Randomized Trial of Communication Facilitators to Reduce Family Distress and Intensity of End-of-Life Care.

RATIONALE: Communication with family of critically ill patients is often poor and associated with family distress. OBJECTIVES: To determine if an intensive care unit (ICU) communication facilitator reduces family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial at two hospitals. Eligible patients had a predicted mortality greater than or equal to 30% and a surrogate decision maker. Facilitators supported communication between clinicians and families, adapted communication to family needs, and mediated conflict. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among family 3 and 6 months after ICU and resource use. We identified 488 eligible patients and randomized 168. Of 352 eligible family members, 268 participated (76%). Family follow-up at 3 and 6 months ranged from 42 to 47%. The intervention was associated with decreased depressive symptoms at 6 months (P = 0.017), but there were no significant differences in psychological symptoms at 3 months or anxiety or PTSD at 6 months. The intervention was not associated with ICU mortality (25% control vs. 21% intervention; P = 0.615) but decreased ICU costs among all patients (per patient: $75,850 control, $51,060 intervention; P = 0.042) and particularly among decedents ($98,220 control, $22,690 intervention; P = 0.028). Among decedents, the intervention reduced ICU and hospital length of stay (28.5 vs. 7.7 d and 31.8 vs. 8.0 d, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communication facilitators may be associated with decreased family depressive symptoms at 6 months, but we found no significant difference at 3 months or in anxiety or PTSD. The intervention reduced costs and length of stay, especially among decedents. This is the first study to find a reduction in intensity of end-of-life care with similar or improved family distress. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00720200).

The association of spiritual care providers' activities with family members' satisfaction with care after a death in the ICU*.

OBJECTIVES: Spiritual distress is common in the ICU, and spiritual care providers are often called upon to provide care for patients and their families. Our goal was to evaluate the activities spiritual care providers' conduct to support patients and families and whether those activities are associated with family satisfaction with ICU care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three hundred fifty-bed tertiary care teaching hospital with 65 ICU beds. SUBJECTS: Spiritual care providers and family members of patients who died in the ICU or within 30 hours of transfer from the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Spiritual care providers completed surveys reporting their activities. Family members completed validated measures of satisfaction with care and satisfaction with spiritual care. Clustered regression was used to assess the association between activities completed by spiritual care providers and family ratings of care. Of 494 eligible patients, 275 family members completed surveys (response rate, 56%). Fifty-seven spiritual care providers received surveys relating to 268 patients, completing 285 surveys for 244 patients (response rate, 91%). Spiritual care providers commonly reported activities related to supporting religious and spiritual needs (≥ 90%) and providing support for family feelings (90%). Discussions about the patient's wishes for end-of-life care and a greater number of spiritual care activities performed were both associated with increased overall family satisfaction with ICU care (p < 0.05). Discussions about a patient's end-of-life wishes, preparation for a family conference, and total number of activities performed were associated with improved family satisfaction with decision-making in the ICU (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Spiritual care providers engage in a variety of activities with families of ICU patients; several are associated with increased family satisfaction with ICU care in general and decision-making in the ICU specifically. These findings provide insight into spiritual care provider activities and provide guidance for interventions to improve spiritual care delivered to families of critically ill patients.

Applying human-centered design to adapt the Jumpstart Guide for goals-of-care discussions in persons living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Goals-of-care discussions (GOCD) are uncommon in persons living with dementia (PLWD) despite the likelihood of eventual loss of decisional capacity in the population. The Jumpstart Guide, an existing serious illness communication priming tool, can improve GOCD in certain populations, but has not previously been adapted for use among PLWD and their caregivers. METHODS: Using human-centered design (HCD), we adapted the Jumpstart Guide for use with PLWD and their caregivers. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinicians and caregivers of PLWD. Six team members conducted qualitative rapid analysis of interviews leading to the development of summary templates and integrative matrices. Four iterations of the Jumpstart Guide led to the final version. RESULTS: Thirteen clinicians and 11 caregivers were interviewed. Interviews provided key insights into the unique barriers PLWD and their caregivers face during GOCD, including discomfort with accepting a dementia diagnosis and concern with using "serious illness" to describe dementia, as is commonly done in palliative care. Clinicians described differences in GOCD with PLWD compared to other serious illnesses, and the challenge of getting patients and families to think about future health states. Interviews led to Jumpstart Guide adaptations in the following domains: (1) format and structure, (2) content, and (3) specific language. Suggested changes included prioritizing naming a decision-maker, changing conversation prompts to improve accessibility and understandability, ensuring the Jumpstart Guide could be used with patients as well as their caregivers, and altering language to avoid references to "serious illness" and "abilities." CONCLUSION: Using HCD yielded valuable insights from clinicians and caregivers about the unique barriers to conducting GOCD among PLWD and their caregivers. These insights were used to adapt the Jumpstart Guide for use with PLWD and their caregivers, which is currently being tested in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in outpatient clinics.

Hospital variation and temporal trends in palliative and end-of-life care in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: Although studies have shown regional and interhospital variability in the intensity of end-of-life care, few data are available assessing variability in specific aspects of palliative care in the ICU across hospitals or interhospital variability in family and nurse ratings of this care. Recently, relatively high family satisfaction with ICU end-of-life care has prompted speculation that ICU palliative care has improved over time, but temporal trends have not been documented. DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients dying in the ICU in 13 Seattle-Tacoma-area hospitals between 2003 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS: We examined variability over time and among hospitals in satisfaction and quality of dying assessed by family, quality of dying assessed by nurses, and chart-based indicators of palliative care. We used regression analyses adjusting for patient, family, and nurse characteristics. MAIN RESULTS: Medical charts were abstracted for 3,065 of 3,246 eligible patients over a 55-month period. There were significant differences between hospitals for all chart-based indicators (p < 0.001), family satisfaction (p < 0.001), family-rated quality of dying (p = 0.03), and nurse-rated quality of dying (p = 0.003). There were few significant changes in these measures over time, although we found a significant increase in pain assessments in the last 24 hours of life (p < 0.001) as well as decreased documentation of family conferences (p < 0.001) and discussion of prognosis (p = 0.020) in the first 72 hours in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant interhospital variation in ratings and delivery of palliative care, consistent with prior studies showing variation in intensity of care at the end of life. We did not find evidence of temporal changes in most aspects of palliative care, family satisfaction, or nurse/family ratings of the quality of dying. With the possible exception of pain assessment, there is little evidence that the quality of palliative care has improved over the time period studied.

Before-After Study of a Checklist to Improve Acute Care to ICU Handoffs.

Transferring care of a patient is a critical process. The objective of this study was to evaluate a checklist to standardize handoffs from acute care to the intensive care unit (ICU). This was a single-center, before-after study of a checklist to standardize transfers of patients from acute care to the medical-cardiac ICU. Clinicians completed surveys about handoffs before and after checklist implementation. The association between study period and survey data was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression with cross-classified multilevel models. Surveys were completed by 179 clinicians. After checklist implementation, handoffs were more likely to occur in the ICU (OR 17.23; 95% CI, 1.81-164.19) and cover patient treatment preferences (OR 2.73; 95% CI, 1.12-6.66). However, checklist uptake was suboptimal (30% of responses indicated checklist use). Implementation of a checklist during acute care to ICU transfers is challenging. Signals suggesting process improvement warrant additional study.

Italian cross-cultural adaptation of the Quality of Communication questionnaire and the 4-item advance care planning engagement questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is influenced by several factors (e.g., patient's readiness to engage, clinician's skills, and the cultural environment). Availability of reliable and valid self-reported measures of the ACP domains is crucial, including cross-cultural equivalence. AIM: To culturally adapt into Italian the 19-item Quality of Communication (QOC) and the 4-item ACP Engagement (4-item ACP-E) questionnaires. METHODS: We translated and culturally adapted the two questionnaires and produced a significant other (SO) version of the QOC (QOC-SO). Each questionnaire was field tested via cognitive interviews with users: nine patients (QOC, 4-item ACP-E) and three SOs (QOC-SO) enrolled at three palliative care services. RESULTS: We made minor changes to 5/19 QOC items, to improve clarity and internal consistency; we changed the response option 'didn't do' into 'not applicable'. Finally, we slightly revised the QOC to adapt it to the paper/electronic format. QOC debriefing revealed that the section on end of life was emotionally challenging for both patients and SOs. We simplified the 4-item ACP-E layout, added a sentence in the introduction, and revised the wording of one item, to improve coherence with the Italian ACP legislation. ACP-E debriefing did not reveal any major issue. CONCLUSIONS: Results were satisfactory in terms of semantic, conceptual and normative equivalence of both questionnaires. Acceptability was satisfactory for the 4-item ACP-E, while findings of the QOC cognitive debriefing informed a major amendment of a pilot trial protocol on ACP in multiple sclerosis (ConCure-SM): use of the interviewer version only, in an adaptive form. Psychometric testing of both questionnaires on a large, independent sample will follow.

One Year Later: Family Members of Patients with COVID-19 Experience Persistent Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

Rationale: Family members of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have described increased symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Little is known about how these symptoms may change over time. Objectives: We studied changes in PTSD symptoms in family members of critically ill patients with COVID-19 over 12 months. Methods: This prospective, multisite observational cohort study recruited participants at 12 hospitals in five states. Calls were made to participants at 3-4 months, 6 months, and 12 months after patient admission to the intensive care unit. Results: There were 955 eligible family members, of whom 330 (53.3% of those reached) consented to participate. Complete longitudinal data was acquired for 115 individuals (34.8% consented). PTSD symptoms were measured by the IES-6 (Impact of Events Scale-6), with a score of at least 10 identifying significant symptoms. At 3 months, the mean IES-6 score was 11.9 ± 6.1, with 63.6% having significant symptoms, decreasing to 32.9% at 1 year (mean IES-6 score, 7.6 ± 5.0). Three clusters of symptom evolution emerged over time: persistent symptoms (34.8%, n = 40), recovered symptoms (33.0%, n = 38), and nondevelopment of symptoms (32.2%, n = 37). Although participants identifying as Hispanic demonstrated initially higher adjusted IES-6 scores (2.57 points higher [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-4.1; P < 0.001]), they also demonstrated a more dramatic improvement in adjusted scores over time (4.7 greater decrease at 12 months [95% CI, 3.2-6.3; P < 0.001]). Conclusions: One year later, some family members of patients with COVID-19 continue to experience significant symptoms of PTSD. Further studies are needed to better understand how various differences contribute to increased risk for these symptoms.

Effect of a quality-improvement intervention on end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a randomized trial.

RATIONALE: Because of high mortality, end-of-life care is an important component of intensive care. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effectiveness of a quality-improvement intervention to improve intensive care unit (ICU) end-of-life care. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial randomizing 12 hospitals. The intervention targeted clinicians with five components: clinician education, local champions, academic detailing, clinician feedback of quality data, and system supports. Outcomes were assessed for patients dying in the ICU or within 30 hours of ICU discharge using surveys and medical record review. Families completed Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) and satisfaction surveys. Nurses completed the QODD. Data were collected during baseline and follow-up at each hospital (May 2004 to February 2008). We used robust regression models to test for intervention effects, controlling for site, patient, family, and nurse characteristics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All hospitals completed the trial with 2,318 eligible patients and target sample sizes obtained for family and nurse surveys. The primary outcome, family-QODD, showed no change with the intervention (P = 0.33). There was no change in family satisfaction (P = 0.66) or nurse-QODD (P = 0.81). There was a nonsignificant increase in ICU days before death after the intervention (hazard ratio = 0.9; P = 0.07). Among patients undergoing withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, there was no change in time from admission to withdrawal (hazard ratio = 1.0; P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: We found this intervention was associated with no improvement in quality of dying and no change in ICU length of stay before death or time from ICU admission to withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Improving ICU end-of-life care will require interventions with more direct contact with patients and families. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00685893).

Seriously Ill Patients' Prioritized Goals and Their Clinicians' Perceptions of Those Goals.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goals are understood by their clinicians are likely better positioned to receive goal-concordant care. OBJECTIVES: To examine the proportion of seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goal is accurately perceived by their clinician and identify factors associated with accurate perception. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness and their clinicians. Approximately two weeks after a clinic visit, patients reported their current prioritized healthcare goal- extending life over relief of pain and discomfort, or relief of pain and discomfort over extending life - and clinicians reported their perception of their patients' current prioritized healthcare goal; matching these items defined accurate perception. RESULTS: Of 252 patients with a prioritized healthcare goal, 60% had their goal accurately perceived by their clinician, 27% were cared for by clinicians who perceived prioritization of the alternative goal, and 13% had their clinician answer unsure. Patients who were older (OR 1.03 per year; 95%CI 1.01, 1.05), had stable goals (OR 2.52; 95%CI 1.26, 5.05), and had a recent goals-of-care discussion (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.00, 3.16) were more likely to have their goals accurately perceived. CONCLUSION: A majority of seriously ill outpatients are cared for by clinicians who accurately perceive their patients' prioritized healthcare goals. However, a substantial portion are not and may be at higher risk for goal-discordant care. Interventions that facilitate goals-of-care discussions may help align care with goals, as recent discussions were associated with accurate perceptions of patients' prioritized goals.

Efficacy of a Communication-Priming Intervention on Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions in Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-quality goals-of-care communication is critical to delivering goal-concordant, patient-centered care to hospitalized patients with chronic life-limiting illness. However, implementation and documentation of goals-of-care discussions remain important shortcomings in many health systems. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care communication for patients hospitalized with serious illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from November 6, 2018, to February 18, 2020. The setting was 2 hospitals in an academic health care system in Seattle, Washington. Participants included hospitalized adults with chronic life-limiting illness, aged 65 years or older and with markers of frailty, or aged 80 years or older. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to August 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to usual care with baseline questionnaires (control) vs the Jumpstart communication-priming intervention. Patients or surrogates in the intervention group and their clinicians received patient-specific Jumpstart Guides populated with data from questionnaires and the electronic health records (EHRs) that were designed to prompt and guide a goals-of-care discussion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion between randomization and hospital discharge. Additional outcomes included patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions, patient-reported or surrogate-reported quality of communication, and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Results: Of 428 eligible patients, this study enrolled 150 patients (35% enrollment rate; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [13.6] years; 66 women [44%]; 132 [88%] by patient consent and 18 [12%] by surrogate consent). Seventy-five patients each were randomized to the intervention and control groups. Compared with the control group, the cumulative incidence of EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions between randomization and hospital discharge was higher in the intervention group (16 of 75 patients [21%] vs 6 of 75 patients [8%]; risk difference, 13% [95% CI, 2%-24%]; risk ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.10-6.44]; P = .04). Patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions did not differ significantly between groups (30 of 66 patients [45%] vs 36 of 66 patients [55%]), although the intrarater consistency of patient and surrogate reports was poor. Patient-rated or surrogate-rated quality of communication did not differ significantly between groups. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients, surrogates, and clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication priming intervention for seriously ill, hospitalized patients promoted EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions before discharge with good feasibility and acceptability. Communication-priming interventions should be reexamined in a larger randomized clinical trial to better understand their effectiveness in the inpatient setting. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03746392.

Evolution of Investigating Informed Assent Discussions about CPR in Seriously Ill Patients.

CONTEXT: Outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain poor. We have spent 10 years investigating an "informed assent" (IA) approach to discussing CPR with chronically ill patients/families. IA is a discussion framework whereby patients extremely unlikely to benefit from CPR are informed that unless they disagree, CPR will not be performed because it will not help achieve their goals, thus removing the burden of decision-making from the patient/family, while they retain an opportunity to disagree. OBJECTIVES: Determine the acceptability and efficacy of IA discussions about CPR with older chronically ill patients/families. METHODS: This multi-site research occurred in three stages. Stage I determined acceptability of the intervention through focus groups of patients with advanced COPD or malignancy, family members, and physicians. Stage II was an ambulatory pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the IA discussion. Stage III is an ongoing phase 2 RCT of IA versus attention control in in patients with advanced chronic illness. RESULTS: Our qualitative work found the IA approach was acceptable to most patients, families, and physicians. The pilot RCT demonstrated feasibility and showed an increase in participants in the intervention group changing from "full code" to "do not resuscitate" within two weeks after the intervention. However, Stages I and II found that IA is best suited to inpatients. Our phase 2 RCT in older hospitalized seriously ill patients is ongoing; results are pending. CONCLUSIONS: IA is a feasible and reasonable approach to CPR discussions in selected patient populations.

Stress-Related Disorders of Family Members of Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit With COVID-19.

Importance: The psychological symptoms associated with having a family member admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic are not well defined. Objective: To examine the prevalence of symptoms of stress-related disorders, primarily posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in family members of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 approximately 90 days after admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multisite, mixed-methods observational cohort study assessed 330 family members of patients admitted to the ICU (except in New York City, which had a random sample of 25% of all admitted patients per month) between February 1 and July 31, 2020, at 8 academic-affiliated and 4 community-based hospitals in 5 US states. Exposure: Having a family member in the ICU with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptoms of PTSD at 3 months, as defined by a score of 10 or higher on the Impact of Events Scale 6 (IES-6). Results: A total of 330 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.2 [15.1] years; 228 [69.1%] women; 150 [52.8%] White; 92 [29.8%] Hispanic) were surveyed at the 3-month time point. Most individuals were the patients' child (129 [40.6%]) or spouse or partner (81 [25.5%]). The mean (SD) IES-6 score at 3 months was 11.9 (6.1), with 201 of 316 respondents (63.6%) having scores of 10 or higher, indicating significant symptoms of PTSD. Female participants had an adjusted mean IES-6 score of 2.6 points higher (95% CI, 1.4-3.8; P < .001) than male participants, whereas Hispanic participants scored a mean of 2.7 points higher compared with non-Hispanic participants (95% CI, 1.0-4.3; P = .002). Those with graduate school experience had an adjusted mean score of 3.3 points lower (95% CI, 1.5-5.1; P < .001) compared with those with up to a high school degree or equivalent. Qualitative analyses found no substantive differences in the emotional or communication-related experiences between those with high vs low PTSD scores, but those with higher scores exhibited more distrust of practitioners. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, symptoms of PTSD among family members of ICU patients with COVID-19 were high. Hispanic ethnicity and female gender were associated with higher symptoms. Those with higher scores reported more distrust of practitioners.

Identifying Goals of Care Conversations in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric in palliative care. However, goals-of-care discussions are often documented as free text in diverse locations. It is difficult to identify these discussions in the electronic health record (EHR) efficiently. OBJECTIVES: To develop, train, and test an automated approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR, using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). METHODS: From the electronic health records of an academic health system, we collected a purposive sample of 3183 EHR notes (1435 inpatient notes and 1748 outpatient notes) from 1426 patients with serious illness over 2008-2016, and manually reviewed each note for documentation of goals-of-care discussions. Separately, we developed a program to identify notes containing documentation of goals-of-care discussions using NLP and supervised ML. We estimated the performance characteristics of the NLP/ML program across 100 pairs of randomly partitioned training and test sets. We repeated these methods for inpatient-only and outpatient-only subsets. RESULTS: Of 3183 notes, 689 contained documentation of goals-of-care discussions. The mean sensitivity of the NLP/ML program was 82.3% (SD 3.2%), and the mean specificity was 97.4% (SD 0.7%). NLP/ML results had a median positive likelihood ratio of 32.2 (IQR 27.5-39.2) and a median negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (IQR 0.16-0.20). Performance was better in inpatient-only samples than outpatient-only samples. CONCLUSION: Using NLP and ML techniques, we developed a novel approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR. NLP and ML represent a potential approach toward measuring goals-of-care discussions as a research outcome and quality metric.

Facilitating communication for critically ill patients and their family members: Study protocol for two randomized trials implemented in the U.S. and France.

BACKGROUND: Critically-ill patients and their families suffer a high burden of psychological symptoms due, in part, to many transitions among clinicians and settings during and after critical illness, resulting in fragmented care. Communication facilitators may help. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: We are conducting two cluster-randomized trials, one in the U.S. and one in France, with the goal of evaluating a nurse facilitator trained to support, model, and teach communication strategies enabling patients and families to secure care consistent with patients' goals, beginning in ICU and continuing for 3 months. PARTICIPANTS: We will randomize 376 critically-ill patients in the US and 400 in France to intervention or usual care. Eligible patients have a risk of hospital mortality of greater than15% or a chronic illness with a median survival of approximately 2 years or less. OUTCOMES: We assess effectiveness with patient- and family-centered outcomes, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, as well as assessments of goal-concordant care, at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-randomization. The primary outcome is family symptoms of depression over 6 months. We also evaluate whether the intervention improves value by reducing utilization while improving outcomes. Finally, we use mixed methods to explore implementation factors associated with implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, acceptability, penetration) to inform dissemination. Conducting the trial in U.S. and France will provide insights into differences and similarities between countries. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the design of two randomized trials of a communication facilitator for improving outcomes for critically ill patients and their families in two countries.

An indispensable role for the chemokine receptor CCR10 in IgA antibody-secreting cell accumulation.

The differential expression of chemokines and chemokine receptors, by tissues and leukocytes, respectively, contributes to the specific accumulation of leukocyte subsets to different tissues. CCR10/CCL28 interactions are thought to contribute to the accumulation of IgA Ab-secreting cells (ASC) to mucosal surfaces, such as the gastrointestinal tract and the lactating mammary gland. Although the role of CCL28 in lymphocyte homing is well established, direct in vivo evidence for CCR10 involvement in this process has not been previously shown. In this study, we describe the generation of a CCR10-deficient mouse model. Using this model, we demonstrate that CCR10 is critical for efficient localization and accumulation of IgA ASC to the lactating mammary gland. Surprisingly, IgA ASC accumulation to the gastrointestinal tract is minimally impacted in CCR10-deficient mice. These results provide the first direct evidence of CCR10 involvement in lymphocyte homing and accumulation in vivo, and demonstrate that reliance on CCR10-mediated recruitment of IgA ASC varies dramatically within mucosal tissues.

Patient-Reported Receipt of Goal-Concordant Care Among Seriously Ill Outpatients-Prevalence and Associated Factors.

CONTEXT: Goal-concordant care is an important indicator of high-quality care in serious illness. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care among seriously ill outpatients and identify factors associated with the absence of patient-reported goal concordance. METHODS: Analysis of enrollment surveys from a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness. Patients reported their prioritized health care goal and the focus of their current medical care; these items were matched to define receipt of goal-concordant care. RESULTS: Of 405 patients with a prioritized health care goal, 58% reported receipt of goal-concordant care, 17% goal-discordant care, and 25% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patient-reported receipt of goal concordance differed by patient goal. For patients who prioritized extending life, 86% reported goal-concordant care, 2% goal-discordant care, and 12% were uncertain of the focus of their care. For patients who prioritized relief of pain and discomfort, 51% reported goal-concordant care, 21% goal-discordant care, and 28% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patients who prioritized a goal of relief of pain and discomfort were more likely to report goal-discordant care than patients who prioritized a goal of extending life (relative risk ratio 22.20; 95% CI 4.59, 107.38). CONCLUSION: Seriously ill outpatients who prioritize a goal of relief of pain and discomfort are less likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who prioritize extending life. Future interventions designed to improve receipt of goal-concordant care should focus on identifying patients who prioritize relief of pain and discomfort and promoting care aligned with that goal.

Integrating palliative and critical care: evaluation of a quality-improvement intervention.

RATIONALE: Palliative care in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an important focus for quality improvement. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-faceted quality improvement intervention to improve palliative care in the ICU. METHODS: We performed a single-hospital, before-after study of a quality-improvement intervention to improve palliative care in the ICU. The intervention consisted of clinician education, local champions, academic detailing, feedback to clinicians, and system support. Consecutive patients who died in the ICU were identified pre- (n = 253) and postintervention (n = 337). Families completed Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit (FS-ICU) and Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) surveys. Nurses completed the QODD. The QODD and FS-ICU were scored from 0 to 100. We used Mann-Whitney tests to assess family results and hierarchical linear modeling for nurse results. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 590 patients who died in the ICU or within 24 hours of transfer; 496 had an identified family member. The response rate for family members was 55% (275 of 496) and for nurses, 89% (523/590). The primary outcome, the family QODD, showed a trend toward improvement (pre, 62.3; post, 67.1), but was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Family satisfaction increased but not significantly. The nurse QODD showed significant improvement (pre, 63.1; post, 67.1; P < 0.01) and there was a significant reduction in ICU days before death (pre, 7.2; post, 5.8; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant improvement in family-assessed quality of dying or in family satisfaction with care, we found but significant improvement in nurse-assessed quality of dying and reduction in ICU length of stay with an intervention to integrate palliative care in the ICU. Improving family ratings may require interventions that have more direct contact with family members.

Did a Goals-of-Care Discussion Happen? Differences in the Occurrence of Goals-of-Care Discussions as Reported by Patients, Clinicians, and in the Electronic Health Record.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are associated with improved end-of-life care for patients and therefore may be used as a process measure in quality improvement, research, and reimbursement programs. OBJECTIVES: To examine three methods to assess occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion-patient report, clinician report, and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR)-at a clinic visit for seriously ill patients and determine whether each method is associated with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial, with 494 patients and 124 clinicians caring for them. Self-reported surveys collected from patients and clinicians two weeks after a clinic visit assessed occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion. Documentation of a goals-of-care discussion was abstracted from the EHR. Patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care was assessed by survey two weeks after the visit. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of patients reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the clinic visit; clinicians reported occurrence of a discussion at 66% of visits. EHR documentation occurred in 42% of visits (P < 0.001 for each compared with other two). Patients who reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the visit were more likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who reported no discussion (ß 0.441, 95% CI 0.190-0.692; P = 0.001). Neither occurrence of a discussion by clinician report nor by EHR documentation was associated with goal-concordant care. CONCLUSION: Different approaches to assess goals-of-care discussions give differing results, yet each may have advantages. Patient report is most likely to correlate with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care.

Toward Understanding the Relationship Between Prioritized Values and Preferences for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Seriously Ill Adults.

CONTEXT: Prioritizing among potentially conflicting end-of-life values may help patients discriminate among treatments and allow clinicians to align treatments with values. OBJECTIVES: To investigate end-of-life values that patients prioritize when facing explicit trade-offs and identify predictors of patients whose values and treatment preferences seem inconsistent. METHODS: Analysis of surveys from a multi-center cluster-randomized trial of patients with serious illness. Respondents prioritized end-of-life values and identified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in two health states. RESULTS: Of 535 patients, 60% prioritized relief of discomfort over extending life, 17% prioritized extending life over relief of discomfort, and 23% were unsure. Patients prioritizing extending life were most likely to prefer CPR, with 93% preferring CPR in current health and 67% preferring CPR if dependent on others, compared with 69% and 21%, respectively, for patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, and 78% and 33%, respectively, for patients unsure of their prioritized value (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, preference for CPR in current health was less likely among older patients (odds ratio 0.958 per year; 95% CI 0.935, 0.981) and more likely with better self-perceived health (odds ratio 1.402 per level of health; 95% CI 1.090, 1.804). CONCLUSION: Clinicians face challenges as they clarify patient values and align treatments with values. Patients' values predicted CPR preferences, but a substantial proportion of patients expressed CPR preferences that appeared potentially inconsistent with their primary value. Clinicians should question assumptions about relationships between values and CPR preferences. Further research is needed to identify ways to use values to guide treatment decisions.

MRI analysis of the size and shape of the oropharynx in chronic whiplash.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify differences in the size/shape of the oropharynx between female subjects with whiplash and controls. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. METHODS: A total of 113 subjects (79 whiplash, 34 controls) were included. T1-weighted MRI was used to measure 1) cross-sectional area (CSA [mm(2)]) and 2) shape ratios for the oropharynx. Reliability data were established. RESULTS: Whiplash subjects had significantly smaller oropharynx CSAs (P < 0.001) and shape ratios (P < 0.001) compared with healthy controls. Self-reported levels of pain and disability and duration of symptoms were not associated with size and shape of the oropharynx in whiplash subjects (P = 0.75 and P = 0.99, respectively). Age and BMI did influence the size (P = 0.01) and shape of the oropharynx (P < 0.001) in the whiplash subjects, but only 20 to 30 percent of the variance could be explained by these factors. CONCLUSION: Significant difference in the size and shape of the oropharynx was noted in subjects with chronic whiplash compared with controls. Future studies are required to investigate the relationships between oropharynx morphometry and symptoms in patients with chronic whiplash.