Palliative and end-of-life educational practices in US pulmonary and critical care training programs.

PURPOSE: To describe educational features in palliative and end-of-life care (PEOLC) in pulmonary/critical care fellowships and identify the features associated with perceptions of trainee competence in PEOLC. METHODS: A survey of educational features in 102 training programs and the perceived skill and comfort level of trainees in 6 PEOLC domains: communication, symptom control, ethical/legal, community/institutional resources, specific syndromes, and ventilator withdrawal. We evaluated associations between perceived trainee competence/comfort in PEOLC and training program features, using regression analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of program directors (PDs) reported faculty with training in PEOLC; 30% had a written PEOLC curriculum. Neither feature was associated with trainee competence/comfort. Program directors and trainees rated bedside PEOLC teaching highly. Only 20% offered PEOLC rotations; most trainees judged these valuable. Most PDs and trainees reported that didactic teaching was insufficient in communication, although sufficient teaching of this was associated with perceived trainee competence in communication. Perceived trainee competence in managing institutional resources was rated poorly. Program directors reporting significant barriers to PEOLC education also judged trainees less competent in PEOLC. Time constraint was the greatest barrier. CONCLUSION: This survey of PEOLC education in US pulmonary/critical care fellowships identified associations between certain program features and perceived trainee skill in PEOLC. These results generate hypotheses for further study.

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.