Evaluation of an Emergency Department-based Palliative Care Extender Program on Hospital and Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Boston Medical Center (BMC), a safety-net hospital, treated a substantial portion of the Boston cohort that was sick with COVID-19. Unfortunately, these patients experienced high rates of morbidity and mortality given the significant health disparities that many of BMC's patients face. Boston Medical Center launched a palliative care extender program to help address the needs of critically ill ED patients under crisis conditions. In this program evaluation our goal was to assess outcomes between those who received palliative care in the emergency department (ED) vs those who received palliative care as an inpatient or were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We used a matched retrospective cohort study design to assess the difference in outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients received palliative care services in the ED, and 317 patients received palliative care services as an inpatient. After controlling for demographics, patients who received palliative care services in the ED were less likely to have a change in level of care (P<0.001) or be admitted to an ICU (P<0.001). Cases had an average length of stay of 5.2 days compared to controls who stayed 9.9 days (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Within a busy ED environment, initiating palliative care discussions by ED staff can be challenging. This study demonstrates that consulting palliative care specialists early in the course of the patient's ED stay can benefit patients and families and improve resource utilization.

Evaluating a social risk screening and referral program in an urban safety-net hospital emergency department.

Objective: The emergency department (ED) is an opportune venue to screen for unmet social needs and connect patients with social services. This quality improvement study incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data to examine unmet social needs among ED patients and program implementation. Methods: From September 2020 to December 2021, an urban safety-net hospital adult ED implemented a social needs screening and referral program. Trained emergency staff screened eligible patients for 5 social needs (housing, food, transportation, utilities, employment), giving resource guides to patients who screened positive (THRIVE+). We collected screening data from the electronic health record, conducted semi-structured interviews with THRIVE+ patients and clinical staff, and directly observed discharge interactions. Results: Emergency staff screened 58.5% of eligible patients for social risk. Of the screened patients, 27.0% reported at least 1 unmet social need. Of those, 74.8% requested assistance. Screened patients reported housing insecurity (16.3%) as the most prevalent unmet social need followed by food insecurity (13.3%) and unemployment (8.7%). Among interviewed patients, 57.1% recalled being screened, but only 24.5% recalled receiving resource guides. Patients who received guides reported little success connecting with resources and supported universal guide dissemination. Staff expressed preference for warm handoff to social services. Of 13 observed discharge interactions, clinical staff only discussed guides with 2 patients, with no positive endorsement of the guides in any observed interactions. Conclusions: An ED social needs screening program can be moderately feasible and accepted. We identified housing as the most prevalent need. Significant gaps exist between screening and referral, with few patients receiving resources. Further training and workflow optimization are underway.