Provider Perceptions Regarding Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Surgical Patients with Frailty.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the perceptions of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and geriatricians regarding perioperative CPR in surgical patients with frailty. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The population of patients undergoing surgery is growing older and more frail. Despite a growing focus on goal-concordant care, frailty assessment, and debate regarding the appropriateness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with frailty, providers' views regarding frailty and perioperative CPR are unknown. METHODS: We performed qualitative thematic analysis of transcripts from semi-structured interviews of anesthesiologists (8), surgeons (10), and geriatricians (9) who care for high-risk surgical patients at two academic medical centers in Boston, MA. The interview guide elicited clinicians' understanding of frailty, approach to decision-making regarding perioperative CPR, and perceptions of perioperative CPR in frail surgical patients. RESULTS: We identified 5 themes: perceptions of perioperative CPR in patients with frailty vary by provider specialty; judgments regarding appropriateness of CPR in surgical patients with frailty are typically multifactorial and include patient goals, age, comorbidities, and arrest etiology; resuscitation in patients with frailty is sometimes associated with moral distress; biases such as ableism and ageism may skew clinicians' perceptions of appropriateness of perioperative CPR in patients with frailty; and evidence to guide risk stratification for patients with frailty undergoing perioperative CPR is inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists, surgeons, and geriatricians offer different accounts of frailty's relevance to judgments regarding CPR in surgical patients. Divergent views regarding frailty and perioperative CPR may impede efforts to deliver goal-concordant care and suggest a need for research to inform risk stratification, predict patient-centered outcomes, and understand the role of potential biases such as ageism and ableism.

Surgeon-reported Factors Influencing Adoption of Quality Standards for Goal-concordant Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored surgical oncologists' perspectives on factors influencing adoption of quality standards in patients with advanced cancer. BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program includes communication standards designed to facilitate goal-concordant care, yet little is known about how surgeons believe these standards align with clinical practice. METHODS: Semistructured video-based interviews were conducted from November 2020 to January 2021 with academic surgical oncologists purposively sampled based on demographics, region, palliative care certification, and years in practice. Interviews addressed: (1) adherence to standards documenting care preferences for life-sustaining treatment, surrogate decision-maker, and goals of surgery; and (2) factors influencing their adoption into practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, qualitatively analyzed, and conducted until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-six surgeons participated (57.7% male, 8.5 mean years in practice, 19.2% palliative care board-certified). Surgeons reported low adherence to documenting care preferences and surrogate decision-maker and high adherence to discussing, but not documenting, goals of surgery. Participants held conflicting views about the relevance of care preferences to preoperative conversations and surrogate decision-maker documentation by the surgeon and questioned the direct connection between documentation of quality standards and higher value patient care. Key themes regarding factors influencing adoption of quality standards included organizational culture, workflow, and multidisciplinary collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Although surgeons routinely discuss goals of surgery, documentation is inconsistent; care preferences and surrogate decision-makers are rarely discussed or documented. Adherence to these standards would be facilitated by multidisciplinary collaboration, institutional standardization, and evidence linking standards to higher value care.

Improving Serious Illness Care for Surgical Patients: Quality Indicators for Surgical Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVE: Develop quality indicators that measure access to and the quality of primary PC delivered to seriously ill surgical patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PC for seriously ill surgical patients, including aligning treatments with patients' goals and managing symptoms, is associated with improved patient-oriented outcomes and decreased healthcare utilization. However, efforts to integrate PC alongside restorative surgical care are limited by a lack of surgical quality indicators to evaluate primary PC delivery. METHODS: We developed a set of 27 preliminary indicators that measured palliative processes of care across the surgical episode, including goals of care, decision-making, symptom assessment, and issues related to palliative surgery. Then using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness method, a 12-member expert advisory panel rated the validity (primary outcome) and feasibility of each indicator twice: (1) remotely and (2) after an in-person moderated discussion. RESULTS: After 2 rounds of rating, 24 indicators were rated as valid, covering the preoperative evaluation (9 indicators), immediate preoperative readiness (2 indicators), intraoperative (1 indicator), postoperative (8 indicators), and end of life (4 indicators) phases of surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: This set of quality indicators provides a comprehensive set of process measures that possess the potential to measure high quality PC for seriously ill surgical patients throughout the surgical episode.

A Retrospective Observational Study Exploring 30- and 90-Day Outcomes for Patients With COVID-19 After Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Gastrostomy Placement.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the 30- and 90-day outcomes of COVID-19 patients receiving tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multisite, inpatient. PATIENTS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy and PEG at four Boston hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Tracheostomy and PEG placement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was mortality at 30 and 90 days post-procedure. Secondary outcomes included continued device presence, place of residence, complications, and rehospitalizations. Eighty-one COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy and PEG placement were included. At 90 days post-device placement, the mortality rate was 9.9%, 2.7% still had the tracheostomy, 32.9% still had the PEG, and 58.9% were at home. CONCLUSIONS: More than nine-in-10 patients in our population of COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy and PEG were alive 90 days later and most were living at home. This study provides new information regarding the outcomes of this patient population that may serve as a step in guiding clinicians, patients, and families when making decisions regarding these devices.

Frailty and Survival After In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Older adults face high mortality following resuscitation efforts for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Less is known about the role of frailty in survival to discharge after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether frailty, measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale, is associated with mortality after cardiopulmonary resuscitation following in-hospital cardiac arrest in older adults in the USA. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥ 65 years who had undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation during an inpatient admission at two urban academic hospitals and three suburban community hospitals within a Boston area healthcare system from January 2018-January 2020. Patients with Clinical Frailty Scale scores 1-3 were considered not frail, 4-6 were considered very mildly, mildly, and moderately frail, respectively, and 7-9 were considered severely frail. MAIN MEASURES: In-hospital mortality after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. KEY RESULTS: Among 324 patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation following in-hospital cardiac arrest, 73.1% experienced in-hospital mortality. Patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 1-3 had 54% in-hospital mortality, which increased to 66%, 78%, 84%, and 84% for those with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 4, 5, 6, and 7-9, respectively (p = 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, higher frailty scores were significantly associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality. Compared to those with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 1-3, odds ratios (95% CI) for in-hospital mortality for patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 4, 5, 6, and 7-9 were 1.6 (0.8-3.3), 3.0 (1.3-7.1), 4.4 (1.9-9.9), and 4.6 (1.8-11.8), respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of frailty are associated with increased mortality after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation in older adults. Clinicians may consider using the Clinical Frailty Scale to help guide goals of care conversations, including discussion of code status, in this patient population.

Which Geriatric Variables Most Strongly Inform Discharge Disposition After Emergency Surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Older adults account for an increasing proportion of emergency surgical procedures and have longer hospital lengths of stay than their elective counterparts. Identifying those at greatest risk of discharge to a postacute care facility would improve postoperative planning. We aimed to examine the role of preoperative cognitive and functional status on discharge disposition after emergency surgery in older adults. METHODS: We used American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Geriatric Pilot Project data from 2014 to 2018 to identify patients ≥65 y who underwent inpatient emergency surgery. The primary outcome was nonhome discharge, defined as discharge to an acute rehabilitation facility, a skilled nursing facility, or a nonhome unskilled facility. Logistic regression controlling for patient characteristics was used to determine the association of preoperative geriatric-specific variables with nonhome discharge. RESULTS: Of 3494 patients, 53.9% were not discharged home. In multivariable analysis, a fall within the past year (odds ratio [OR] = 5.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4-6.5) was most strongly associated with nonhome discharge. The outcome was also independently associated with preoperative use of a mobility aid (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.7-2.4), partially dependent functional status (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4-2.5), and surrogate consent (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1-1.8), but not cognitive impairment (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.7-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing for a history of falls and impaired mobility at the initial surgical evaluation can rapidly identify patients most likely to need postacute care. Further work is needed to assess the association between pre-existing cognitive impairment and discharge disposition after emergency surgery.

Development of a Stakeholder Driven Serious Illness Communication Program for Advance Care Planning in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Serious Illness.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a generalizable advance care planning (ACP) intervention for children, adolescents, and young adults with serious illness using a multistage, stakeholder-driven approach. STUDY DESIGN: We first convened an expert panel of multidisciplinary health care providers (HCPs), researchers, and parents to delineate key ACP intervention elements. We then adapted an existing adult guide for use in pediatrics and conducted focus groups and interviews with HCPs, parents, and seriously ill adolescents and young adults to contextualize perspectives on ACP communication and our Pediatric Serious Illness Communication Program (PediSICP). Using thematic analysis, we identified guide adaptations, preferred content, and barriers for Pedi-SICP implementation. Expert panelists then reviewed, amended and finalized intervention components. RESULTS: Stakeholders (34 HCPs, 9 parents, and 7 seriously ill adolescents and young adults) participated in focus groups and interviews. Stakeholders validated and refined the guide and PediSICP intervention and identified barriers to PediSICP implementation, including the need for HCP training, competing demands, uncertainty regarding timing, and documentation of ACP discussions. CONCLUSIONS: The finalized PediSICP intervention includes a structured HCP and family ACP communication occasion supported by a 3-part communication tool and bolstered by focused HCP training. We also identified strategies to ameliorate implementation barriers. Future research will determine the feasibility of the PediSICP and whether it improves care alignment with patient and family goals.

Beyond the Do-not-resuscitate Order: An Expanded Approach to Decision-making Regarding Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Older Surgical Patients.

American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines recommend that anesthesiologists revisit do-not-resuscitate orders preoperatively and revise them if necessary based on patient preferences. In patients without do-not-resuscitate orders or other directives limiting treatment however, "full code" is the default option irrespective of clinical circumstances and patient preferences. It is time to revisit this approach based on (1) increasing understanding of the power of default options in healthcare settings, (2) changing demographics and growing evidence suggesting that an expanding subset of patients is vulnerable to poor outcomes after perioperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and (3) recommendations from multiple societies promoting risk assessment and goal-concordant care in older surgical patients. The authors reconsider current guidelines in the context of these developments and advocate for an expanded approach to decision-making regarding CPR, which involves identifying high-risk elderly patients and eliciting their preferences regarding CPR irrespective of existing or presumed code status.

Prioritizing Primary Care Patients for a Communication Intervention Using the "Surprise Question": a Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Communication about priorities and goals improves the value of care for patients with serious illnesses. Resource constraints necessitate targeting interventions to patients who need them most. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a clinician screening tool to identify patients for a communication intervention. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care clinics in Boston, MA. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (PCPs) and nurse care coordinators (RNCCs) identified patients at high risk of dying by answering the Surprise Question (SQ): "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 2 years?" MEASUREMENTS: Performance of the SQ for predicting mortality, measured by the area under receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Sensitivity of PCP response to the SQ at 2 years was 79.4% and specificity 68.6%; for RNCCs, sensitivity was 52.6% and specificity 80.6%. In univariate regression, the odds of 2-year mortality for patients identified as high risk by PCPs were 8.4 times higher than those predicted to be at low risk (95% CI 5.7-12.4, AUC 0.74) and 4.6 for RNCCs (3.4-6.2, AUC 0.67). In multivariate analysis, both PCP and RNCC prediction of high risk of death remained associated with the odds of 2-year mortality. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted in the context of a high-risk care management program, including an initial screening process and training, both of which affect the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: When used in combination with a high-risk algorithm, the 2-year version of the SQ captured the majority of patients who died, demonstrating better than expected performance as a screening tool for a serious illness communication intervention in a heterogeneous primary care population.

Opening the Door: The Experience of Chronic Critical Illness in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Chronically critically ill patients have recurrent infections, organ dysfunction, and at least half die within 1 year. They are frequently cared for in long-term acute care hospitals, yet little is known about their experience in this setting. Our objective was to explore the understanding and expectations and goals of these patients and surrogates. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews with chronically critically ill long-term acute care hospital patients or surrogates. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. SETTING: One long-term acute care hospital. SUBJECTS: Chronically critically ill patients, defined by tracheotomy for prolonged mechanical ventilation, or surrogates. INTERVENTION: Semi-structured conversation about quality of life, expectations, and planning for setbacks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 50 subjects (30 patients and 20 surrogates) were enrolled. Thematic analyses demonstrated: 1) poor quality of life for patients; 2) surrogate stress and anxiety; 3) optimistic health expectations; 4) poor planning for medical setbacks; and 5) disruptive care transitions. Nearly 80% of patient and their surrogate decision makers identified going home as a goal; 38% were at home at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Our study describes the experience of chronically critically ill patients and surrogates in an long-term acute care hospital and the feasibility of patient-focused research in this setting. Our findings indicate overly optimistic expectations about return home and unmet palliative care needs, suggesting the need for integration of palliative care within the long-term acute care hospital. Further research is also needed to more fully understand the challenges of this growing population of ICU survivors.

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.

Exploring the value of structured narrative feedback within the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex): a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) has emerged as a framework for conversations with patients with a serious illness diagnosis. This study reports on narratives generated from open-ended questions of a novel assessment tool, the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex), to assess resident-led conversations with patients in oncology outpatient clinics. DESIGN: Qualitative study using template analysis. SETTING: Three academic cancer centres in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 7 resident physicians (trainees), 7 patients from outpatient cancer clinics, 10 preceptors (raters) consisting of medical oncologists, palliative care physicians and radiation oncologists. INTERVENTIONS: Each trainee conducted an SIC with a patient, which was videotaped. The raters watched the videos and evaluated each trainee using the novel SIC-Ex and the reference Calgary-Cambridge Guide (CCG) initially and again 3 months later. Two independent coders used template analysis to code the raters' narrative comments and identify themes/subthemes. OUTCOME MEASURES: How narrative comments aligned with elements of the CCG and SICG. RESULTS: Template analysis yielded four themes: adhering to SICG, engaging patients and family members, conversation management and being mindful of demeanour. Narrative comments identified numerous verbal and non-verbal elements essential to SICG. Some comments addressing general skills in engaging patients/families and managing the conversation (eg, setting agenda, introduction, planning, exploring, non-verbal communication) related to both the CCG and SICG, whereas other comments such as identifying substitute decision maker(s), affirming commitment and introducing Advance Care Planning were specific to the SICG. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative comments generated by SIC-Ex provided detailed and nuanced insights into trainees' competence in SIC, beyond the numerical ratings of SIC-Ex and the general communication skills outlined in the CCG, and may contribute to a more fulsome assessment of SIC skills.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Serious Illness Conversation Quality during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients. However, little is known about the quality of serious illness communication in these communities during this time. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether racial and ethnic disparities manifested in serious illness conversations during the pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study of adult patients with a documented serious illness conversation from March 2020 to April 2021. Serious illness conversation documentation quality was assessed by counting the median number (IQR) of conversation domains and their elements included in the documentation. Domains included (1) values and goals, (2) prognosis and illness understanding, (3) end-of-life care planning, and (4) life-sustaining treatment preferences. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between differences in serious illness documentation quality with patient race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 291 patients, 149 (51.2%) were non-Hispanic White; 81 (27.8%) were non-Hispanic Black; and 61 (21.0%) were Hispanic patients. Non-Hispanic Black patients were associated with fewer domains (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.25, 0.84]; P=.01) included in their serious illness conversation documentation compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Both non-Hispanic Black (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.20, 0.62]; P<.001) and Hispanic patients (OR 0.29 [95% CI 0.14, 0.58]; P<.001) were associated with fewer elements in the values and goals domain compared to non-Hispanic White patients in their serious illness documentation. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, serious illness conversation documentation among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients was less comprehensive compared to non-Hispanic White patients.

Clinicians' Perspectives on the Telehealth Serious Illness Care Program for Older Adults With Myeloid Malignancies: Single-Arm Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness conversations may help patients avoid unwanted treatments. We previously piloted the telehealth Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to understand the experience of the telehealth SICP from the clinician's perspective. METHODS: We studied 10 clinicians who delivered the telehealth SICP to 20 older adults with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Quantitative outcomes included confidence and acceptability. Confidence was measured using a 22-item survey (range 1-7; a higher score is better). Acceptability was measured using an 11-item survey (5-point Likert scale). Hypothesis testing was performed at α=.10 (2-tailed) due to the pilot nature and small sample size. Clinicians participated in audio-recorded qualitative interviews at the end of the study to discuss their experience. RESULTS: A total of 8 clinicians completed the confidence measure and 7 clinicians completed the acceptability measure. We found a statistically significant increase in overall confidence (mean increase of 0.5, SD 0.6; P=.03). The largest increase in confidence was in helping families with reconciliation and goodbye (mean 1.4, SD 1.5; P=.04). The majority of clinicians agreed that the format was simple (6/7, 86%) and easy to use (6/7, 86%). Clinicians felt that the telehealth SICP was effective in understanding their patients' values about end-of-life care (7/7, 100%). A total of three qualitative themes emerged: (1) the telehealth SICP deepened relationships and renewed trust; (2) each telehealth SICP visit felt unique and personal in a positive way; and (3) uninterrupted, unrushed time optimized the visit experience. CONCLUSIONS: The telehealth SICP increased confidence in having serious illness conversations while deepening patient-clinician relationships. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04745676; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04745676.

Predicting life expectancy in patients with advanced incurable cancer: a review.

Oncologists frequently face the difficult task of estimating prognosis in patients with incurable malignancies. Their prediction of prognosis informs decision-making ranging from recommendations of cancer treatments to hospice enrollment. Unfortunately, physicians' estimates of prognosis are often inaccurate and overly optimistic. Further, physicians often fail to disclose their prognosis estimates, despite patient wishes to the contrary. Several studies have examined patient factors that might improve physicians' prognostic accuracy, including performance status, clinical symptoms and laboratory values. Prognostic models have been developed and validated but, to date, none are able to provide accurate estimates throughout the spectrum of advanced illness. This review examines tools utilized to predict life expectancy for patients with advanced, incurable cancer.