Assessment of a Crisis Standards of Care Scoring System for Resource Prioritization and Estimated Excess Mortality by Race, Ethnicity, and Socially Vulnerable Area During a Regional Surge in COVID-19.

Importance: Crisis standards of care (CSOC) scores designed to allocate scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic could exacerbate racial disparities in health care. Objective: To analyze the association of a CSOC scoring system with resource prioritization and estimated excess mortality by race, ethnicity, and residence in a socially vulnerable area. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients in the intensive care unit during a regional COVID-19 surge from April 13 to May 22, 2020, at 6 hospitals in a health care network in greater Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were scored by acute severity of illness using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and chronic severity of illness using comorbidity and life expectancy scores, and only participants with complete scores were included. The score was ordinal, with cutoff points suggested by the Massachusetts guidelines. Exposures: Race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion of patients in the lowest priority score category stratified by self-reported race. Secondary outcomes were discrimination and calibration of the score overall and by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index. Projected excess deaths were modeled by race, using the priority scoring system and a random lottery. Results: Of 608 patients in the intensive care unit during the study period, 498 had complete data and were included in the analysis; this population had a median (IQR) age of 67 (56-75) years, 191 (38.4%) female participants, 79 (15.9%) Black participants, and 225 patients (45.7%) with COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the priority score was 0.79 and was similar across racial groups. Black patients were more likely than others to be in the lowest priority group (12 [15.2%] vs 34 [8.1%]; P = .046). In an exploratory simulation model using the score for ventilator allocation, with only those in the highest priority group receiving ventilators, there were 43.9% excess deaths among Black patients (18 of 41 patients) and 28.6% (58 of 203 patients among all others (P = .05); when the highest and intermediate priority groups received ventilators, there were 4.9% (2 of 41 patients) excess deaths among Black patients and 3.0% (6 of 203) among all others (P = .53). A random lottery resulted in more excess deaths than the score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a CSOC priority score resulted in lower prioritization of Black patients to receive scarce resources. A model using a random lottery resulted in more estimated excess deaths overall without improving equity by race. CSOC policies must be evaluated for their potential association with racial disparities in health care.

The Center for Trauma Survivorship: Addressing the great unmet need for posttrauma center care.

BACKGROUND: Returning patients to preinjury status is the goal of a trauma system. Trauma centers (TCs) provide inpatient care, but postdischarge treatment is fragmented with clinic follow-up rates of <30%. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression are common, but few patients ever obtain necessary behavioral health services. We postulated that a multidisciplinary Center for Trauma Survivorship (CTS) providing comprehensive care would meet patient's needs, improve postdischarge compliance, deliver behavioral health, and decrease unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions. METHODS: Focus groups of trauma survivors were conducted to identify issues following TC discharge. Center for Trauma Survivorship eligible patients are aged 18 to 80 years and have intensive care unit stay of >2 days or have a New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. Center for Trauma Survivorship visits were scheduled by a dedicated navigator and included physical and behavioral health care. Patients were screened for PTSD and depression. Patients screening positive were referred for behavioral health services. Patients were provided 24/7 access to the CTS team. Outcomes include compliance with appointments, mental health visits, unplanned ED visits, and readmissions in the year following discharge from the TC. RESULTS: Patients universally felt abandoned by the TC after discharge. Over 1 year, 107 patients had 386 CTS visits. Average time for each appointment was >1 hour. Center for Trauma Survivorship "no show" rate was 17%. Eighty-six percent screening positive for PTSD/depression successfully received behavioral health services. Postdischarge ED and hospital admissions were most often for infections or unrelated conditions. Emergency department utilization was significantly lower than a similarly injured group of patients 1 year before the inception of the CTS. CONCLUSION: A CTS fills the vast gaps in care following TC discharge leading to improved compliance with appointments and delivery of physical and behavioral health services. Center for Trauma Survivorship also appears to decrease ED visits in the year following discharge. To achieve optimal long-term recovery from injury, trauma care must continue long after patients leave the TC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level III.

Older Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: National Variability in Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) have higher mortality and morbidity than their younger counterparts. Palliative care (PC) is recommended for all patients with a serious or life-limiting illness. However, its adoption for trauma patients has been variable across the nation. The goal of this study was to assess PC utilization and intensity of care in older patients with severe TBI. We hypothesized that PC is underutilized despite its positive effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database (2009-2013) was queried for patients aged ≥55 y with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for TBI with loss of consciousness ≥24 h. Outcome measures included PC rate, in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and intensity of care represented by craniotomy and or craniectomy, ventilator use, tracheostomy, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. RESULTS: Of 5733 patients, 78% died in hospital with a median LOS of 1 d, and 85% of the survivors were discharged to facilities. The overall PC rate was 35%. Almost 40% of deaths received PC, with nearly half within 48 h of admission. PC was used in 26% who had neurosurgical procedures, compared with 35% who were nonoperatively managed (P = 0.003). PC was associated with less intensity of care in the entire population. For survivors, those with PC had significantly shorter LOS, compared with those without PC. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high mortality, only one-third of older patients with severe TBI received PC. PC was associated with decreased use of life support and lower intensity of care. Significant efforts need to be made to bridge this quality gap and improve PC in this high-risk population.

Evidence-based review of trauma center care and routine palliative care processes for geriatric trauma patients; A collaboration from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Patient Assessment Committee, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric Trauma Committee, and the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee.

BACKGROUND: Despite an aging population and increasing number of geriatric trauma patients annually, gaps in our understanding of best practices for geriatric trauma patients persist. We know that trauma center care improves outcomes for injured patients generally, and palliative care processes can improve outcomes for disease-specific conditions, and our goal was to determine effectiveness of these interventions on outcomes for geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: A priori questions were created regarding outcomes for patients 65 years or older with respect to care at trauma centers versus nontrauma centers and use of routine palliative care processes. A query of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE was performed. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to perform a systematic review and create recommendations. RESULTS: We reviewed seven articles relevant to trauma center care and nine articles reporting results on palliative care processes as they related to geriatric trauma patients. Given data quality and limitations, we conditionally recommend trauma center care for the severely injured geriatric trauma patients but are unable to make a recommendation on the question of routine palliative care processes for geriatric trauma patients. CONCLUSIONS: As our older adult population increases, injured geriatric patients will continue to pose challenges for care, such as comorbidities or frailty. We found that trauma center care was associated with improved outcomes for geriatric trauma patients in most studies and that utilization of early palliative care consultations was generally associated with improved secondary outcomes, such as length of stay; however, inconsistency and imprecision prevented us from making a clear recommendation for this question. As caregivers, we should ensure adequate support for trauma systems and palliative care processes in our institutions and communities and continue to support robust research to study these and other aspects of geriatric trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/guideline, level III.

Establishing Goals of Care for Patients With Stroke and Feeding Problems: An Interdisciplinary Trigger-Based Continuous Quality Improvement Project.

BACKGROUND: Few patients with dysphagia because of stroke receive early palliative care (PC) to align treatment goals with their values, as called for by practice guidelines, particularly before enteral access procedures for artificial nutrition. MEASURES: To increase documented goals of care (GOC) discussions among acute stroke patients before feeding gastrostomy tube placement. INTERVENTION: We undertook a rapid-cycle continuous quality improvement process with interdisciplinary planning, implementation, and performance review to operationalize an upstream trigger for PC referral prompted by the speech and language pathology evaluation. OUTCOMES: During a six-month period, 21 patients underwent gastrostomy tube placement; 52% had preprocedure GOC discussions postintervention, with the rate of compliance increasing steadily from 13% (11/87, preintervention) to 100% (2/2) in the final two months. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: We effectively increased documented GOC discussions before feeding gastrostomy tube placement among stroke patients. Systems-based tools and education will enhance this upstream trigger model to ensure early PC for stroke patients.

Delirium prevention program in the surgical intensive care unit improved the outcomes of older adults.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired delirium is a known risk factor for negative outcomes in patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Outcomes worsen as the duration of delirium increases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a delirium prevention program and determine whether it decreased the incidence and duration of hospital-acquired delirium in older adults (age>50 y) admitted to the SICU. METHODS: A prospective pre- or post-intervention cohort study was done at an academic level I trauma center. Older adults admitted to the SICU were enrolled in a delirium prevention program. Those with traumatic brain injury, dementia, or 0 d of obtainable delirium status were excluded from analysis. The intervention consisted of multidisciplinary education, a pharmacologic protocol to limit medications associated with delirium, and a nonpharmacologic sleep enhancement protocol. Primary outcomes were incidence of delirium and delirium-free days/30. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days/30, SICU length of stay (LOS), daily and cumulative doses of opioids (milligram, morphine equivalents) and benzodiazepines (milligram, lorazepam equivalents), and time spent in severe pain (greater than or equal to 6 on a scale of 1-10). Delirium was measured using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Data were analyzed using Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum analysis. RESULTS: Of 624 patients admitted to the SICU, 123 met inclusion criteria: 57 preintervention (3/12-6/12) and 66 postintervention (7/12-3/13). Cohorts were similar in age, gender, ratio of trauma patients, and Injury Severity Score. Postintervention, older adults experienced delirium at the same incidence (pre 47% versus 58%, P=0.26), but for a significantly decreased duration as indicated by an increase in delirium-free days/30 (pre 24 versus 27, P=0.002). After intervention, older adults with delirium had more vent-free days (pre 21 versus 25, P=0.03), shorter SICU LOS (pre 13 [median 12] versus 7 [median 6], P=0.01) and were less likely to be treated with benzodiazepines (pre 85% versus 63%, P=0.05) with a lower daily dose when prescribed (pre 5.7 versus 3.6 mg, P=0.04). After intervention, all older adults spent less time in pain (pre 4.7 versus 3.1 h, P=0.02), received less total opioids (pre 401 versus 260 mg, P=0.01), and had shorter SICU LOS (pre 9 [median 5] versus 6 [median 4], P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although delirium prevention continues to be a challenge, this study successfully decreased the duration of delirium for older adults admitted to the SICU. Our simple, cost-effective program led to improved pain and sedation outcomes. Older adults with delirium spent less time on the ventilator and all patients spent less time in the SICU.

Physician reimbursement for critical care services integrating palliative care for patients who are critically ill.

Patients with advanced illness often spend time in an ICU, while nearly one-third of patients with advanced cancer who receive Medicare die in hospitals, often with failed ICU care. For most, death occurs following the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatments. The integration of palliative care is essential for high-quality critical care. Although palliative care specialists are becoming increasingly available, intensivists and other physicians are also expected to provide basic palliative care, including symptom treatment and communication about goals of care. Patients who are critically ill are often unable to make decisions about their care. In these situations, physicians must meet with family members or other surrogates to determine appropriate medical treatments. These meetings require clinical expertise to ensure that patient values are explored for medical decision making about therapeutic options, including palliative care. Meetings with families take time. Issues related to the disease process, prognosis, and treatment plan are complex, and decisions about the use or limitation of intensive care therapies have life-or-death implications. Inadequate reimbursement for physician services may be a barrier to the optimal delivery of high-quality palliative care, including effective communication. Appropriate documentation of time spent integrating palliative and critical care for patients who are critically ill can be consistent with the Current Procedural Terminology codes (99291 and 99292) for critical care services. The purpose of this article is to help intensivists and other providers understand the circumstances in which integration of palliative and critical care meets the definition of critical care services for billing purposes.

Family satisfaction following the death of a loved one in an inner city MICU.

This study examined family satisfaction with end-of-life care in a medical intensive care unit (MICU) before and after a palliative care intervention was implemented there. This intervention consisted of early communication, family meetings, and psychosocial support. Family members of patients who died in the MICU in 2005 and 2006 were contacted 2 to 16 months after the death of their relatives. Trained interviewers used the Family Satisfaction with Care Questionnaire to assess the families' perceptions of the care given to their family members. Minorities comprised 77% of the patient population. Comparison of the levels of family satisfaction in the preintervention and postintervention groups demonstrated that the intervention significantly improved the quality of end-of-life care, particularly through increases in family members' satisfaction with decision making, communication with physicians and nurses, and the death and dying process.