Perspectives on Transfusions for Hospice Patients With Blood Cancers: A Survey of Hospice Providers.

CONTEXT: Patients with blood cancers have low rates of hospice use. While lack of transfusion access in hospice is posited to substantially contribute to these low rates, little is known about the perspectives of hospice providers regarding transfusion access in hospice. OBJECTIVES: To characterize hospice providers' perspectives regarding care for patients with blood cancers and transfusions in the hospice setting. METHODS: In 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of hospices in the United States regarding their experience caring for patients with blood cancers, perceived barriers to hospice use, and interventions to increase enrollment. RESULTS: We received 113 completed surveys (response rate = 23.5%). Of the cohort, 2.7% reported that their agency always offers transfusions, 40.7% reported sometimes offering transfusions, and 54.9% reported never offering transfusions. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with offering transfusions included nonprofit ownership (OR 5.93, 95% CI, 2.2-15.2) and daily census >50 patients (OR 3.06, 95% CI, 1.19-7.87). Most respondents (76.6%) identified lack of transfusion access in hospice as a barrier to hospice enrollment for blood cancer patients. The top intervention considered as "very helpful" for increasing enrollment was additional reimbursement for transfusions (72.1%). CONCLUSION: In this national sample of hospices, access to palliative transfusions was severely limited and was considered a significant barrier to hospice use for blood cancer patients. Moreover, hospices felt increased reimbursement for transfusions would be an important intervention. These data suggest that hospice providers are supportive of increasing transfusion access and highlight the critical need for innovative hospice payment models to improve end-of-life care for patients with blood cancers.

Understanding primary palliative nursing education in undergraduate nursing programs.

BACKGROUND: Nurses are the largest segment of health care professionals and often the first one to interact with individuals about their health and illness. Ensuring nurses have the education to care for individuals with serious illness is essential to quality health care. The new AACN Essentials: Competencies for Professional Nursing Education delineates hospice/palliative/supportive care as one of four spheres of nursing care. Surveying undergraduate schools/colleges of nursing in Massachusetts about content pertaining to care of individuals with serious illness provides the foundation for a state strategy to ensure quality primary palliative education for undergraduate nursing students. METHODS: A Massachusetts statewide college/school of nursing survey approach to assessing primary palliative nursing education within undergraduate baccalaureate nursing curricula was performed from June 2020 to December 2020. Because the project was a collaboration with the Deans of the college/school of nursing, the survey identified the programs. RESULTS: Survey results revealed that only a small number of Massachusetts nursing programs are preparing nurses with specific and formal primary palliative nursing education. However, programs are open to support and resources. CONCLUSION: The survey provided information to inform a successful strategy to support primary palliative nursing education within Massachusetts undergraduate baccalaureate nursing curricula. A survey approach can serve as a model for other states.

Adaption of the Casey-Fink Survey Tool for Nurse Residency Programs: Making It Relevant for Hospice and Palliative Care Nurse Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: This evaluation project focused on assessing the content validity of an adapted version of the Casey-Fink (CF) Graduate Nurse Experience Survey, which is aimed at measuring role transitions in nursing. BACKGROUND: Registered nurses in the hospice and palliative care field need training and confidence to be proficient in core skills including communication, interprofessional competence, and clinical skills required to care for the dying patient. However, a review of the literature revealed a gap in the availability of survey instruments to measure the confidence of nurses entering the field of hospice and palliative care. METHODS: Ten items from the CF survey were revised by the project team and then evaluated for relevance by a group of 7 national hospice and palliative experts. The content validity index (CVI) was used to determine item relevance. RESULTS: Item-level CVI (I-CVI) calculations ranged from 0.57 to 1.0. The 8 items scored between 0.80 and 1.0 were retained as written. One item required further revision (I-CVI, 0.71), and 1 item revision was eliminated (I-CVI, 0.57). Experts also suggested 5 additional items in the original CF-survey need modification. CONCLUSION: The adapted CF-survey tool is ready for further psychometric testing, and next steps include administration to a new sample of nurse residents to determine construct validity.

Building Strong Clinician-Researcher Collaborations for Successful Hospice and Palliative Care Research.

Hospice and palliative care research aim to build a knowledge base to guide high-quality care for people with serious illness and improve their quality of life. Considering its focus on patient and family caregiver's experiences, hospice and palliative care research activities primarily take place in real-world clinical settings where seriously ill patients and their family caregivers receive care (eg, nursing homes, clinics, inpatient units). Conducting research in these settings poses many challenges because researchers, clinicians, and administrators may have different priorities-and scientific control is difficult. Therefore, clinician-researcher-administrator collaboration in planning and conducting studies is critical for successful hospice and palliative care research. For an effective collaboration, clinicians, researchers, and site administrators must be considered equal partners. Each collaborator brings their unique expertise, knowledge, and skills that when combined can strengthen scientific rigor, feasibility, and success of the project, as well as have study outcomes that are more translatable to real-world practice. However, little guidance exists to give actionable steps to build collaborative partnerships for hospice and palliative care researchers. The purpose of this article is to describe the process of forming successful clinician-researcher-administrator collaborations through five phases of the research life cycle: idea generation, partnership, proposal writing, research process, and dissemination. Exemplars are drawn from the authors' experiences conducting collaborative research and highlight strategies and resources for successful hospice and palliative care collaborations.

Best Practices for Using Telehealth in Hospice and Palliative Care.

Hospice and palliative care providers throughout the United States have continued to provide compassionate patient- and family-centered care during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic while adapting to the need for scrupulous infection control measures and the accelerated use of telehealth. Prior to the pandemic, hospice and palliative care adopted telehealth slowly compared with other specialties, but its rapidly increasing utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic has long-term implications for access to primary and specialty palliative care, particularly for patients in rural communities and populations experiencing inequitable access to services. Telehealth also shows great promise for leveraging technology to provide care more effectively and efficiently. As more provider organizations become equipped with telehealth infrastructure, and as advocacy for broader reimbursement of these services grows, telehealth services for hospice and palliative care are expected to continue. This article highlights the work of expert clinicians from multiple hospice and palliative care organizations to develop best practices for conducting telehealth visits in inpatient and community settings. The authors propose that best practices be compiled and considered to ensure quality-driven, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines with interprofessional applicability.

Increasing inpatient hospice use versus patient preferences in the USA: are patients able to die in the setting of their choice?

BACKGROUND: Growth in hospice utilisation has been accompanied by an increase in the proportion of hospice patients who die in an inpatient hospice setting rather than at home. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether this increase in inpatient utilisation is consistent with patient preferences. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven hospices in the Coalition of Hospices Organised to Investigate Comparative Effectiveness (CHOICE) network. PATIENTS: 70 488 patients admitted between 1 July 2008 and 31 May 2012. MEASUREMENTS: We measured changes in patients' stated preferences at the time of admission regarding site of death, including weights to adjust for non-response bias. We also assessed patients' actual site of death and concordance with patients' preferences. RESULTS: More patients died receiving inpatient care in 2012 as compared to 2008 (1920 (32.7%), 2537 (18.5%); OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.22; p<0.001). However, patients also expressed an increasing preference for dying in inpatient settings (weighted preferences 27.5% in 2012 vs 7.9% in 2008; p<0.001). The overall proportion of patients who died in the setting of their choice (weighted preferences) increased from 74% in 2008 to 78% in 2012 (p<0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study included only seven hospices, and results may not be representative of the larger hospice population. CONCLUSIONS: Although more patients are dying while receiving inpatient care, these changes in site of death seem to reflect changing patient preferences. The net effect is that patients in this sample were more likely to die in the setting of their choice in 2012 than they were in 2008.