admission when it does not align with patient and family goals.

For patients with chronic, life-limiting illnesses, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) near the end of life might not improve patient outcomes or be consistent with patient and family values, goals, and preferences. In this context, advance care planning and palliative care interventions designed to clarify patients' values, goals, and preferences have the potential to reduce provision of high-intensity interventions that are unwanted or non-beneficial. In this Series paper, we have assessed interventions that are effective at helping patients with chronic, life-limiting illnesses to avoid an unwanted ICU admission. The evidence found was largely from observational studies, with considerable heterogeneity in populations, methods, and types of interventions. Results from randomised trials of interventions to improve communication about goals of care are scarce, of variable quality, and mixed. Although observational studies show that advance care planning and palliative care interventions are associated with a reduced number of ICU admissions at the end of life, causality has not been well established. Using the available evidence we suggest recommendations to help to avoid ICU admission when it does not align with patient and family values, goals, and preferences and conclude with future directions for research.

Using Electronic Health Records for Quality Measurement and Accountability in Care of the Seriously Ill: Opportunities and Challenges.

BACKGROUND: As our population ages and the burden of chronic illness rises, there is increasing need to implement quality metrics that measure and benchmark care of the seriously ill, including the delivery of both primary care and specialty palliative care. Such metrics can be used to drive quality improvement, value-based payment, and accountability for population-based outcomes. METHODS: In this article, we examine use of the electronic health record (EHR) as a tool to assess quality of serious illness care through narrative review and description of a palliative care quality metrics program in a large healthcare system. RESULTS: In the search for feasible, reliable, and valid palliative care quality metrics, the EHR is an attractive option for collecting quality data on large numbers of seriously ill patients. However, important challenges to using EHR data for quality improvement and accountability exist, including understanding the validity, reliability, and completeness of the data, as well as acknowledging the difference between care documented and care delivered. Challenges also include developing achievable metrics that are clearly linked to patient and family outcomes and addressing data interoperability across sites as well as EHR platforms and vendors. This article summarizes the strengths and weakness of the EHR as a data source for accountability of community- and population-based programs for serious illness, describes the implementation of EHR data in the palliative care quality metrics program at the University of Washington, and, based on that experience, discusses opportunities and challenges. Our palliative care metrics program was designed to serve as a resource for other healthcare systems. DISCUSSION: Although the EHR offers great promise for enhancing quality of care provided for the seriously ill, significant challenges remain to operationalizing this promise on a national scale and using EHR data for population-based quality and accountability.