Implementing Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Stakeholder Engagement Principles in Models of Palliative Care Delivery and Advance Care Planning Research.

BACKGROUND: Given the many challenges of conducting research that addresses the palliative and end-of-life care needs of patients with serious illnesses, stakeholder engagement starting from the moment of study conceptualization and design is critical to ensure successful participant recruitment, data collection, intervention delivery, data analysis, and dissemination. METHODS: Guided by a conceptual model published by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) entitled, "Measuring What Matters for Advancing the Science and Practice of Engagement"14 and with the support of a PCORI Engagement Officer, representatives from 9 PCORI-funded study teams formed a working group to survey team members and review, outline, and describe key lessons learned and best practices for promoting stakeholder engagement in palliative care research. RESULTS: Almost all study teams engaged with patients/caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and health care system experts as stakeholder partners. About half the teams also included payers and training institutions as part of their stakeholder advisors as well as a range of content experts. Study teams relied on a variety of support structures and resources, and they employed 10 distinct methods for maintaining engagement. All engagement methods were generally considered to be effective by teams who used the method, though there was some variability in team-rated engagement quality of each method. Nine barriers to stakeholder engagement were identified across the 9 studies as well as 9 strategies (or facilitators) to overcome these barriers. We share examples of how stakeholder engagement impacted studies in all phases, including the preparatory phase, study initiation phase, execution phase, and data analysis/dissemination phase. CONCLUSIONS: Teams utilized a variety of resources and support structures as well as capitalized on multiple engagement methods for fostering stakeholder engagement, resulting in a high level of collaboration and integration.

Communication processes in an advance care planning initiative: A socio-ecological perspective for service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning initiatives are becoming more widespread, increasing expectations for providers to engage in goals of care conversations. However, less is known about how providers communicate advance care planning within and throughout a health care system. AIM: To explore perspectives of communication processes in the rollout of an advance care planning initiative. DESIGN: Theoretically informed secondary analysis of 31 semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Key partners in a Veterans Health Administration goals of care initiative. RESULTS: Using the constant comparative approach followed by qualitative mapping of themes to the layers of the Socio-Ecological Model, four themes and corresponding Socio-Ecological layers were identified: Goals of Care Communication Training (Policy, Community, and Institutional) requires more resources across sites and better messaging to reduce provider misconceptions and promote an institutional culture invested in advance care planning; Interprofessional Communication (Interpersonal) suggests care team coordination is needed to facilitate continuity in goals of care messaging; Communication in Documentation (Institutional, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal) highlights the need for capturing the context for goals of care preferences; and Patient/Family Communication (Interpersonal and Intrapersonal) encourages offering materials and informational resources early to facilitate rapport building and readiness to determine goals of care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the need for initiatives to incorporate an evaluation of how goals of care are discussed beyond the interpersonal exchange between patient and provider and signal opportunities for applying the Socio-Ecological Model to better understand goals of care communication processes, including opportunities to improve initiation and documentation of goals of care.

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.

Quality measures in HCC care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process-based measures and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13-member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha-fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high-risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high-risk population.

The 3 Wishes Program Improves Families' Experience of Emotional and Spiritual Support at the End of Life.

BACKGROUND: The end-of-life (EOL) experience in the intensive care unit (ICU) is emotionally challenging, and there are opportunities for improvement. The 3 Wishes Program (3WP) promotes the dignity of dying patients and their families by eliciting and implementing wishes at the EOL. AIM: To assess whether the 3WP is associated with improved ratings of EOL care. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: In the 3WP, clinicians elicit and fulfill simple wishes for dying patients and their families. SETTING: 2-hospital academic healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Dying patients in the ICU and their families. PROGRAM EVALUATION: A modified Bereaved Family Survey (BFS), a validated tool for measuring EOL care quality, was completed by families of ICU decedents approximately 3 months after death. We compared patients whose care involved the 3WP to those who did not using three BFS-derived measures: Respectful Care and Communication (5 questions), Emotional and Spiritual Support (3 questions), and the BFS-Performance Measure (BFS-PM, a single-item global measure of care). RESULTS: Of 314 completed surveys, 117 were for patients whose care included the 3WP. Bereaved families of 3WP patients rated the Emotional and Spiritual Support factor significantly higher (7.5 vs. 6.0, p = 0.003, adjusted p = 0.001) than those who did not receive the 3WP. The Respectful Care and Communication factor and BFS-PM were no different between groups. DISCUSSION: The 3WP is a low-cost intervention that may be a feasible strategy for improving the EOL experience.

Telephone Outreach Enhances Recruitment of Underrepresented Seriously Ill Patients for an Advance Care Planning Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing systemic patterns of disadvantage, such as racial/ethnic minorities and those with limited English proficiency, are underrepresented in research. This is particularly true for large pragmatic trials of potentially sensitive research topics, such as advance care planning (ACP). It is unclear how phone outreach may affect research participation by underrepresented individuals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of phone outreach, in addition to standard mail survey recruitment, in a population-based ACP pragmatic trial at three academic health systems in California. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PATIENTS: Primary care patients with serious illness were mailed a survey in their preferred language. Patients who did not initially respond by mail received up to three reminder phone calls with the option of survey completion by phone. MAIN MEASURES: Effect of phone outreach on survey response rate associated with respondent demographic characteristics (e.g., Social Vulnerability Index [SVI], range 0 (low) to 1 (high)). RESULTS: Across the health systems, 5998 seriously ill patients were mailed surveys. We obtained completed surveys from 1215 patients (20% response rate); 787 (65%) responded after mail alone and 428 (35%) participated only after phone outreach. Patients recruited after phone outreach compared to mail alone were more socially vulnerable (SVI 0.41 v 0.35, P < 0.001), were more likely to report being a racial/ethnic minority (35% v 28%, P = 0.006), and non-English speaking (16% v 10%, P = 0.005). Age and gender did not differ significantly. The inclusion of phone outreach resulted in a sample that better represented the baseline population than mail alone in racial/ethnic minority (28% mail alone, 30% including phone outreach, 36% baseline population), non-English language preference (10%, 12%, 15%, respectively), and SVI (0.35, 0.37, 0.38, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Phone outreach for a population-based survey in a pragmatic trial concerning a potentially sensitive topic significantly enhanced recruitment of underrepresented seriously ill patients.

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.

Patient and Caregiver Prioritization of Palliative and End-of-Life Cancer Care Quality Measures.

BACKGROUND: Development and prioritization of quality measures typically relies on experts in clinical medicine, but patients and their caregivers may have different perspectives on quality measurement priorities. OBJECTIVE: To inform priorities for health system implementation of palliative cancer and end-of-life care quality measures by eliciting perspectives of patients and caregivers. DESIGN: Using modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Panel methods and materials tailored for knowledgeable lay participants, we convened a panel to rate cancer palliative care process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day, in-person meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Nine patients and caregivers with experience living with or caring for patients with cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Panelists rated each concept on importance for providing patient- and family-centered care on a nine-point scale and each panelist nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5"). KEY RESULTS: Cancer patient and caregiver panelists rated all measure concepts presented as highly important to patient- and family- centered care (median rating ≥ 7) in pre-panel (mean rating range, 6.9-8.8) and post-panel ratings (mean rating range, 7.2-8.9). Forced choice nominations of the "top 5" helped distinguish similarly rated measure concepts. Measure concepts nominated into the "top 5" by three or more panelists included two measure concepts of communication (goals of care discussions and discussion of prognosis), one measure concept on providing comprehensive assessments of patients, and three on symptoms including pain management plans, improvement in pain, and depression management plans. Patients and caregivers nominated one additional measure concept (pain screening) back into consideration, bringing the total number of measure concepts under consideration to 21. CONCLUSIONS: Input from cancer patients and caregivers helped identify quality measurement priorities for health system implementation. Forced choice nominations were useful to discriminate concepts with the highest perceived importance. Our approach serves as a model for incorporating patient and caregiver priorities in quality measure development and implementation.

Cost-Health Literacy as an Educational Objective in Fellowship Training.

Physicians are encouraged to communicate with their patients about financial concerns, but are infrequently taught skills necessary to do so. This study describes a curriculum for oncology fellows aimed to improve skills of cost-health literacy, and provides assessment of the curriculum impact on self-perceived cost communication practices. Oncology fellows at a large academic program in 2019 participated in a cost-health literacy curriculum over 3 months. The curriculum consisted of a didactic on financial toxicity (45 min), a problem-based learning case highlighting financial toxicity risk factors and areas for intervention (30 min), and a group discussion (30 min) to review and consolidate strategies to navigate financial toxicity in direct patient care. A cost-health literacy survey was administered at baseline and at the conclusion of the curriculum to evaluate the impact of the program. Of 19 participants, 16 completed both the pre-survey and post-survey and were included in the analysis. After the intervention, participants were more likely to report comfort discussing out-of-pocket costs (50% vs. 19%, p = 0.002) and to feel they could help a patient experiencing financial toxicity (62% vs. 6%, p = 0.005). There was no improvement in the subjective assessment of patient financial distress (57% v 50%, p = 0.759). Oncology fellows can improve self-reported cost-health literacy skills through participation in a targeted, brief curriculum. Further studies are warranted to determine how this approach can be applied in other settings and if it objectively impacts cost communication practices.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Palliative Care Management in Cirrhosis: Expert Review.

Care with palliative care principles (aka Palliative Care, PC) is an approach to care that focuses on improving the quality of life of patients and their caregivers who are facing life-limiting illness. It encompasses the assessment and management of symptoms and changes in functional status, the provision of advance care planning and goals of care discussions, prognostication and caregiver support. PC is applicable across the spectrum of cirrhosis regardless of transplant eligibility. Although a common misconception, PC is not synonymous with hospice care. Unfortunately, despite a high symptom burden and challenges with predicting disease course and mounting evidence to support the benefits of PC in patients with cirrhosis, comprehensive PC and referral to hospice are carried out infrequently and very late in the course of disease. In order to meet the needs of our increasingly prevalent cirrhosis population, it is important that all clinicians who care for these patients are able to work together to deliver PC as a standard of care. To date there are limited guidelines/guidance statements to direct clinicians in the area of PC and cirrhosis. Herein we present an evidence-based review of ten Best Practice Advice statements that address key issues pertaining to PC in patients with cirrhosis.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Exploring expanded interdisciplinary roles in goals of care conversations in a national goals of care initiative: A qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: The United States Veterans Health Administration National Center for Ethics in Health Care implemented the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative throughout the Veterans Health Administration health care system in 2017. This policy encourages goals of care conversations, referring to conversations about patient's treatment and end-of-life wishes for life-sustaining treatments, among Veterans with serious illnesses. A key component of the initiative is expanding interdisciplinary provider roles in having goals of care conversations. AIM: Use organizational role theory to explore medical center experiences with expanding interdisciplinary roles in the implementation of a goals of care initiative. DESIGN: A qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Initial participants were recruited using purposive sampling of local medical center champions. Snowball sampling identified additional participants. Participants included thirty-one interdisciplinary providers from 12 geographically diverse initiative pilot and spread medical centers. RESULTS: Five themes were identified. Expanding provider roles in goals of care conversations (1) involves organizational culture change; (2) is influenced by medical center leadership; (3) is supported by provider role readiness; (4) benefits from cross-disciplinary role agreement; and (5) can "overwhelm" providers. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational role theory is a helpful framework for exploring interdisciplinary roles in a goals of care initiative. Support and recognition of provider role expansion in goals of care conversations was important for the adoption of a goals of care initiative. Actionable strategies, including multi-level leadership support and the use of interdisciplinary champions, facilitate role change and have potential to strengthen uptake of a goals of care initiative.

Integrated Model for Patient-Centered Advanced Liver Disease Care.

Advanced liver disease (AdvLD) is a high-risk common condition with a progressive, highly morbid, and often fatal course. Despite effective treatments, there are substantial shortfalls in access to and use of evidence-based supportive and palliative care for AdvLD. Although patient-centered, chronic illness models that integrate early supportive and palliative care with curative treatments hold promise, there are several knowledge gaps that hinder development of an integrated model for AdvLD. We review these evidence gaps. We also describe a conceptual framework for a patient-centered approach that explicates key elements needed to improve integrated care. An integrated model of AdvLD would allow clinicians, patients, and caregivers to work collaboratively to identify treatments and other healthcare that best align with patients' priorities.

Cost health literacy as a physician skill-set: the relationship between oncologist reported knowledge and engagement with patients on financial toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Oncologists are increasingly encouraged to communicate with patients about cost; however, they may lack the cost health literacy required to effectively perform this task. METHODS: We conducted a pilot survey of oncologists in an academic medical center to assess potential factors that may influence provider attitudes and practices related to financial toxicity. We assessed perceived provider knowledge of treatment costs, insurance coverage and co-pays, and financially focused resources. We then evaluated the relationship between perceived knowledge and reported engagement with issues of financial toxicity. RESULTS: Of 45 respondents (85% response rate), 58% had changed treatment within the past year as a result of patient financial burden. On self-report, 36% discussed out-of-pocket costs with patients, 42% assessed patient financial distress, but only 20% felt they could intervene upon financial toxicity. Self-perceived awareness of cost health literacy concepts were low; only 16% reporting high out-of-pocket cost knowledge, 31-33% high insurance knowledge, and 8% high awareness of financial resources. Report of cost discussion was associated with greater perceived awareness of both out-of-pocket costs and insurance design. However, reported financial distress assessment was only associated with perceived insurance awareness, not perceived cost knowledge. Cost health literacy was not associated with an increased sense of being able to impact on financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: Oncologists acknowledge deficits in knowledge and skills that may play a role in the discussion and management of financial toxicity. Some cost health literacy competencies appear to correlate with physician involvement with financial toxicity, suggesting that education on this topic may facilitate physician engagement.

Measuring the Quality of Palliative Care for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We examined the quality of palliative care received by patients with decompensated cirrhosis using an explicit set of palliative care quality indicators (QIs) for patients with end-stage liver disease (PC-ESLD). METHODS: We identified patients newly diagnosed with decompensated cirrhosis at a single veterans health center and followed up them for 2 years or until death. We piloted measurement of PC-ESLD QIs in all patients confirmed to have ESLD using a chart abstraction tool. RESULTS: Out of 167 patients identified using at least one sampling strategy, 62 were confirmed to meet ESLD criteria with chart abstraction. Ninety-eight percent of veterans in the cohort were male, mean age at diagnosis was 61 years, and 74% were White. The overall QI pass rate was 68% (64% for information care planning QIs and 76% for supportive care QIs). Patients receiving specialty palliative care consultation were more likely to receive information care planning QIs (67% vs. 37%, p = 0.02). The best performing sampling strategy had a sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 60%. CONCLUSION: Measuring the quality of palliative care for patients with ESLD is feasible in the veteran population. Our single-center data suggest that the quality of palliative care is inadequate in the veteran population with ESLD, though patients offered specialty palliative care consultation and those affected by homelessness, drug, and alcohol abuse may receive better care. Our combination of ICD-9 codes can be used to identify a cohort of patients with ESLD, though better sensitivity and specificity may be needed.

Frequent Headaches: Evaluation and Management.

Most frequent headaches are typically migraine or tension-type headaches and are often exacerbated by medication overuse. Repeated headaches can induce central sensitization and transformation to chronic headaches that are intractable, are difficult to treat, and cause significant morbidity and costs. A complete history is essential to identify the most likely headache type, indications of serious secondary headaches, and significant comorbidities. A headache diary can document headache frequency, symptoms, initiating and exacerbating conditions, and treatment response over time. Neurologic assessment and physical examination focused on the head and neck are indicated in all patients. Although rare, serious underlying conditions must be excluded by the patient history, screening tools such as SNNOOP10, neurologic and physical examinations, and targeted imaging and other assessments. Medication overuse headache should be suspected in patients with frequent headaches. Medication history should include nonprescription analgesics and substances, including opiates, that may be obtained from others. Patients who overuse opiates, barbiturates, or benzodiazepines require slow tapering and possibly inpatient treatment to prevent acute withdrawal. Patients who overuse other agents can usually withdraw more quickly. Evidence is mixed on the role of medications such as topiramate for patients with medication overuse headache. For the underlying headache, an individualized evidence-based management plan incorporating pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies is necessary. Patients with frequent migraine, tension-type, and cluster headaches should be offered prophylactic therapy. A complete management plan includes addressing risk factors, headache triggers, and common comorbid conditions such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and chronic musculoskeletal pain syndromes that can impair treatment effectiveness. Regular scheduled follow-up is important to monitor progress.

Neuropsychological Evaluations in Adults.

Neuropsychologists provide detailed assessments of cognitive and emotional functioning that often cannot be obtained through other diagnostic means. They use standardized assessment tools and integrate the findings with other data to determine whether cognitive decline has occurred, to differentiate neurologic from psychiatric conditions, to identify neurocognitive etiologies, and to determine the relationship between neurologic factors and difficulties in daily functioning. Family physicians should consider referring patients when there are questions about diagnostic decision making or planning of individualized management strategies for patients with mild cognitive impairment, dementia, traumatic brain injury, and other clinical conditions that affect cognitive functioning. Neuropsychological testing can differentiate Alzheimer dementia from nondementia with nearly 90% accuracy. The addition of neuropsychological testing to injury severity variables (e.g., posttraumatic amnesia) increases predicted accuracy in functional outcomes. A neuropsychological evaluation can be helpful in addressing concerns about functional capacities (e.g., ability to drive or live independently) and in determining a patient's capacity to make decisions about health care or finances. Most patients who underwent neuropsychological evaluation and their significant others reported that they found the evaluation helpful in understanding and coping with cognitive problems.

Discontinuation of surgical versus nonsurgical clinical trials: an analysis of 88,498 trials.

BACKGROUND: It has been previously reported that over 20% of surgical trials will be discontinued prematurely raising ethical and financial concerns. Previous studies have been limited in scope owing to the need for manual review of selected trials. To date, there has been no broad analysis comparing surgical and nonsurgical registered clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried October 7, 2017 for all US trials from 2005 to 2017. Trials were assigned to surgical or nonsurgical groups by automated sorting. The sorting algorithm was validated by comparison with manual assignments made by blinded investigators. Comparisons were made between trial status, funding sources, and trial design. The reasons for discontinuation were examined and tabulated. RESULTS: The database search yielded 82,719 nonsurgical and 5779 surgical trials after automatic assignment. The algorithm for assignments had an overall accuracy of 87.99% and a positive likelihood ratio of 6.09 and negative likelihood ratio of 0.093. Significant differences existed in trial status (nonsurgical versus surgical: completed: 55.51% versus 39.49%, P < 0.001 and discontinued: 11.07% versus 15.97%, P < 0.001). Discontinuation due to poor recruitment was more commonly cited by surgical trials (44.65% versus 34.74% P < 0.001). Industry funding predicted discontinuation for all trials (odds ratio 1.63 P < 0.001) and surgical trials independently (OR 1.25 P = 0.041). Patient enrollment, reporting results, and NIH funding were all protective against discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical trials are more likely to prematurely discontinue than nonsurgical trials. Industry funding independently predicts trial discontinuation. Poor recruitment is a major cause of early trial discontinuation for all trials and is more pronounced in surgical trials.