Perceptions of Palliative Care Program Viability During the Pandemic: Qualitative Results From a National Survey.

Background: Palliative care programs have played a significant role during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the financial impact of the pandemic and operational challenges for palliative care programs have raised concerns for their future viability. Objectives: To explore palliative care program leaders' perceptions of the future viability of their programs in the context of the pandemic and inform future educational and program development. Methods: Surveys were sent to 1430 specialist palliative care program leaders, identified through the Center to Advance Palliative Care's contact lists, via email in May 2020 and January 2021. Leaders were asked why they were or were not concerned about the viability of their palliative care programs. Qualitative content analysis was applied to determine themes. Results: We received 440 responses. Most programs served hospital settings and were geographically located across all US regions. We identified four themes: 1) The importance of being valued by organizational leadership and peers, 2) The importance of adequate and supported palliative care staff, 3) The pandemic validated and accelerated the need for palliative care, and 4) The pandemic perpetuated organizational financial concerns. Conclusion: Findings provide insights about palliative care program viability from the perspective of program leaders during a global pandemic. Technical assistance to support palliative care teams and their relationships with stakeholders, methods to measure the impact of peer support, efforts to educate administrators about the value of palliative care, and efforts to reduce burnout are needed to sustain palliative care programs into the future.

An Update: National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Palliative Medicine 2016-2020.

Background: The evidence base to support palliative care clinical practice is inadequate and opportunities to improve the evidence base remain despite the field's rapid growth. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine current National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of palliative medicine research and trends over time. Design: We sought to identify NIH funding of palliative medicine (2016-2020) in two stages: (1) we searched the NIH grant database, RePORTER, for grants with the keywords, "palliative care," "end-of-life care," "hospice," and "end of life," and (2) identified palliative care researchers likely to have secured NIH funding using three strategies. Methods: We abstracted (1) the first and last authors' names from original investigations published in major palliative medicine journals from 2016 to 2018; (2) names from a PubMed-generated list of original articles published in major medicine, nursing, and subspecialty journals using the above keywords; and (3) palliative medicine journal editorial board members and members of key palliative medicine initiatives. We cross-matched the pooled names against NIH grants funded from 2016 to 2021. Results: A crosswalk analysis of the author search and NIH RePORTER search identified 1658 grants. Of those, 541 were categorized as relevant to palliative medicine, which represented 419 unique principal investigators (mean of 1.34 grants per investigator). Compared with 2011-2015, the number of NIH-funded grants increased by 25%, NIH dollars increased by 35%, and the distribution of grant types remained stable. Conclusions: Despite the challenging NIH funding climate, the number of NIH grants and funding to palliative care have increased. Given the increased funding allocation toward Alzheimer's dementia and related dementia research at the congressional level, this increase in funding reflects this funding allocation and does not represent overall growth. Dedicated federal funding for palliative care research remains critical to grow the evidence base for persons living with serious illnesses and their families.

Telemedicine Utilization in the Ambulatory Palliative Care Setting: Are There Disparities?

CONTEXT: Given a shortage of specialty palliative care clinicians and geographic variation in availability, telemedicine has been proposed as one way to improve access to palliative care services for patients with cancer. However, the enduring digital divide raises questions about whether unequal access will exacerbate healthcare disparities. OBJECTIVES: To examine factors associated with utilization of telemedicine as compared to in-person visits by patients with cancer in the ambulatory palliative care setting. METHODS: We collected data on patients seen in Supportive Oncology clinic by palliative care clinicians with an in-person or telemedicine visit from March 1 to December 30, 2020. A logistic regression with generalized estimating equation was fit to assess the association between visit type and patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 491 patients and 1783 visits were identified, including 1061 (60%) in-person visits and 722 (40%) telemedicine visits. Female patients were significantly more likely to utilize telemedicine than male patients (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.11-1.90). Spanish-speaking patients (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.61), those without insurance (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.52), and those without an activated patient portal (Inactivated: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.82; Pending Activation: OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18-0.48) were less likely to utilize telemedicine. CONCLUSION: Our study reveals disparities in telemedicine utilization in the ambulatory palliative care setting for patients with cancer who are male, Spanish-speaking, uninsured, or do not have an activated patient portal. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can better meet the palliative care needs of patients with cancer through telemedicine only if equity is kept at the forefront of our discussions.

Access to Palliative Care Consultation for Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in an Urban Health System: Were There Disparities at the Peak of the Pandemic?

Background: Palliative care (PC) services expanded rapidly to meet the needs of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, yet little is known about which patients were referred for PC consultation during the pandemic. Objective: Examine factors predictive of PC consultation for COVID-19 patients. Design: Retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients discharged from four hospitals (March 1-June 30, 2020). Exposures: Patient demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors and hospital-level characteristics. Outcome Measurement: Inpatient PC consultation. Results: Of 4319 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 581 (14%) received PC consultation. Increasing age, serious illness (cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia), greater illness severity, and admission to the quaternary hospital were associated with receipt of PC consultation. There was no association between PC consultation and race/ethnicity, household crowding, insurance status, or hospital-factors, including inpatient, emergency department, and intensive care unit census. Conclusions: Although site variation existed, the highest acuity patients were most likely to receive PC consultation without racial/ethnic or socioeconomic disparities.

Improving the Care of Patients With Serious Illness: What Are the Palliative Care Education Needs of Internal Medicine Residents?

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with serious illness have significant symptom burden and face complex medical decisions that often require goals of care discussions. Given the shortage of specialty palliative care providers, there is a pressing need to improve the palliative care skills of internal medicine (IM) residents, who have a central role in the care of seriously ill patients hospitalized at academic medical centers. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous survey of IM residents at a large, urban, academic medical center to identify which aspects of palliative care trainees find most important and their knowledge gaps in palliative care. The survey measured trainees' self-assessed degree of importance and knowledge of core palliative care skills and evaluated frequency of completing advance care planning documentation. RESULTS: Overall, 51 (23%) IM residents completed the survey. The majority of trainees considered multiple palliative care skills to be "very important/important": symptom management, prognostication, introducing the palliative care approach, discussing code status, and breaking serious news. Across these same skills, trainees reported variable levels of knowledge. In our sample, trainees reported completing healthcare proxy forms and Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: IM trainees rated core palliative care skills as important to their practice. Yet, they reported knowledge gaps across multiple core palliative care skills that should be addressed given their role as frontline providers for patients with serious illness.

A Descriptive Analysis of an Ambulatory Kidney Palliative Care Program.

Background: Many patients with serious kidney disease have an elevated symptom burden, high mortality, and poor quality of life. Palliative care has the potential to address these problems, yet nephrology patients frequently lack access to this specialty. Objectives: We describe patient demographics and clinical activities of the first 13 months of an ambulatory kidney palliative care (KPC) program that is integrated within a nephrology practice. Design/Measurements: Utilizing chart abstractions, we characterize the clinic population served, clinical service utilization, visit activities, and symptom burden as assessed using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Renal (IPOS-R), and patient satisfaction. Results: Among the 55 patients served, mean patient age was 72.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 16.7), 95% had chronic kidney disease stage IV or V, and 46% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index >8. The mean IPOS-R score at initial visit was 16 (range = 0-60; SD = 9.1), with a mean of 7.5 (SD = 3.7) individual physical symptoms (range = 0-15) per patient. Eighty-seven percent of initial visits included an advance care planning conversation, 55.4% included a medication change for symptoms, and 35.5% included a dialysis decision-making conversation. Overall, 96% of patients who returned satisfaction surveys were satisfied with the care they received and viewed the KPC program positively. Conclusions: A model of care that integrates palliative care with nephrology care in the ambulatory setting serves high-risk patients with serious kidney disease. This KPC program can potentially meet documented gaps in care while achieving patient satisfaction. Early findings from this program evaluation indicate opportunities for enhanced patient-centered palliative nephrology care.

Mistreatment and the learning environment for medical students on general surgery clerkship rotations: What do key stakeholders think?

BACKGROUND: Mistreatment has potential downstream effects on students. General surgery rotations tend to have a higher incidence of mistreatment reports. This study was undertaken to identify dominant themes contributing to a negative learning environment. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed using Delphi consensus technique to develop a discussion guide. Four focus groups were performed (n = 30 participants) with medical students, residents, nurses, and attending surgeons. Participants were selected using purposive-stratified criterion-based sampling. RESULTS: Multiple themes emerged: 1) unclear expectations for medical students; 2) passive mistreatment (neglect); 3) failure to integrate students into surgical team; 4) witnessed or experienced active mistreatment, 5) negative attitude of residents towards medical students' lack of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Medical student mistreatment persists and is a threat to the learning environment and individual learning process. Passive mistreatment (neglect) represents the most distressing component of mistreatment. These findings suggest a need for education aimed at surgical residents and others in the learning environment.

Surgeons' Perspectives on Avoiding Nonbeneficial Treatments in Seriously Ill Older Patients with Surgical Emergencies: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decisions for seriously ill older patients with surgical emergencies are highly complex. Measuring the benefits of burdensome treatments in this context is fraught with uncertainty. Little is known about how surgeons formulate treatment decisions to avoid nonbeneficial surgery, or engage in preoperative conversations about end-of-life (EOL) care. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe how surgeons approach such discussions, and to identify modifiable factors to reduce nonbeneficial surgery near the EOL. DESIGN: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit a national sample of emergency general surgeons. Semistructured interviews were conducted between February and May 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Three independent coders performed qualitative coding using NVivo software (NVivo version 10.0, QSR International). Content analysis was used to identify factors important to surgical decision making and EOL communication. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons were interviewed. Participants felt responsible for conducting EOL conversations with seriously ill older patients and their families before surgery to prevent nonbeneficial treatments. However, wide differences in prognostic estimates among surgeons, inadequate data about postoperative quality of life (QOL), patients and surrogates who were unprepared for EOL conversations, variation in perceptions about the role of palliative care, and time constraints are contributors to surgeons providing nonbeneficial operations. Surgeons reported performing operations they knew would not benefit the patient to give the family time to come to terms with the patient's demise. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency general surgeons feel responsible for having preoperative discussions about EOL care with seriously ill older patients to avoid nonbenefical surgery. However, surgeons identified multiple factors that undermine adequate communication and lead to nonbeneficial surgery.

Recommendations for Best Communication Practices to Facilitate Goal-concordant Care for Seriously Ill Older Patients With Emergency Surgical Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To address the need for improved communication practices to facilitate goal-concordant care in seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Improved communication is increasingly recognized as a central element in providing goal-concordant care and reducing health care utilization and costs among seriously ill older patients. Given high rates of surgery in the last weeks of life, high risk of poor outcomes after emergency operations in these patients, and barriers to quality communication in the acute setting, we sought to create a framework to support surgeons in communicating with seriously ill, older patients with surgical emergencies. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 23 national leaders was convened for a 1-day conference at Harvard Medical School to provide input on concept, content, format, and usability of a communication framework. A prototype framework was created. RESULTS: Participants supported the concept of a structured approach to communication in these scenarios, and delineated 9 key elements of a framework: (1) formulating prognosis, (2) creating a personal connection, (3) disclosing information regarding the acute problem in the context of the underlying illness, (4) establishing a shared understanding of the patient's condition, (5) allowing silence and dealing with emotion, (6) describing surgical and palliative treatment options, (7) eliciting patient's goals and priorities, (8) making a treatment recommendation, and (9) affirming ongoing support for the patient and family. CONCLUSIONS: Communication with seriously ill patients in the acute setting is difficult. The proposed communication framework may assist surgeons in delivering goal-concordant care for high-risk patients.