Cluster analysis of COVID-19 recovery center patients at a clinic in Boston, MA 2021-2022: impact on strategies for access and personalized care.

BACKGROUND: There are known disparities in COVID-19 resource utilization that may persist during the recovery period for some patients. We sought to define subpopulations of patients seeking COVID-19 recovery care in terms of symptom reporting and care utilization to better personalize their care and to identify ways to improve access to subspecialty care. METHODS: Prospective study of adult patients with prior COVID-19 infection seen in an ambulatory COVID-19 recovery center (CRC) in Boston, Massachusetts from April 2021 to April 2022. Hierarchical clustering with complete linkage to differentiate subpopulations was done with four sociodemographic variables: sex, race, language, and insurance status. Outcomes included ICU admission, utilization of supplementary care, self-report of symptoms. RESULTS: We included 1285 COVID-19 patients referred to the CRC with a mean age of 47 years, of whom 71% were female and 78% White. We identified 3 unique clusters of patients. Cluster 1 and 3 patients were more likely to have had intensive care unit (ICU) admissions; Cluster 2 were more likely to be White with commercial insurance and a low percentage of ICU admission; Cluster 3 were more likely to be Black/African American or Latino/a and have commercial insurance. Compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 1 patients were more likely to report symptoms (ORs ranging 2.4-3.75) but less likely to use support groups, psychoeducation, or care coordination (all p < 0.05). Cluster 3 patients reported greater symptoms with similar levels of community resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Within a COVID-19 recovery center, there are distinct groups of patients with different clinical and socio-demographic profiles, which translates to differential resource utilization. These insights from different subpopulations of patients can inform targeted strategies which are tailored to specific patient needs.

Integrating palliative care with intensive care for critically ill patients with lung cancer.

With newer information indicating more favorable outcomes of intensive care therapy for lung cancer patients, intensivists increasingly are willing to initiate an aggressive trial of this therapy. Concerns remain, however, that the experience of the intensive care unit for patients with lung cancer and their families often may be distressing. Regardless of prognosis, all patients with critical illness should receive high-quality palliative care, including symptom control, communication about appropriate care goals, and support for both patient and family throughout the illness trajectory. In this article, we suggest strategies for integrating palliative care with intensive care for critically ill lung cancer patients. We address assessment and management of symptoms, knowledge and skill needed for effective communication, and interdisciplinary collaboration for patient and family support. We review the role of expert consultants in providing palliative care in the intensive care unit, while highlighting the responsibility of all critical care clinicians to address basic palliative care needs of patients and their families.

Patients rate physician communication about lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-quality lung cancer care includes physician-patient communication about the disease and treatment, patient needs/preferences, and care goals. In this study, the authors evaluated communication with patients at all stages across multiple topics. METHODS: A standardized questionnaire asked patients with lung cancer to rate (on 5-point, verbal descriptor scale) the extent of communication with physicians on symptoms, spiritual concerns, practical needs, proxy appointment, living will preparation, prognosis, care goals, potential complications of therapy, life support preferences, and hospice. Communication was defined as inadequate if the patient reported discussing ≥5 of 11 questionnaire topics "not at all" or "a little bit." Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with inadequate communication. RESULTS: In total, 276 of 348 (79%) eligible patients were enrolled (mean age [±standard deviation], 65 ± 10 years; 55% white, 21% black, and 19% Hispanic; all disease stages). For most topics, the majority of respondents reported that physicians communicated "not at all" or "a little bit." Low ratings were frequent for discussion of emotional symptoms (56%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49%-62%), practical needs (71%; 95% CI, 65%-76%), spiritual concerns (80%; 95% CI, 75%-85%), proxy appointment (63%; 95% CI, 57%-69%), living will preparation (90%; 95% CI, 85%-93%), life support preferences (80%; 95% CI, 75%-84%), and hospice (88%; 95% CI, 86%-94%). Communication was inadequate for patients of different ages, stages, and races, although Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanic whites and blacks to report inadequate communication (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Across all stages, patients with lung cancer reported low rates of physician-patient communication on key topics, which may increase patient distress, impair decision-making, and compromise clinical outcomes and use patterns.

The intensive care unit family meeting: making it happen.

The intensive care unit (ICU) family meeting is an important forum for discussion about the patient's condition, prognosis, and care preferences; for listening to the family's concerns; and for decision making about appropriate goals of treatment. For patients, families, clinicians, and health care systems, the benefits of early and effective communication through these meetings have been clearly established. Yet, evidence suggests that family meetings still fail to occur in a timely way for most patients in ICUs. In this article, we address the "quality gap" between knowledge and practice with respect to regular implementation of family meetings. We first examine factors that may serve as barriers to family meetings. We then share practical strategies that may be helpful in overcoming some of these barriers. Finally, we describe performance improvement initiatives by ICUs in different parts of the country that have achieved striking successes in making family meetings happen.