Clinical Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Boston.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have been described in health systems overwhelmed with a surge of cases. However, studies examining outcomes of patients admitted to hospitals not in crisis are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristic and outcomes of all patients with COVID-19 who are admitted to hospitals not in crisis, and factors associated with mortality in this population. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis PARTICIPANTS: In total, 470 consecutive patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization in one health system in Boston from January 1, 2020 to April 15, 2020. MAIN MEASURES: We collected clinical outcomes during hospitalization including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, receipt of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors. We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to examine factors associated with mortality. KEY RESULTS: A total of 470 patients (median age 66 [range 23-98], 54.0% male) were included. The most common comorbidities were diabetes (38.5%, 181/470) and obesity (41.3%, 194/470). On admission, 41.9% (197/470) of patients were febrile and 60.6% (285/470) required supplemental oxygen. During hospitalization, 37.9% (178/470) were admitted to the ICU, 33.6% (158/470) received mechanical ventilation, 29.4% (138/470) received vasopressors, 16.4% (77/470) reported limitations on their desire for life-sustaining therapies such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 25.1% (118/470) died. Among those admitted to the ICU (N=178), the median number of days on the ventilator was 10 days (IQR 1-29), and 58.4% (104/178) were discharged alive. Older age (OR=1.04, P<0.001), male sex (OR=2.14, P=0.007), higher comorbidities (OR=1.20, P=0.001), higher lactate dehydrogenase on admission (2nd tertile: OR=4.07, P<0.001; 3rd tertile: OR=8.04, P<0.001), and the need for supplemental oxygen on admission (OR=2.17, P=0.014) were all associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and those who received mechanical ventilation survived. These data highlight the need to examine public health and system factors that contribute to improved outcomes for this population.

Early serious illness communication in hospitalized patients: A study of the implementation of the Speaking About Goals and Expectations (SAGE) program.

BACKGROUND: Early conversations about patients' goals and values in advancing serious illness (serious illness conversations) can drive better healthcare. However, these conversations frequently happen during acute illness, often near death, without time to realize benefits of early communication. METHODS: The Speaking About Goals and Expectations (SAGE) Program, adapted from the Serious Illness Care Program, is a multicomponent intervention designed to foster earlier and more comprehensive serious illness conversations for patients admitted to the hospital. We present a quality improvement study of the SAGE Program assessing older adults admitted to a general medicine service at the Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Our primary outcomes included the proportion of patients with at least one documented conversation, the timing between first conversation documented and death, the quality of conversations, and their interprofessional nature. Secondary outcomes assessed evaluations of the training and hospital utilization. RESULTS: We trained 37 clinicians and studied 133 patients split between the SAGE intervention and a comparison population. Intervention patients were more likely to have documented serious illness conversations (89.1% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001); these conversations occurred earlier (mean of 598.9 vs. 180.8 days before death, p < 0.001) and included more key elements of conversation (mean of 6.56 vs. 1.78, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated significant differences in the frequency and quality of serious illness conversations completed earlier in the illness course for hospitalized patients. IMPLICATIONS: Programs designed to drive serious illness conversations earlier in the hospital may be an effective way to improve care for patients not reached in the ambulatory setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospectively designed trial, non-randomized sample.

A Yet Unrealized Promise: Structured Advance Care Planning Elements in the Electronic Health Record.

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) may help enable reliable, rapid data management for many uses, such as facilitating communication of advance care planning (ACP). However, issues with validity and accuracy of EHRs hinder the use of ACP information for practical applications. Design: We present a cross-sectional pilot study of 433 older adults with cancer from three large health care systems, participating in an ongoing multisite pragmatic trial (4UH3AG060626-02). We compared data extracted from dedicated structured EHR fields for ACP to a chart review of corresponding ACP documentation contained in the medical chart. Results: Structured ACP data existed for 43.2% of patients and varied by site (25.7% -48.9%). Of the identified structured ACP data elements, 59.2% of recorded elements were correct, 23.7% were incorrect, and 17.1% were duplicates with heterogeneity across sites. Conclusion: Structured ACP data in EHRs were frequently incorrect. This represents a problem for patients and their families, as well as quality improvement and research efforts. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03609177.

A Curriculum in Quality Improvement for Interprofessional Palliative Care Trainees.

INTRODUCTION: A structured and intentional approach to quality improvement is critical for clinicians specializing in palliative care and is a required component of training programs. METHODS: We present a multimodal, comprehensive curriculum for teaching quality improvement to interdisciplinary trainees in palliative care. RESULTS: The curriculum consists of 4 sessions, one and half hours long a piece, that focus on the purpose and practice of quality improvement and guide learners through a team-based project implementation experience. Course assessments demonstrate satisfaction with the course and improvement in targeted skills, knowledge, and attitudes. DISCUSSION: Several key learnings stand out from our experience with this curriculum as central to the experience of students: project work completed as interdisciplinary teams, varying teaching methodologies over a longitudinal curriculum, and the opportunity for formal presentation of their work.

When worlds collide: Challenges to implementing communication research in community oncology practices.

OBJECTIVE: During a recent trial assessing the effectiveness of an online communication training for community practice oncologists, we encountered multiple barriers. METHODS: We asked oncologists to participate through the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification program. Oncologists collected 25 Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers (CAHPS) surveys from patients and 4 audio-recorded clinic encounters. They then completed either the ABIM Action Plan (control) or the online Study of Communication in Oncologist Patient Encounters (SCOPE) program (intervention). Oncologists collected another 25 CAHPS surveys and 4 audio-recorded encounters as follow-up. RESULTS: We enrolled 146 oncologists in the study. Only 27 completed the study; another 27 actively withdrew, and 94 did not complete the study. We identified four main challenges to participation: commitment discrepancies, burden of research, informed consent, and technology. We introduced efforts to overcome these barriers with success limited by time and resources. CONCLUSION: When conducting research in community practices, investigators must provide significant support, limit burden, increase flexibility, and conduct thorough pilot testing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To improve patient care, research must translate well into the workflow of actual practices. Assessing our experience, we identified challenges and effective solutions to be used by investigators as they plan and implement future communication interventions.

Advance Care Planning: Promoting Effective and Aligned Communication in the Elderly (ACP-PEACE): the study protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedge trial of older patients with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning (ACP) is associated with improved health outcomes for patients with cancer, and its absence is associated with unfavourable outcomes for patients and their caregivers. However, older adults do not complete ACP at expected rates due to patient and clinician barriers. We present the original design, methods and rationale for a trial aimed at improving ACP for older patients with advanced cancer and the modified protocol in response to changes brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Advance Care Planning: Promoting Effective and Aligned Communication in the Elderly study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial examining a Comprehensive ACP Program. The programme combines two complementary evidence-based interventions: clinician communication skills training (VitalTalk) and patient video decision aids (ACP Decisions). We will implement the programme at 36 oncology clinics across three unique US health systems. Our primary outcome is the proportion of eligible patients with ACP documentation completed in the electronic health record. Our secondary outcomes include resuscitation preferences, palliative care consultations, death, hospice use and final cancer-directed therapy. From a subset of our patient population, we will collect surveys and video-based declarations of goals and preferences. We estimate 11 000 patients from the three sites will be enrolled in the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Regulatory and ethical aspects of this trial include Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval via single IRB of record mechanism at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Data Use Agreements among partners and a Data Safety and Monitoring Board. We plan to present findings at national meetings and publish the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03609177; Pre-results.