Speaker Introductions at Grand Rounds: Differences in Formality of Address by Gender and Specialty.

Background: Despite increasing representation of women in medicine, gender bias remains pervasive. The authors sought to evaluate speaker introductions by gender in the grand rounds of multiple specialties at a large academic institution to understand the cultural context of this behavior and identify predictors of formality. Materials and Methods: The authors reviewed grand rounds recordings of speakers with doctorates presenting to the departments of family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics at one institution from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was whether a speaker's professional title was used as the first form of address. The authors assessed factors correlated with professional introduction using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Speakers were introduced professionally in 346/615 recordings (56.3%). Female introducers were more likely to introduce speakers professionally (odds ratio [OR]: 2.52). A significant interaction existed between speaker gender and home institution: female speakers visiting from an external institution were less likely than male external speakers to be introduced professionally (OR: 0.49), whereas female speakers internal to the institution were more likely to be introduced professionally than male internal speakers (OR: 1.75). Use of professional titles varied by specialty and was higher than average for family medicine (83.2%), surgery (75.8%), and pediatrics (64.0%) and lower for internal medicine (37.5%) and obstetrics and gynecology (50.7%). Conclusions: These findings suggest a complex relationship between gender and formality of introduction that merits further investigation. Understanding differences in culture across specialties is important to inform efforts to promote equity.

Specialty Palliative Care in COVID-19: Early Experiences from the Palliative Care Quality Collaborative.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred unprecedented need for specialty palliative care. The Palliative Care Quality Collaborative (PCQC) provides unique infrastructure for rapid data collection and analysis. Objectives: To capture and describe real-time, real-world experiences of specialty palliative care professionals caring for patients with COVID-19 through a rapid reporting tool and registry. Setting: Palliative care clinicians consulted for patients either positive for COVID-19, under investigation for COVID-19, or recovered from COVID-19. Design: The PCQC created a 13-item COVID-19 case report form (CRF), modeled after the PCQC core dataset for specialty palliative care quality measurement. Twelve items offered discrete answer choices and one was open-ended. The CRF was publicized widely (e.g., social media, e-mail list serves) and completed through a link on the PCQC website. Results: Three hundred six reports (298 adult, 8 pediatric) were submitted between April 6, 2020 and October 7, 2020. The majority of patients (83%) were 50 years or older; 25% were 80 or older, and 78% were COVID-19 positive. Male gender identity was significantly more prevalent than female (58% vs. 40%, p < 0.002). The most common comorbidity was cardiovascular disease (23%). Of adult hospital-based patients, 69% were full code before palliative care consultation versus 28% after (p < 0.05). All pediatric patients were full code before and after palliative care consult. Qualitative themes were strained communication with patients, family visitation challenges, communication barriers between clinicians and families, rapid changes in palliative care medical management, community care options difficult to find, lack of testing in community-based settings, and guardianship and legal challenges. Conclusion: Preliminary data from the first 306 patients reported to the PCQC COVID-19 Registry describe palliative care use concentrated among older and higher risk patients and challenges to the provision of palliative care during this pandemic.

End-of-Life Care: Serious Illness Progression, Prognostication, and Advance Care Planning.

Because of their longstanding relationships with patients, family physicians often are in the best position to identify signs of serious illness progression, provide support and guidance to patients and caregivers, and tailor care plans to individual needs and preferences at the end of life. Significant signs of illness progression include worsening of one or more conditions, decline in function, and increase in the number of emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Prognostication refers to estimation of the remaining life expectancy. Several tools are available to inform such estimates. Prognostication should include discussion of the expected illness progression to help patients and family members prepare, plan, and cope. Advance care planning, ideally started before or early in the course of illness, should include identification of patient surrogate decision-makers as well as a discussion of patient values, priorities, and care preferences. Planning should continue and evolve to inform care plans that match patient and family member priorities at each stage of illness. Family physicians should be familiar with resources available in their communities to support care plans, including palliative care subspecialists, home- and facility-based palliative care teams, and hospice physicians.

Comparing Methadone Rotation to Consensus Opinion.

CONTEXT: Methadone is a complex but useful medication for pain management in palliative care. Recent expert opinions have been published on the safe and effective use of methadone. OBJECTIVES: To determine the success of methadone rotations and evaluate concordance with consensus recommendations by a palliative care consult service. METHODS: A retrospective study of methadone rotation practice by a palliative care consult service and outcomes for patients hospitalized between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018 at a single academic medical center. A successful rotation was defined as a 30% reduction in pain or as-needed medication use sustained for at least three consecutive days. Patient outcomes were compared with expert consensus recommendations. RESULTS: About 59 patients met the inclusion criteria. The study population was mostly Caucasian men and women of equal proportions who were started on methadone for inadequate pain control. Sixty-eight percent of patients were successfully rotated. Subjects who were rotated using a standardized protocol were six times more likely to have a successful rotation (odds ratio 6.28 [1.25-30.92]; P = 0.0238). CONCLUSION: The utilization of a standardized protocol was associated with better patient outcomes.

Policy Changes Key To Promoting Sustainability And Growth Of The Specialty Palliative Care Workforce.

Specialized palliative care teams improve outcomes for the steadily growing population of people living with serious illness. However, few studies have examined whether the specialty palliative care workforce can meet the growing demand for its services. We used 2018 clinician survey data to model risk factors associated with palliative care clinicians leaving the field early, and we then projected physician numbers from 2019 to 2059 under four scenarios. Our modeling revealed an impending "workforce valley," with declining physician numbers that will not recover to the current level until 2045, absent policy change. However, sustained growth in the number of fellowship positions over ten years could reverse the worsening workforce shortage. There is an immediate need for policies that support high-value, team-based palliative care through expansion in all segments of the specialty palliative care workforce, combined with payment reform to encourage the deployment of sustainable teams.

Linking Quality and Spending to Measure Value for People with Serious Illness.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare payment is rapidly evolving to reward value by measuring and paying for quality and spending performance. Rewarding value for the care of seriously ill patients presents unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the state of current efforts to measure and reward value for the care of seriously ill patients. DESIGN: We performed a PubMed search of articles related to (1) measures of spending for people with serious illness and (2) linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness. We limited our search to U.S.-based studies published in English between January 1, 1960, and March 31, 2017. We supplemented this search by identifying public programs and other known initiatives that linked quality and spending for the seriously ill and extracted key program elements. RESULTS: Our search related to linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness yielded 277 articles. We identified three current public programs that currently link measures of quality and spending-or are likely to within the next few years-the Oncology Care Model; the Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease Model; and Home Health Value-Based Purchasing. Models that link quality and spending consist of four core components: (1) measuring quality, (2) measuring spending, (3) the payment adjustment model, and (4) the linking/incentive model. We found that current efforts to reward value for seriously ill patients are targeted for specific patient populations, do not broadly encourage the use of palliative care, and have not closely aligned quality and spending measures related to palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: We develop recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders about how measures of spending and quality can be balanced in value-based payment programs.

Dexmedetomidine as adjuvant therapy for acute postoperative neuropathic pain crisis.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a potent α2-adrenergic agonist U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for sedation. While its use as an analgesic has been described in the palliative medicine literature, its use for managing an acute neuropathic pain episode is less well known. METHODS: Here we describe the use of adjuvant dexmedetomidine in a patient with metastatic sarcoma suffering from an acute postoperative neuropathic pain crisis. CONCLUSION: Among patients with acute neuropathic pain for whom additional opioids raises respiratory-related concerns, the use of dexmedetomidine should be considered as a viable treatment alternative.

Antimicrobial use among patients receiving palliative care consultation.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize antimicrobial use among patients receiving palliative care consultation. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients seen by the Palliative Care Service at the University of Michigan Health System from January 2008 to May 2008. RESULTS: Of 131 patients seen in consultation, 70 received antimicrobials. We identified 92 infections among these 70 patients; therapy for 54 (58.7%) was empiric. Empiric therapy was most commonly prescribed for respiratory infection and urinary tract infection. Piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) was the most frequently used agent, with 26 patients receiving P/T (37.1%); 22 of 26 received this agent empirically (84.6%, P = .005). Vancomycin was prescribed to 23 patients (32.9%). Sixteen patients (22.9%) died in hospital; another 31 were enrolled in hospice care. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest significant use of empiric, broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy among hospitalized patients near the end of life. We advocate for careful assessment of potential benefits and treatment burdens of antimicrobial therapy, especially when palliation is the goal.

Bacterial pneumonias during an influenza pandemic: how will we allocate antibiotics?

We are currently in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and a second wave of flu in the fall and winter could lead to more hospitalizations for pneumonia. Recent pathologic and historic data from the 1918 influenza pandemic confirms that many, if not most, of the deaths in that pandemic were a result of secondary bacterial pneumonias. This means that a second wave of 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza could result in a widespread shortage of antibiotics, making these medications a scarce resource. Recently, our University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) Scarce Resource Allocation Committee (SRAC) added antibiotics to a list of resources (including ventilators, antivirals, vaccines) that might become scarce during an influenza pandemic. In this article, we summarize the data on bacterial pneumonias during the 1918 influenza pandemic, discuss the possible impact of a pandemic on the University of Michigan Health System, and summarize our committee's guiding principles for allocating antibiotics during a pandemic.