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.

Effect of Psychiatric Illness on Acute Care Utilization at End of Life From Serious Medical Illness.

CONTEXT: Little is known about psychiatric illness and utilization of end-of-life care. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that preexisting psychiatric illness would increase hospital utilization at end of life among patients with chronic medical illness due to increased severity of illness and care fragmentation. METHODS: We reviewed electronic health records to identify decedents with one or more of eight chronic medical conditions based on International Classification of Diseases-9 codes. We used International Classification of Diseases-9 codes and prescription information to identify preexisting psychiatric illness. Regression models compared hospital utilization among patients with and without psychiatric illness. Path analyses examined the effect of severity of illness and care fragmentation. RESULTS: Eleven percent of 16,214 patients with medical illness had preexisting psychiatric illness, which was associated with increased risk of death in nursing homes (P = 0.002) and decreased risk of death in hospitals (P < 0.001). In the last 30 days of life, psychiatric illness was associated with reduced inpatient and intensive care unit utilization but increased emergency department utilization. Path analyses confirmed an association between psychiatric illness and increased hospital utilization mediated by severity of illness and care fragmentation, but a stronger direct effect of psychiatric illness decreasing hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Our findings differ from the increased hospital utilization for patients with psychiatric illness in circumstances other than end-of-life care. Path analyses confirmed hypothesized associations between psychiatric illness and increased utilization mediated by severity of illness and care fragmentation but identified more powerful direct effects decreasing hospital use. Further investigation should examine whether this effect represents a disparity in access to preferred care.