A Nurse Practitioner-Driven Palliative and Supportive Care Service in Nursing Homes: Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Project.

This article describes a quality improvement project implemented by a national postacute long-term care organization aimed at enhancing the provision of palliative care to nursing home residents. The project focused on improving advance care planning, end-of-life care, symptom management, and care of people living with serious illness. Both generalist and specialist palliative care training were provided to nurse practitioners in addition to implementing a system to identify residents most likely to benefit from a palliative approach to care. To evaluate the nurse practitioner experiences of the program, survey data were collected from nurse practitioners (N = 7) involved in the project at 5 months after implementation. Nurse practitioners reported the program was well received by nursing home staff, families, and residents. Most nurse practitioners felt more confident managing residents' symptoms and complex care needs; however, some reported needing additional resources for palliative care delivery. Most common symptoms that were managed included pain, delirium, and dyspnea; most common diagnoses cared for were dementia and chronic organ failure (eg, cardiac, lung, renal, and neurological diseases). In the next steps, the project will be expanded throughout the organization, and person- and family-centered outcomes will be evaluated.

Staff Perspectives on Dementia Care in Nursing Homes: A Pre-Implementation, Content Analysis Study Guided by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model.

PURPOSE: To assess implementation context prior to the implementation of Dementia Collaborative Coaching (DCC), a person-centered, communication coaching intervention for speech-language pathologists, certified nursing assistants, and people living with dementia in nursing homes. METHODS: This was a pre-implementation, content analysis of focus groups. Focus group questions and subsequent analysis were guided by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model. RESULTS: Employees (N = 27) from three nursing homes participated in five focus groups. Five themes from directed content analysis included (a) Dementia Care Needs Improvement; (b) Dementia Collaborative Coaching Appears Promising; (c) Awareness of Necessary Implementation and Sustainability Plans; (d) Regulations Need Accurate Interpretation and Local Dissemination; and (e) Appropriate Staffing Concerns. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: Key factors related to the implementation of DCC included a perceived tension for change from staff to improve dementia care, concerns about appropriate staffing, and the need for explicit implementation and sustainability plans. The importance of continuing education with specific attention to temporary staff was also found to be a necessary element to support better uptake of the person-centered intervention. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 50(2), 5-9.].

A comparison of end-of-life care quality for Veterans receiving hospice in VA nursing homes and community nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: While the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has long provided hospice care within VA community living centers (CLCs, i.e., VA nursing homes), an increasing number of Veterans are receiving hospice in VA-contracted community nursing homes (CNHs). However, little data exist about the quality of end-of-life (EOL) care provided in CNHs. The aim of this study was to compare family ratings of the quality of EOL care provided to Veterans receiving hospice in VA CLCs and VA-contracted CNHs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of national data from VA's electronic medical record and Bereaved Family Survey (BFS) for Veterans who received hospice in VA CLCs or VA-contracted CNHs between October 2021 and March 2022. The final sample included 1238 Veterans who died in either a CLC (n = 1012) or a CNH (n = 226) and whose next-of-kin completed the BFS. Our primary outcome was the BFS global rating of care received in the last 30 days of life. Secondary outcomes included BFS items related to symptom management, communication, emotional and spiritual support, and information about burial and survivor benefits. We compared unadjusted and adjusted proportions for all BFS outcomes between those who received hospice in CLCs and CNHs. RESULTS: The adjusted proportion of family members who gave the best possible rating (a score of 9 or 10 out of a possible 10) for the overall care received near EOL was more than 13 percentage points higher for Veterans who received hospice in VA CLCs compared to VA-contracted CNHs. Our findings also revealed quality gaps of even greater magnitude in specific EOL care-focused domains. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings document inadequacies in the quality of multiple aspects of EOL care provided to Veterans in CNH-based hospice and illuminate the urgent need for policy and practice interventions to improve this care.

Evaluating the pragmatic characteristics of advance care planning outcome measures in dementia clinical trials: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that involves discussing a person's goals, values, and preferences; it is particularly important for persons living with dementia (PLWD) given that dementia is incurable and progressive. To ensure results that will impact real-world practices, ACP outcome measures must be psychometrically strong, meaningful to key partners, and pragmatic to collect. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of outcome measures utilized in ACP randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling PLWD or their care partners and evaluated their pragmatic characteristics. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed ACP RCTs enrolling PLWD or their care partners from 2011 to 2021. We abstracted characteristics of primary and secondary outcome measures, including pragmatic characteristics using an adapted Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale and ACP outcome domains using the standardized ACP Outcome Framework (i.e., process, action, healthcare, or quality of care). RESULTS: We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. Twenty-four (23%) outcome measures were highly pragmatic, the majority of which (67%) reflected healthcare outcome measures. Sixty-one (59%) outcomes were assessed as highly relevant to PLWD or their care partners. Only 20% (n = 21) of outcome measures were embedded into clinical practice. Most (62%) RCTs were conducted in nursing homes, and 33% were focused PLWD with advanced stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: In RCTs testing ACP interventions to support PLWD, only 23% of outcome measures were highly pragmatic, and most of these measured healthcare utilizations. Outcome assessments were rarely integrated into the EHR during routine clinical care. New outcome measures that address the lived experience of PLWD and their care partners plus have high pragmatic characteristics are needed for embedded pragmatic clinical trials.

Identifying Nursing Home Residents with Unmet Palliative Care Needs: A Systematic Review of Screening Tool Measurement Properties.

OBJECTIVES: Despite common use of palliative care screening tools in other settings, the performance of these tools in the nursing home has not been well established; therefore, the purpose of this review is to (1) identify palliative care screening tools validated for nursing home residents and (2) critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of measurement properties. DESIGN: Systematic review of measurement properties consistent with Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched from inception to May 2022. Studies that (1) reported the development or evaluation of a palliative care screening tool and (2) sampled older adults living in a nursing home were included. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened, selected, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: We identified only 1 palliative care screening tool meeting COSMIN criteria, the NECesidades Paliativas (NEC-PAL, equivalent to palliative needs in English), but evidence for use with nursing home residents was of low quality. The NEC-PAL lacked robust testing of measurement properties such as reliability, sensitivity, and specificity in the nursing home setting. Construct validity through hypothesis testing was adequate but only reported in 1 study. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to guide practice. Broadening the criteria further, this review reports on 3 additional palliative care screening tools identified during the search and screening process but which were excluded during full-text review for various reasons. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Given the unique care environment of nursing homes, we recommend future studies to validate available tools and develop new instruments specifically designed for nursing home use. In the meantime, we recommend that clinicians consider the evidence presented here and choose a screening instrument that best meets their needs.

Telehealth Palliative Care in Nursing Homes: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Many adults older than 65 spend time in a nursing home (NH) at the end of life where specialist palliative care is limited. However, telehealth may improve access to palliative care services. A review of the literature was conducted to synthesize the evidence for telehealth palliative care in NHs to provide recommendations for practice, research, and policy. DESIGN: Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews frameworks were used to guide this literature review. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Reviewed articles focused on residents in NHs with telehealth palliative care interventionists operating remotely. Participants included NH residents, care partner(s), and NH staff/clinicians. METHODS: We searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (WileyOnline), Scopus (Elsevier), CINHAL (EBSCOhost), Trip PRO, and Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest) in June 2021, with an update in January 2022. We included observational and qualitative studies, clinical trials, quality improvement projects, and case and clinical reports that self-identified as telehealth palliative care for NH residents. RESULTS: The review yielded 11 eligible articles published in the United States and internationally from 2008 to 2020. Articles described live video as the preferred telehealth delivery modality with goals of care and physical aspects of care being most commonly addressed. Findings in the articles focused on 5 patient and family-centered outcomes: symptom management, quality of life, advance care planning, health care use, and evaluation of care. Consistent benefits of telehealth palliative care included increased documentation of goals of care and decrease in acute care use. Disadvantages included technological difficulties and increased NH financial burden. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although limited in scope and quality, the current evidence for telehealth palliative care interventions shows promise for improving quality and outcomes of serious illness care in NHs. Future empirical studies should focus on intervention effectiveness, implementation outcomes (eg, managing technology), stakeholders' experience, and costs.

Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED): a protocol for an implementation study in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence supports the use of structured goals of care conversations and documentation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) preferences in durable, accessible, and actionable orders to improve the care for people living with serious illness. As the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides an excellent environment to test implementation strategies that promote this evidence-based practice. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) program seeks to improve care outcomes for seriously ill Veterans by supporting efforts to conduct goals of care conversations, systematically document LST preferences, and ensure timely and accurate communication about preferences across VA and non-VA settings. METHODS: PERSIVED encompasses two separate but related implementation projects that support the same evidence-based practice. Project 1 will enroll 12 VA Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) programs and Project 2 will enroll six VA Community Nursing Home (CNH) programs. Both projects begin with a pre-implementation phase during which data from diverse stakeholders are gathered to identify barriers and facilitators to adoption of the LST evidence-based practice. This baseline assessment is used to tailor quality improvement activities using audit with feedback and implementation facilitation during the implementation phase. Site champions serve as the lynchpin between the PERSIVED project team and site personnel. PERSIVED teams support site champions through monthly coaching sessions. At the end of implementation, baseline site process maps are updated to reflect new steps and procedures to ensure timely conversations and documentation of treatment preferences. During the sustainability phase, intense engagement with champions ends, at which point champions work independently to maintain and improve processes and outcomes. Ongoing process evaluation, guided by the RE-AIM framework, is used to monitor Reach, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance outcomes. Effectiveness will be assessed using several endorsed clinical metrics for seriously ill populations. DISCUSSION: The PERSIVED program aims to prevent potentially burdensome LSTs by consistently eliciting and documenting values, goals, and treatment preferences of seriously ill Veterans. Working with clinical operational partners, we will apply our findings to HBPC and CNH programs throughout the national VA healthcare system during a future scale-out period.

Palliative Care and Documented Suicide: Association Among Veterans With High Mortality Risk.

CONTEXT: Palliative care consultations (PCCs) are associated with reduced physical and psychological symptoms that are related to suicide risk. Little is known, however, about the association between PCCs and death from suicide among patients at high risk of short-term mortality. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the number of PCCs and documentation of suicide in a cohort of Veterans at high risk of short-term mortality, before and after accounting for Veterans' sociodemographic characteristics and clinical conditions. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted using linked Veterans Affairs clinical and administrative databases for 580,620 decedents with high risk of one-year mortality. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between number of PCCs and documentation of suicide. RESULTS: Higher percentages of Veterans who died by suicide were diagnosed with chronic pulmonary disease as well as mental health/substance use conditions compared with Veterans who died from other causes. In adjusted models, one PCC in the 90 days prior to death was significantly associated with a 71% decrease in the odds of suicide (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.23-0.37, P < 0.001) and two or more PCCs were associated with a 78% decrease (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.15-0.33, P < 0.001). Associated "number needed to be exposed" estimates suggest that 421 Veterans in this population would need to receive at least one PCC to prevent one suicide. CONCLUSION: While acknowledging the importance of specialized mental health care in reducing suicide among high-risk patients, interventions delivered in the context of PCCs may also play a role.

Evaluating implementation strategies to support documentation of veterans' care preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback reports and feedback reports + external facilitation on completion of life-sustaining treatment (LST) note the template and durable medical orders. This quality improvement program supported the national roll-out of the Veterans Health Administration (VA) LST Decisions Initiative (LSTDI), which aims to ensure that seriously-ill veterans have care goals and LST decisions elicited and documented. DATA SOURCES: Primary data from national databases for VA nursing homes (called Community Living Centers [CLCs]) from 2018 to 2020. STUDY DESIGN: In one project, we distributed monthly feedback reports summarizing LST template completion rates to 12 sites as the sole implementation strategy. In the second involving five sites, we distributed similar feedback reports and provided robust external facilitation, which included coaching, education, and learning collaboratives. For each project, principal component analyses matched intervention to comparison sites, and interrupted time series/segmented regression analyses evaluated the differences in LSTDI template completion rates between intervention and comparison sites. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Data were extracted from national databases in addition to interviews and surveys in a mixed-methods process evaluation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: LSTDI template completion rose from 0% to about 80% throughout the study period in both projects' intervention and comparison CLCs. There were small but statistically significant differences for feedback reports alone (comparison sites performed better, coefficient estimate 3.48, standard error 0.99 for the difference between groups in change in trend) and feedback reports + external facilitation (intervention sites performed better, coefficient estimate -2.38, standard error 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Feedback reports + external facilitation was associated with a small but statistically significant improvement in outcomes compared with comparison sites. The large increases in completion rates are likely due to the well-planned national roll-out of the LSTDI. This finding suggests that when dissemination and support for widespread implementation are present and system-mandated, significant enhancements in the adoption of evidence-based practices may require more intensive support.

Forced to Choose: When Medicare Policy Disrupts End-of-Life Care.

In the last six months of life, 30% of Medicare beneficiaries use the skilled nursing facility (SNF) benefit for post-acute care after a hospital stay. Frequently, the circumstances that indicate a need for SNF care are the same as those of a worsening illness trajectory such as functional decline and falls, unstable health conditions, and pain and other symptoms. The following case example and narrative discussion describes the national implications of this issue and the need for Medicare policy changes that allow for concurrent rehabilitative care and hospice services.

High-Quality Nursing Home and Palliative Care-One and the Same.

Many individuals receiving post-acute and long-term care services in nursing homes have unmet palliative and end-of-life care needs. Hospice has been the predominant approach to meeting these needs, although hospice services generally are available only to long-term care residents with a limited prognosis who choose to forego disease-modifying or curative therapies. Two additional approaches to meeting these needs are the provision of palliative care consultation through community- or hospital-based programs and facility-based palliative care services. However, access to this specialized care is limited, services are not clearly defined, and the empirical evidence of these approaches' effectiveness is inadequate. In this article, we review the existing evidence and challenges with each of these 3 approaches. We then describe a model for effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care in nursing homes, one in which palliative and end-of-life care are seen as integral to high-quality nursing home care. To achieve this vision, we make 4 recommendations: (1) promote internal palliative and end-of-life care capacity through comprehensive training and support; (2) ensure that state and federal payment policies and regulations do not create barriers to delivering high-quality, person-centered palliative and end-of-life care; (3) align nursing home quality measures to include palliative and end-of-life care-sensitive indicators; and (4) support access to and integration of external palliative care services. These recommendations will require changes in the organization, delivery, and reimbursement of care. All nursing homes should provide high-quality palliative and end-of-life care, and this article describes some key strategies to make this goal a reality.

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.

Implementing Primary Palliative Care in Post-acute nursing home care: Protocol for an embedded pilot pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with serious illness frequently receive post-acute rehabilitative care in nursing homes (NH) under the Part A Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Benefit. Treatment is commonly focused on disease-modifying therapies with minimal consideration for goals of care, symptom relief, and other elements of palliative care. INTERVENTION: The evidence-based Primary Palliative Care in Post-Acute Care (PPC-PAC) intervention for older adults is delivered by nurse practitioners (NP). PPC-PAC NPs assess and manage symptoms, conduct goals of care discussions and assist with decision making; they communicate findings with NH staff and providers. Implementation of PPC-PAC includes online and face-to-face training of NPs, ongoing facilitation, and a template embedded in the NH electronic health record to document PPC-PAC. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this pilot pragmatic clinical trial are to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the PPC-PAC intervention and its implementation for 80 seriously ill older adults newly admitted to a NH for post-acute care. METHODS: Design is a two-arm nonequivalent group multi-site pilot pragmatic clinical trial. The unit of assignment is at the NP and unit of analysis is NH patients. Recruitment occurs at NHs in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. Effectiveness (patient quality of life) data are collected at two times points-baseline and 14-21 days. CONCLUSION: This will be the first study to evaluate the implementation of an evidence-based primary palliative care intervention specifically designed for older adults with serious illness who are receiving post-acute NH care.

Family members' experience improves with care preference documentation in home based primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented the comprehensive life-sustaining treatment (LST) Decisions Initiative to provide training and standardize documentation of goals of care and LST preferences for seriously ill Veterans to improve end-of-life (EOL) outcomes. LST documentation is expected for all Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) Veterans because they are at high risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis compared associations between Bereaved Family Survey (BFS) EOL care ratings and LST documentation. Participants were Veterans who died August 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 in one of 55 VA HBPC programs. Regression modeling generated odds for key BFS outcomes. LST template completion rate was plotted by month to understand the interaction between time, LST completion rate, and EOL care family ratings. RESULTS: LST preferences were documented for 39% of HBPC Veterans. Family members rated overall EOL care as excellent for 53% of Veterans but significant divergence in BFS ratings occurred during the last 7 months of the study with 60% of family members of LST completers rating care as excellent compared with 48% for Veterans lacking LST documentation (p = 0.003). The adjusted odds of rating overall care in the final month of life as excellent was higher among those with a completed LST template (1.64 95% CI 1.19, 2.26). CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of LST documentation were associated with more favorable ratings of EOL but not in initial months following implementation of the comprehensive initiative; however, LST documentation rates were lower than expected among HBPC Veterans. Following an initial period of implementation of a comprehensive national initiative to promote Veteran choice about care during serious illness, documented LST preferences were associated with better family ratings of EOL care. HBPC clinicians may improve the bereaved family experience by using LSDTI tools and training to elicit and document preferences.

Developing and implementing a novel program to prepare nursing home-based geriatric nurse practitioners in primary palliative care.

ABSTRACT: Current palliative care workforce projections indicate that the growing palliative care needs of older adults in US nursing homes cannot be met by specialists, leaving them vulnerable and at risk for poor end-of-life outcomes. The purpose of this article is to describe the development, implementation, and initial evaluation of a program to support primary care nursing home nurse practitioners (NPs) in palliative care. The program aimed to improve geriatric NPs' knowledge and skills related to palliative care and to provide a structured protocol for integrating palliative care encounters into NPs' practice. It comprised three phases consisting of asynchronous online learning modules, a 1-day face-to-face communication skills and patient simulation workshop, and ongoing monthly virtual meetings to support NP clinical practice. Over a 1-year period, the program was developed and implemented with 12 practicing NPs in a national organization. Through an online survey and face-to-face feedback, NPs reported satisfaction with the curriculum and expressed it as valuable to their clinical practice. Future work will focus on sustaining implementation of the program, measuring patient level outcomes, and refining the curriculum based on NP feedback.

End-Of-Life Care in the Time of COVID-19: Communication Matters More Than Ever.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in visitation restrictions across most health care settings, necessitating the use of remote communication to facilitate communication among families, patients and health care teams. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of remote communication on families' evaluation of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional, mixed methods study using data from an after-death survey administered from March 17-June 30, 2020. The primary outcome was the next of kin's global assessment of care during the Veteran's last month of life. RESULTS: Data were obtained from the next-of-kin of 328 Veterans who died in an inpatient unit (i.e., acute care, intensive care, nursing home, hospice units) in one of 37 VA medical centers with the highest numbers of COVID-19 cases. The adjusted percentage of bereaved families reporting excellent overall end-of-life care was statistically significantly higher among those reporting Very Effective remote communication compared to those reporting that remote communication was Mostly, Somewhat, or Not at All Effective (69.5% vs. 35.7%). Similar differences were observed in evaluations of remote communication effectiveness with the health care team. Overall, 81.3% of family members who offered positive comments about communication with either the Veteran or the health care team reported excellent overall end-of-life care vs. 28.4% who made negative comments. CONCLUSIONS: Effective remote communication with the patient and the health care team was associated with significantly better ratings of the overall experience of end-of-life care by bereaved family members. Our findings offer timely insights into the importance of remote communication strategies.

Honoring Veterans' Preferences: The Association Between Comfort Care Goals and Care Received at the End of Life.

CONTEXT: As part of its Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Initiative, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) in January 2017 began requiring electronic documentation of goals of care and preferences for Veterans with serious illness and at high risk for life-threatening events. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether goals of "to be comfortable" were associated with greater palliative care (PC) use and lesser acute care use. METHODS: We identified Veterans with VA inpatient or nursing home stays overlapping July 2018-January 2019, with LST templates documented by January 31, 2019, and who died by April 30, 2019 (N = 18,163). From template documentation, we identified a "to be comfortable" goal. Using VA and Medicare data, we determined PC use (consultations and hospice) and hospital, intensive care unit, and emergency department use 7 and 30 days before death. Multivariate logistic regression examined the associations of interest. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of the 18,163 Veterans had comfort-care goals; 80% with comfort care goals received hospice and 57% PC consultations (versus 57% and 46%, respectively, for decedents without comfort-care goals). In adjusted analyses, comfort care documented on the LST template prior to death was associated with significantly lower odds of hospital, intensive care unit, and emergency department use near the end of life. In the last 30 days of life, Veterans with a comfort care goal had 44% lower odds (adjusted odds ratio 0.57; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.63) of being hospitalized. CONCLUSION: Findings support the VA's commitment to honoring of Veterans' preferences post introduction of its Life Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative.

Alternative Consent Models in Pragmatic Palliative Care Clinical Trials.

Palliative care research raises a host of ethical concerns. Obtaining informed consent from seriously ill patients and their families is often perceived as an additional burden. Alternative approaches to traditional written informed consent reflect the changing nature of modern trial design, embracing real-world effectiveness and pragmatic clinical trials with those who are seriously ill. Ethicists, clinical investigators, and regulatory bodies have acknowledged the challenges to rigorous, meaningful, and generalizable research across diverse patient populations in real-world settings. The purpose of this article is to describe how these clinical trial designs have driven innovation in methods for achieving informed consent, with a focus on palliative care research. In this article, we describe and provide examples of consent waivers and three types of alternative approaches to consent, including broadcast notification and integrated and targeted consent. We also present our experiences in an ongoing palliative care clinical trial, specifically using broadcast notification. Working with participants and regulatory oversight organizations, investigators can address the limits of traditional written informed consent and adopt innovative consent models to advance the science of palliative care. Research is now needed to determine the impact of these differing consent models on clinical trial recruitment, enrollment, and retention, as well as participants' informed understanding of their research participation using such models.