Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home (ACEPATH): Codesigning an intervention to improve patient and family caregiver experiences.

BACKGROUND: Returning home from the hospital for palliative-focused care is a common transition, but the process can be emotionally distressing and logistically challenging for patients and caregivers. While interventions exist to aid in the transition, none have been developed in partnership with patients and caregivers. OBJECTIVE: To undergo the initial stages of codesign to create an intervention (Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home [ACEPATH]) to improve the experience of hospital-to-home transitions for adult patients receiving palliative care and their caregiver(s). METHODS: The codesign process consisted of (1) the development of codesign workshop (CDW) materials to communicate key findings from prior research to CDW participants; (2) CDWs with patients, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs); and (3) low-fidelity prototype testing to review CDW outputs and develop low-fidelity prototypes of interventions. HCPs provided feedback on the viability of low-fidelity prototypes. RESULTS: Three patients, seven caregivers and five HCPs participated in eight CDWs from July 2022 to March 2023. CDWs resulted in four intervention prototypes: a checklist, quick reference sheets, a patient/caregiver workbook and a transition navigator role. Outputs from CDWs included descriptions of interventions and measures of success. In April 2023, the four prototypes were presented in four low-fidelity prototype sessions to 20 HCPs. Participants in the low-fidelity prototype sessions provided feedback on what the interventions could look like, what problems the interventions were trying to solve and concerns about the interventions. CONCLUSION: Insights gained from this codesign work will inform high-fidelity prototype testing and the eventual implementation and evaluation of an ACEPATH intervention that aims to improve hospital-to-home transitions for patients receiving a palliative approach to care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers with lived experience attended CDWs aimed at designing an intervention to improve the transition from hospital to home. Their direct involvement aligns the intervention with patients' and caregivers' needs when transitioning from hospital to home. Furthermore, four patient/caregiver advisors were engaged throughout the project (from grant writing through to manuscript writing) to ensure all stages were patient- and caregiver-centred.

Delivery of Active Medical Management without Dialysis through an Embedded Kidney Palliative Care Model.

Background: Patients with CKD have high symptom burden, low rates of advance care planning (ACP), and frequently receive care that is not goal concordant. Improved integration of palliative care into nephrology and access to active medical management without dialysis (AMMWD) have the potential to improve outcomes through better symptom management and enhanced shared decision making. Methods: We describe the development of a kidney palliative care (KPC) clinic and how palliative care practices are integrated within an academic nephrology clinic. We performed a retrospective electronic health record (EHR) review for patients seen in this clinic between January 2015 and February 2019 to describe key clinical activities and delivery of AMMWD. Results: A total of 165 patients were seen in the KPC clinic (139 with CKD and 26 who were already receiving dialysis). Fatigue, mobility issues, and pain were the three most prevalent symptoms (85%, 66%, 58%, respectively). Ninety-one percent of patients had a surrogate decision maker documented in the EHR; 87% of patients had a goals-of-care conversation documented in the EHR. Of the 139 patients with CKD, 67 (48%) chose AMMWD as their disease progressed. Sixty-eight percent (41 of 60) of patients who died during the study were referred to hospice. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the integration of palliative care into nephrology can assist in identification of symptoms, lead to high rates of ACP, and provide a mechanism for patients to choose and receive AMMWD. The percentage of patients choosing AMMWD in our study suggests that increased shared decision making may lower rates of dialysis initiation in the United States. Additional prospective research and registries for assessing the effects of AMMWD have the potential to improve care for people living with CKD.

Primary palliative care for heart failure provided within ambulatory cardiology: A randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is characterized by physical and emotional symptoms and decreased quality of life (QoL). Palliative care can reduce burdens of serious illness but often is limited to inpatient or academic settings. OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the Primary Education for Nurses in Palliative care-HF (PENPal-HF) intervention, training outpatient cardiology nurses to address symptom burden, patient priorities for care and QoL, and advance care planning as part of quarterly HF visits. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized clinical trial for adults with NYHA Stage III or IV HF and ≥ 2 hospitalizations in the past 12 months, recruited from a community-based cardiology clinic. Participants were randomized 2:1, PENPal-HF plus usual care versus usual care alone. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: We randomized 30 adults with Stage III HF - 20 to PENPal-HF and 10 to usual care. Most in the intervention group (71%) and in the control group (62%) completed the study through the final outcome assessment in week 56; 5 participants died. Of 20 participants in the intervention, 14 (70%) remained in the study through the end of intervention visits; 11 (55%) completed all visits. Most intervention participants (93.75%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with their care, and 87.5% agreed or strongly agreed that all people with HF should receive the intervention. Most intervention group participants (93.75%) reported a perceived improvement in physical symptoms, mood, and/or QoL. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that nurse-led primary palliative care in outpatient cardiology settings is promising. Research is warranted to determine efficacy and effectiveness.

Clinicians' Perceptions of Collaborative Palliative Care Delivery in Chronic Kidney Disease.

CONTEXT: Guidelines recommend palliative care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), who experience a high pain and symptom burden, and receive intensive treatments that often do not align with their values. A lack of scalable specialty palliative care services has prompted calls for attention to primary palliative care, delivered in primary care and nephrology settings. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to 1) describe expectations for care to meet the palliative care needs of people living with CKD, and limitations to meeting those expectations in the current model, and 2) identify potential interventions to meet patients' palliative care needs. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from primary care, nephrology, and palliative care to assess 1) reasonable expectations for meeting palliative needs, 2) barriers to integrating primary palliative care, and 3) potential intervention points. RESULTS: Clinicians discussed their expectations for high-quality communication (e.g., discussing disease understanding, assessing goals of care) and better integration of palliative care services. Clinicians expressed barriers to delivering that care, including poor inter-clinician communication. To address barriers, clinicians outlined potential intervention points, such as building collaborative models of care, and structural triggers to identify patients who may be appropriate for palliative care. CONCLUSION: Interventions to address gaps in palliative care delivery for people living with CKD should incorporate systematic identification of patients with palliative care needs and structural mechanisms to meeting those needs via specialty and primary palliative care.

Use of Theoretical Frameworks in the Development and Testing of Palliative Care Interventions.

CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) research has grown over the last 20 years. Yet, the causal components and pathways of PC interventions remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To document the prevalence and application of theoretical frameworks in developing and testing PC interventions. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of previously published systematic reviews of PC randomized clinical trials. Trials were evaluated for explicit mention of a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline that supported the development of the intervention. We used a structured data extraction form to document study population, outcomes, and whether and how authors used a theoretical framework, process/delivery model, or clinical practice guideline. We applied an adapted coding scheme to evaluate use of theoretical frameworks. RESULTS: We reviewed 85 PC trials conducted between 1984 and 2021. Thirty-eight percent (n = 32) of trials explicitly mentioned a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline as a foundation for the intervention design. Only nine trials included a theoretical framework, while the remaining 23 cited a process/delivery model or clinical practice guideline. CONCLUSION: Most PC trials do not cite a theoretical foundation for their intervention design. Future work should focus on developing and validating new theoretical frameworks and modifying existing theories and models to better explain the mechanisms of the variety of PC interventions.

Examining the course of transitions from hospital to home-based palliative care: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-to-home transitions in palliative care are fraught with challenges. To assess transitions researchers have used patient reported outcome measures and qualitative data to give unique insights into a phenomenon. Few measures examine care setting transitions in palliative care, yet domains identified in other populations are likely relevant for patients receiving palliative care. AIM: Gain insight into how patients experience three domains, discharge readiness, transition quality, and discharge-coping, during hospital-to-home transitions. DESIGN: Longitudinal, convergent parallel mixed methods study design with two data collection visits: in-hospital before and 3-4 weeks after discharge. Participants completed scales assessing discharge readiness, transition quality, and post discharge-coping. A qualitative interview was conducted at both visits. Data were analyzed separately and integrated using a merged transformative methodology, allowing us to compare and contrast the data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Study was set in two tertiary hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Adult inpatients (n = 25) and their caregivers (n = 14) were eligible if they received a palliative care consultation and transitioned to home-based palliative care. RESULTS: Results were organized aligning with the scales; finding low discharge readiness (5.8; IQR: 1.9), moderate transition quality (66.7; IQR: 33.33), and poor discharge-coping (5.0; IQR: 2.6), respectively. Positive transitions involved feeling well supported, managing medications, feeling well, and having healthcare needs met. Challenges in transitions were feeling unwell, confusion over medications, unclear healthcare responsibilities, and emotional distress. CONCLUSIONS: We identified aspects of these three domains that may be targeted to improve transitions through intervention development. Identified discrepancies between the data types should be considered for future research exploration.

Associations between Reason for Inpatient Palliative Care Consultation, Timing, and Cost Savings.

Background: Specialty palliative care (SPC) provides patient-centered care to people with serious illness and may reduce costs. Specific cost-saving functions of SPC remain unclear. Objectives: (1) To assess the effect of SPC on inpatient costs and length of stay (LOS) and (2) to evaluate differences in costs by indication and timing of SPC. Design: Case-control with in patients who received an SPC consultation and propensity matched controls. Setting: One large U.S. integrated delivery finance system. Measurements: Using administrative data, we assessed costs associated with inpatient stays, a subset of whom received an SPC consultation. Consultations were stratified by reasons based on physician discretion: goals of care, pain management, hospice evaluation, nonpain symptom management, or support. The primary outcome was total operating costs and the secondary outcome was hospital LOS. Results: In total, 1404 patients with SPC consultations associated with unique hospital encounters were matched with 2806 controls. Total operating costs were lower for patients who received an SPC consultation when the consultation was within 0 to 1 days of admission ($6,924 vs. $7,635, p = 0.002). Likewise, LOS was shorter (4.3 vs. 4.7 days, p < 0.001). Upon stratification by reason, goals-of-care consultations early in the hospital stay (days 0-1) were associated with reduced total operating costs ($7,205 vs. $8,677, p < 0.001). Costs were higher for pain management consultations ($7,727 vs. $6,914, p = 0.047). Consultation for hospice evaluation was associated with lower costs, particularly when early (hospital days 0-1: $4,125 vs. $7,415, p < 0.001). Conclusions: SPC was associated with significant cost saving and decreased LOS when occurring early in a hospitalization and used for goals-of-care and hospice evaluation.

Measuring Goal-Concordant Care in Palliative Care Research.

>Goal-concordant care is a priority outcome for palliative care research, yet the field lacks consensus on optimal methods for measurement. We sought to 1) categorize methods used to measure goal-concordant care, and 2) discuss strengths and limitations of each method using empirical examples from palliative care research. We categorized measurement methods for goal-concordant care. We identified empirical examples of each method to illustrate the strengths, limitations, and applicability of each method to relevant study designs. We defined four methods used to measure goal-concordant care: 1) Patient- or Caregiver-Reported, 2) Caregiver-Reported After Death, 3) Concordance in Longitudinal Data, and 4) Population-Level Indicators. Patient or caregiver-reported goal-concordant care draws on strengths of patient-reported outcomes, and can be captured for multiple aspects of treatment; these methods are subject to recall bias or family-proxy bias. Concordance in longitudinal data is optimal when a treatment preference can be specifically and temporally linked to actual treatment; the method is limited to common life-sustaining treatment choices and validity may be affected by temporal variation between preference and treatment. Population-level indicators allow pragmatic research to include large populations; its primary limitation is the assumption that preferences held by a majority of persons should correspond to patterns of actual treatment in similar populations. Methods used to measure goal-concordant care have distinct strengths and limitations, and methods should be selected based on research question and study design. Existing methods could be improved, yet a future gold standard is unlikely to suit all research designs.

How well do documented goals-of-care discussions for patients with stage IV cancer reflect communication best practices?

BACKGROUND: Written clinical communication regarding patients' disease understanding and values may facilitate goal-concordant care, yet little is known about the quality of electronic health record (EHR) documentation. We sought to (1) describe frequency of communication best practices in EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions, and (2) assess whether templated notes improve quality of documentation. METHODS: Researchers pulled text of EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions for hospitalized patients with Stage IV cancer from admission to 60-days follow-up. Text was included when in a single encounter the clinician addressed: (a) prognosis and/or illness understanding; and (b) goals and/or treatment options. Researchers qualitatively coded text based on guidelines for communication best practices, and noted if an EHR template was used. RESULTS: Forty-two percent (206/492) of patients had EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions. Text frequently described communication of cancer progression (89%), though rarely included prognosis (22%). Text often included patients' goals and values (83%), and at least on specific treatment decision (82%). Communication about treatments was included for 98% of patients; common examples included cancer treatment (62%), hospice (62%), resuscitation (51%), or intensive care (38%). Clinicians documented making recommendations for 40% of patients. Text addressing patient emotional and spiritual concerns was uncommon (15%). Compared to free text, use of a template was associated with increased documentation of goals and values (80% vs. 61%, p < 0.01), but not other best practices. CONCLUSION: Insights from the study can be used to guide future training and research to study and improve the quality of documentation about goal of care, and its impact on goal-concordant care.

Pre-Post Evaluation of Collaborative Oncology Palliative Care for Patients With Stage IV Cancer.

CONTEXT: The Collaborative Care Model improves care processes and outcomes but has never been tested for palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a model of collaborative oncology palliative care for Stage IV cancer. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post evaluation of Collaborative Oncology Palliative Care (CO-Pal), enrolling patients with Stage IV lung, breast or genitourinary cancers and acute illness hospitalization. CO-Pal has 4 components: 1) oncologist communication skills training; 2) patient tracking; 3) palliative care needs assessment; and 4) care coordination stratified by high vs. low palliative care need. Health record reviews from hospital admission through 60 days provided data on outcomes - goals-of-care discussions (primary outcome), advance care planning, symptom treatment, specialty palliative care and hospice use, and hospital transfers. RESULTS: We enrolled 256 patients (n = 114 pre and n = 142 post-intervention); 60-day mortality was 32%. Comparing patients pre vs post-intervention, CO-Pal did not increase overall goals-of-care discussions, but did increase advance care planning (48% vs 63%, P = 0.021) and hospice use (19% vs 31%, P = 0.034). CO-Pal did not impact symptom treatment, overall treatment plans, or 60-day hospital transfers. During the intervention phase, high-need vs low-need patients had more goals-of-care discussions (60% vs. 15%, P < 0.001) and more use of specialty palliative care (64% vs 22%, P < 0.001) and hospice (44% vs 16%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Collaborative oncology palliative care is efficient and feasible. While it did not increase overall goals-of-care discussions, it was effective to increase overall advance care planning and hospice use for patients with Stage IV cancer.

"Going Home [Is] Just a Feel-Good Idea With No Structure": A Qualitative Exploration of Patient and Family Caregiver Needs When Transitioning From Hospital to Home in Palliative Care.

CONTEXT: Hospital-to-home transitions, particularly at the end of life, can be challenging for patients and their family caregivers. Therefore, there is a need to better understand gaps in expectations and experiences of these transitions. Theory can inform the creation of an intervention aimed at improving the hospital-to-home transition. OBJECTIVES: 1) Explore patients' and caregivers' expectations and subsequent experiences of the hospital-to-home transition while receiving palliative care, and 2) build a substantive grounded theory to enhance the understanding of hospital-to-home transitions from the patient and caregiver perspective. METHODS: Longitudinal, prospective qualitative study with semistructured interviews at hospital discharge and three to four weeks after discharge home. We recruited adults receiving inpatient palliative care who were being discharged to home-based palliative care, and their family caregivers from two academic health centers in Toronto, Canada. Thirty-nine participants: 18 patients, 7 caregivers, and 7 patient-caregiver dyads participated. We conducted 52 interviews. We conducted a grounded theory qualitative study. RESULTS: Through examining the expectations and subsequent experiences of the transition, and exploring the gaps between them, we identified various transitions needs: health and well-being needs, and practical needs (i.e., transportation, setting up the home for care, care providers in the home). Several enablers and disablers modified the likelihood of needs being met (e.g., caregiver role, education on symptom management, uncertainty, financial resources). CONCLUSION: Our substantive grounded theory highlighted potentially measurable constructs that can be further tested. Future interventions should target the enablers/disablers to ensure health and well-being and practical needs are met in the transition.

Transitioning From Hospital to Palliative Care at Home: Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Continuity of Care.

CONTEXT: Continuity of care is important at improving the patient experience and reducing unnecessary hospitalizations when transitioning across care settings, especially at the end of life. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and caregiver understanding and valuation of "continuity of care" while transitioning from an in-hospital to a home-based palliative care team. METHODS: Longitudinal qualitative design using semistructured interviews conducted with patients and their caregivers before and after transitioning from hospital to palliative care at home. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis within a postpositivist framework. Thirty-nine participants (18 patients, seven caregivers, and seven patient-caregiver dyads) were recruited from two acute care hospitals, wherein they received care from an inpatient palliative care consultation team and transitioned to home-based palliative care. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 68 years, 60% were female and 60% had a diagnosis of cancer. Caregivers had a mean age of 62 years and 50% were female. Participants perceived continuity of care to occur in three ways, depending on which stage they were at in their hospital-to-home transition. In hospital, continuity of care was experienced, as consistency of information exchanged between providers. During the transition from hospital to home, continuity of care was experienced as consistency of treatments. When receiving home-based palliative care, continuity of care was experienced as having consistent providers. CONCLUSION: Patients' and their caregivers' valuation of continuity of care was dependent on their stage of the hospital-to-home transition. Optimizing continuity of care requires an integrated network of providers with reliable information transfer and communication.

Mortality Risk for Patients With Stage IV Cancer and Acute Illness Hospitalization.

CONTEXT: Cancer prognosis data often come from clinical trials which exclude patients with acute illness. OBJECTIVES: For patients with Stage IV cancer and acute illness hospitalization to 1) describe predictors of 60-day mortality and 2) compare documented decision-making for survivors and decedents. METHODS: Investigators studied a consecutive prospective cohort of patients with Stage IV cancer and acute illness hospitalization. Structured health record and obituary reviews provided data on 60-day mortality (outcome), demographics, health status, and treatment; logistic regression models identified mortality predictors. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-two patients with Stage IV cancer and acute illness hospitalization had median age of 60.2 (51% female, 38% minority race/ethnicity); 156 (32%) died within 60 days, and median survival for decedents was 28 days. Nutritional insufficiency (odds rato [OR] 1.83), serum albumin (OR 2.15 per 1.0 g/dL), and hospital days (OR 1.04) were associated with mortality; age, gender, race, cancer, and acute illness type were not predictive. On admission, 79% of patients had orders indicating Full Code. During 60-day follow-up, 42% of patients discussed goals of care. Documented goals of care discussions were more common for decedents than survivors (70% vs. 28%, P < 0.001), as were orders for do not resuscitate/do not intubate (68% vs. 24%, P < 0.001), stopping cancer-directed therapy (29% vs. 10%, P < 0.001), specialty Palliative Care (79% vs. 44%, P < 0.001), and Hospice (68% vs. 14%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Acute illness hospitalization is a sentinel event in Stage IV cancer. Short-term mortality is high; nutritional decline increases risk. For patients with Stage IV cancer, acute illness hospitalization should trigger goals of care discussions.

Evaluating the care provision of a community-based serious-illness care program via chart measures.

BACKGROUND: Although quality-of-care domains for home-based primary and palliative programs have been proposed, they have had limited testing in practice. Our aim was to evaluate the care provision in a community-based serious-illness care program, a combined home-based primary and palliative care model. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients in an academic community-based serious-illness care program in central North Carolina from August 2014 to March 2016 (n = 159). Chart review included demographics, health status, and operationalized measures of seven quality-of-care domains: medical assessment, care coordination, safety, quality of life, provider competency, goal attainment, and access. RESULTS: Patients were mostly women (56%) with an average age of 70 years. Patients were multi-morbid (53% ≥3 comorbidities), functionally impaired (45% had impairment in ≥2 activities of daily living) and 32% had dementia. During the study period, 31% of patients died. Chart review found high rates assessment of functional status (97%), falls (98%), and medication safety (96%). Rates of pain assessment (70%), advance directive discussions (65%), influenza vaccination (59%), and depression assessment (54% of those with a diagnosis of depression) were lower. Cognitive barriers, spiritual needs, and behavioral issues were assessed infrequently (35, 22, 21%, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study is one of the first to operationalize and examine quality-of-care measures for a community-based serious-illness care program, an emerging model for vulnerable adults. Our operationalization should not constitute validation of these measures and revealed areas for improvement; however, the community-based serious-illness care program performed well in several key quality-of-care domains. Future work is needed to validate these measures.

Does Receipt of Recommended Elements of Palliative Care Precede In-Hospital Death or Hospice Referral?

CONTEXT: Palliative care aligns treatments with patients' values and improves quality of life, yet whether receipt of recommended elements of palliative care is associated with end-of-life outcomes is understudied. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether recommended elements of palliative care (pain and symptom management, goals of care, and spiritual care) precede in-hospital death and hospice referral and whether delivery by specialty palliative care affects that relationship. METHODS: We conducted structured chart reviews for decedents with late-stage cancer, dementia, and chronic kidney disease with a hospital admission during the six months preceding death. Measures included receipt of recommended elements of palliative care delivered by any clinician and specialty palliative care consult. We assessed associations between recommended elements of palliative care and in-hospital death and hospice referral using multivariable Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 402 decedents, 67 (16.7%) died in hospital, and 168 (41.8%) had hospice referral. Among elements of palliative care, only goals-of-care discussion was associated with in-hospital death (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.37; 95% CI 1.01-1.84) and hospice referral (IRR 1.85; 95% CI 1.31-2.61). Specialty palliative care consult was associated with a lower likelihood of in-hospital death (IRR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44-0.73) and a higher likelihood of hospice referral (IRR 1.45; 95% CI 1.12-1.89) compared with no consult. CONCLUSION: Goals-of-care discussions by different types of clinicians commonly precede end-of-life care in hospital or hospice. However, engagement with specialty palliative care reduced in-hospital death and increased hospice referral. Understanding the causal pathways of goals-of-care discussions may help build primary palliative care interventions to support patients near the end of life.

Elements of Palliative Care in the Last 6 Months of Life: Frequency, Predictors, and Timing.

IMPORTANCE: Persons living with serious illness often need skilled symptom management, communication, and spiritual support. Palliative care addresses these needs and may be delivered by either specialists or clinicians trained in other fields. It is important to understand core elements of palliative care to best provide patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: To describe frequency, predictors, and timing of core elements of palliative care during the last 6 months of life. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Inpatient academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Decedents with cancer, dementia, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) admitted during the 6 months preceding death. EXPOSURES: We identified receipt and timing of core elements of palliative care: pain and symptom management, goals of care, spiritual care; and specialty palliative care utilization; hospital encounters; demographics; and comorbid diagnoses. We ran Poisson regression models to assess whether diagnosis or hospital encounters were associated with core elements of palliative care. RESULTS: Among 402 decedents, the mean (SD) number of appropriately screened and treated symptoms was 2.9 (1.7)/10. Among 76.1% with documented goals of care, 58.0% had a primary goal of comfort; 55.0% had documented spiritual care. In multivariable models, compared with decedents with cancer, those with dementia or CKD were less likely to have pain and symptom management (respectively, 31% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.85) and 17% (IRR, 0.83; CI, 0.71-0.97)). There was a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-173) between transition to a goal of comfort and death, and a median of 12 days (IQR, 5-47) between hospice referral and death. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although a high proportion of patients received elements of palliative care, transitions to a goal of comfort or hospice happened very near death. Palliative care delivery can be improved by systematizing existing mechanisms, including prompts for earlier goals-of-care discussion, symptom screening, and spiritual care, and by building collaboration between primary and specialty palliative care services.

Palliative Care in a Community-Based Serious-Illness Care Program.

Background: Although community-based serious-illness care (CBSC) is an innovative care model, it is unclear to what extent CBSC addresses palliative care needs, particularly for those patients near death. Objectives: To evaluate palliative care services of a CBSC program. Design: Retrospective chart reviews. Setting/Subjects: Patients enrolled in a CBSC program in central North Carolina. Measurement: Descriptive statistics of palliative care needs and services, such as symptom management, psychosocial support, and advance care planning (ACP), for survivors and decedents. Results: Patients were seen in an 18-month time frame (n = 159). Mean enrollment in the program was 261.1 days (standard deviation 180.6). Patients' average age was 70 years, 56% were female, and 33% were black. Patients' most frequent comorbidities were dementia (32%), heart failure (32%), and diabetes (28%). Fifty patients (31%) died during the study period. Clinicians most frequently screened for pain (70%), constipation (57%), and dyspnea (57%). Of those screened positive, clinicians most frequently treated pain (92%), anxiety (84%), and constipation (83%). Among the 54% who screened positive for psychosocial distress, 82% received support. Clinicians screened 22% for spiritual needs; 4% received spiritual care. Among decedents, 66% were enrolled in hospice; 14% died in in-hospital. Decedents were more likely than survivors to have ACP (34% vs. 18%, p = 0.03) and a primary goal of comfort (40% vs. 12%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: A CBSC program provided palliative care services comparable with other home-based palliative care programs. Although the CBSC program does not address all domains of palliative care, it provided most with symptom management, psychosocial support, and ACP.

Comparing Specialty and Primary Palliative Care Interventions: Analysis of a Systematic Review.

Background: Investigators have tested interventions delivered by specialty palliative care (SPC) clinicians, or by clinicians without palliative care specialization (primary palliative care, PPC). Objective: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of SPC and PPC interventions. Design: Systematic review secondary analysis. Setting/Subjects: RCTs of palliative care interventions. Measurements: Interventions were classified SPC if delivered by palliative care board-certified or subspecialty trained clinicians, or those with extensive clinical experience; all others were PPC. We abstracted data for each intervention: delivery setting, delivery clinicians, outcomes measured, trial results, and Cochrane's Risk of Bias. We conducted narrative synthesis for quality of life, symptom burden, and survival. Results: Of 43 RCTs, 27 tested SPC and 16 tested PPC interventions. SPC interventions were more comprehensive (4.2 elements of palliative care vs. 3.1 in PPC, p = 0.02). SPC interventions were delivered in inpatient (44%) or outpatient settings (52%) by specialty physicians (44%) and nurses (44%); PPC interventions were delivered in inpatient (38%) and home settings (38%) by nurses (75%). PPC trials were more often of high risk of bias than SPC trials. Improvements were demonstrated on quality of life by SPC and PPC trials and on physical symptoms by SPC trials. Conclusions: Compared to PPC, SPC interventions were more comprehensive, were more often delivered in clinical settings, and demonstrated stronger evidence for improving physical symptoms. In the face of SPC workforce limitations, PPC interventions should be tested in more trials with low risk of bias, and may effectively meet some palliative care needs.