Clinician and Family Caregiver Perspectives on Deprescribing Chronic Disease Medications in Older Nursing Home Residents Near the End of Life.

INTRODUCTION: Nursing home (NH) residents with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are intensely treated for hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes may benefit from deprescribing. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe NH clinician and family caregiver perspectives on key influences on deprescribing decisions for chronic disease medications in NH residents near the end of life. METHODS: We recruited family caregivers of veterans who recently died in a Veterans Affairs (VA) NH, known as community living centers (CLCs), and CLC healthcare clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses). Respondents completed semi-structured interviews about their experiences with deprescribing statin, antihypertensive, and antidiabetic medications for residents near end of life. We conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify key themes regarding influences on deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Thirteen family caregivers and 13 clinicians completed interviews. Key themes included (1) clinicians and caregivers both prefer to minimize drug burden; (2) clinical factors strongly influence deprescribing of chronic disease medications, with differences in how clinicians and caregivers weigh specific factors; (3) caregivers trust and rely on clinicians to make deprescribing decisions; (4) clinicians perceive caregiver involvement and buy-in as essential to deprescribing decisions, which requires time and effort to obtain; and (5) clinicians perceive conflicting care from other clinicians as a barrier to deprescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a need for efforts to encourage communication with and education for family caregivers of residents with LLE about deprescribing, and to foster better collaboration among clinicians in CLC and non-CLC settings.

Variation in Specialist Palliative Care Reach and Associated Factors Among People With Advanced Heart Failure in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

CONTEXT: Clinical practice guidelines recommend palliative care for people with advanced heart failure (aHF), yet it remains underutilized. OBJECTIVES: We examined medical center variation in specialist palliative care (SPC) and identified factors associated with variation among people with aHF. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 21,654 people with aHF who received healthcare in 83 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) from 2018-2020. We defined aHF with ICD-9/10 codes and hospitalizations. We used random intercept multilevel logistic regression to derive SPC reach (i.e., predicted probability) for each VAMC adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. We then examined VAMC-level SPC delivery characteristics associated with predicted SPC reach including the availability of outpatient SPC (proportion of outpatient consultations), cardiology involvement (number of outpatient cardiology-initiated referrals), and earlier SPC (days from aHF identification to consultation). RESULTS: Of the sample the mean age = 72.9+/-10.9 years, 97.9% were male, 61.6% were White, and 32.2% were Black. The predicted SPC reach varied substantially across VAMCs from 9% to 57% (mean: 28% [95% Confidence Interval: 25%-30%]). Only the availability of outpatient SPC was independently associated with higher SPC reach. VAMCs, in which outpatient delivery made up the greatest share of SPC consultations (9% or higher) had 11% higher rates of SPC reach relative to VAMCs with a lower proportion of outpatient SPC. CONCLUSION: SPC reach varies widely across VAMCs for people with aHF. Outpatient palliative is common among high-reach VAMCs but its role in reach warrants further investigation. Strategies used by high-reach VAMCs may be potential targets to test for implementation and dissemination.

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: Increasing inpatient palliative care delivery is prioritized, but large-scale, experimental evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. Objective: To determine whether ordering palliative care consultation by default for seriously ill hospitalized patients without requiring greater palliative care staffing increased consultations and improved outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial was conducted among patients 65 years or older with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or kidney failure admitted from March 21, 2016, through November 14, 2018, to 11 US hospitals. Outcome data collection ended on January 31, 2019. Intervention: Ordering palliative care consultation by default for eligible patients, while allowing clinicians to opt-out, was compared with usual care, in which clinicians could choose to order palliative care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospital length of stay, with deaths coded as the longest length of stay, and secondary end points included palliative care consult rate, discharge to hospice, do-not-resuscitate orders, and in-hospital mortality. Results: Of 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). A higher percentage of patients in the default order group received palliative care consultation than in the standard care group (43.9% vs 16.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.17 [95% CI, 4.59-5.81]) and received consultation earlier (mean [SD] of 3.4 [2.6] days after admission vs 4.6 [4.8] days; P < .001). Length of stay did not differ between the default order and usual care groups (percent difference in median length of stay, -0.53% [95% CI, -3.51% to 2.53%]). Patients in the default order group had higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders at discharge (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.21-1.63]) and discharge to hospice (aOR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.07-1.57]) than the usual care group, and similar in-hospital mortality (4.7% vs 4.2%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Conclusions and Relevance: Default palliative care consult orders did not reduce length of stay for older, hospitalized patients with advanced chronic illnesses, but did improve the rate and timing of consultation and some end-of-life care processes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505035.

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.

"They Did Not Know How to Talk to Us and It Seems That They Didn't Care:" Narratives from Bereaved Family Members of Black Veterans.

Racial disparities in the quality of health care services, including end of life (EOL) care, are well-documented. While several explanations for these inequities have been proposed, few studies have examined the underlying mechanisms. This paper presents the results of the qualitative phase of a concurrent mixed-methods study (QUANT + QUAL) that sought to identify explanations for observed racial differences in quality of EOL care ratings using the Department of Veterans Affairs Bereaved Family Survey (BFS). The objective of the qualitative phase of the study was to understand the specific experiences that contributed to an unfavorable overall EOL quality rating on the BFS among family members of Black Veterans. We used inductive thematic analysis to code BFS open-ended items associated with 165 Black Veterans whose family member rated the overall quality of care received by the Veteran in the last month of life as "poor" or "fair." Four major themes emerged from the BFS narratives, including (1) Positive Aspects of Care, (2) Unmet Care Needs, (3) Lack of Empathy, Dignity, and Respect, and (4) Poor Communication. Additionally, some family members offered recommendations for care improvements. Our discussion includes integrated results from both our qualitative and previously reported quantitative findings that may serve as a foundation for future evidence-based interventions to improve the equitable delivery of high-quality EOL care.

Using Palliative Leaders in Facilities to Transform Care for People with Alzheimer's Disease (UPLIFT-AD): protocol of a palliative care clinical trial in nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is an effective model of care focused on maximizing quality of life and relieving the suffering of people with serious illnesses, including dementia. Evidence shows that many people receiving care in nursing homes are eligible for and would benefit from palliative care services. Yet, palliative care is not consistently available in nursing home settings. There is a need to test pragmatic strategies to implement palliative care programs in nursing homes. METHODS/DESIGN: The UPLIFT-AD (Utilizing Palliative Leaders in Facilities to Transform care for people with Alzheimer's Disease) study is a pragmatic stepped wedge trial in 16 nursing homes in Maryland and Indiana, testing the effectiveness of the intervention while assessing its implementation. The proposed intervention is a palliative care program, including 1) training at least two facility staff as Palliative Care Leads, 2) training for all staff in general principles of palliative care, 3) structured screening for palliative care needs, and 4) on-site specialty palliative care consultations for a one-year intervention period. All residents with at least moderate cognitive impairment, present in the facility for at least 30 days, and not on hospice at baseline are considered eligible. Opt-out consent is obtained from legal decision-makers. Outcome assessments measuring symptoms and quality of care are obtained from staff and family proxy respondents at four time points: pre-implementation (baseline), six months after implementation, at 12 months (conclusion of implementation), and six months after the end of implementation. Palliative care attitudes and practices are assessed through surveys of frontline nursing home staff both pre- and post-implementation. Qualitative and quantitative implementation data, including fidelity assessments and interviews with Palliative Care Leads, are also collected. The study will follow the Declaration of Helsinki. DISCUSSION: This trial assesses the implementation and effectiveness of a robust palliative care intervention for residents with moderate-to-advanced cognitive impairment in 16 diverse nursing homes. The intervention represents an innovative, pragmatic approach that includes both internal capacity-building of frontline nursing home staff, and support from external palliative care specialty consultants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The project is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04520698.

Validation of Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithms to Identify Specialist Palliative Care Within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of specialist palliative care (SPC) across Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities relies on algorithms applied to administrative databases. However, the validity of these algorithms has not been systematically assessed. MEASURES: In a cohort of people with heart failure identified by ICD 9/10 codes, we validated the performance of algorithms to identify SPC consultation in administrative data and differentiate outpatient from inpatient encounters. INTERVENTION: We derived separate samples of people by receipt of SPC using combinations of stop codes signifying specific clinics, current procedural terminology (CPT), a variable representing encounter location, and ICD-9/ICD-10 codes for SPC. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for each algorithm using chart review as the reference standard. OUTCOMES: Among 200 people who did and did not receive SPC (mean age = 73.9 years (standard deviation [SD] = 11.5), 98% male, 73% White), the validity of the stop code plus CPT algorithm to identify any SPC consultation was: Sensitivity = 0.89 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.82-0.94), Specificity = 1.0 [0.96-1.0], PPV = 1.0 [0.96-1.0], NPV = 0.93 [0.86-0.97]. The addition of ICD codes increased sensitivity but decreased specificity. Among 200 people who received SPC (mean age = 74.2 years [SD = 11.8], 99% male, 71% White), algorithm performance in differentiating outpatient from inpatient encounters was: Sensitivity = 0.95 (0.88-0.99), Specificity = 0.81 (0.72-0.87), PPV = 0.38 (0.29-0.49), and NPV = 0.99 (0.95-1.0). Adding encounter location improved the sensitivity and specificity of this algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: VA algorithms are highly sensitive and specific in identifying SPC and in differentiating outpatient from inpatient encounters. These algorithms can be used with confidence to measure SPC in quality improvement and research across the VA.

Barriers and facilitators to goals of care conversations with Veteran residents of community nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that structured goals of care conversations (GoCCs) and documentation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) preferences improve the delivery of goal-concordant care for seriously ill patients, rates of completion remain low among nursing home residents. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) program aims to improve the consistent documentation of LST preferences among Veterans receiving care in veterans affairs (VA)-paid community nursing homes (CNH); however, the barriers and facilitators of completing and documenting GoCCs in this unique context of care have not been described. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders of the VA CNH programs located at six VA Medical Centers between July 2021 and July 2022. With a rapid approach to analysis, interview transcripts were reduced into memo templates using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease Checklist and coded and analyzed using qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: The 40 participants consisted of nurses (n = 13), social workers (n = 25), and VA physicians (n = 2). Most participants felt confident about conducting GoCC; however, several barriers were identified. At the staff level, our results indicated inconsistent completion of GoCC and documentation due to a lack of training, confusion about roles and responsibilities, and challenging communication within the VA as well as with CNH. At the organizational level, there was a lack of standardization across sites for how LST preferences were documented. At the patient level, we found key barriers related to patient and family readiness and issues finding surrogate decision makers. While COVID-19 brought end-of-life issues to the forefront, lockdowns hindered communication about the goals of care. CONCLUSION: Findings from this pre-implementation evaluation revealed multi-level barriers in conducting and documenting GoCCs with Veterans receiving VA-paid CNH care, as well as several facilitators that can be used to inform strategies for improvement.

Calling all nurses-Now is the time to take action on improving the quality of care in nursing homes.

For a number of decades, nurses have raised concerns about nursing-related issues in nursing homes (NH) such as inadequate registered nurse (RN) staffing, insufficient RN and advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) gerontological expertise, and lack of RN leadership competencies. The NASEM Committee on the Quality of Care in Nursing Homes illuminated the long-standing issues and concerns affecting the quality of care in nursing homes and proposed seven goals and associated recommendations intended to achieve the Committee's vision: Nursing home residents receive care in a safe environment that honors their values and preferences, addresses goals of care, promotes equity, and assesses the benefits and risks of care and treatments. This paper outlines concrete and specific actions nurses and nursing organizations can take to ensure the recommendations are implemented.

Patient-Reported Quality Measures for Palliative Care: The Time is now.

CONTEXT: While progress has been made in the ability to measure the quality of hospice and specialty palliative care, there are notable gaps. A recent analysis conducted by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revealed a paucity of patient-reported measures, particularly in palliative care domains such as symptom management and communication. OBJECTIVES: The research team, consisting of quality measure and survey developers, psychometricians, and palliative care clinicians, used established state-of-the art methods for developing and testing patient-reported measures. METHODS: We applied a patient-centered, patient-engaged approach throughout the development and testing process. This sequential process included 1) an information gathering phase; 2) a pre-testing phase; 3) a testing phase; and 4) an endorsement phase. RESULTS: To fill quality measure gaps identified during the information gathering phase, we selected two draft measures ("Feeling Heard and Understood" and "Receiving Desired Help for Pain") for testing with patients receiving palliative care in clinic-based settings. In the pre-testing phase, we used an iterative process of cognitive interviews to refine draft items and corresponding response options for the proposed measures. The alpha pilot test supported establishment of protocols for the national beta field test. Measures met conventional criteria for reliability, had strong face and construct validity, and there was diversity in program level scores. The measures received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement. CONCLUSION: These measures highlight the key role of patient voices in palliative care and fill a much-needed gap for patient-reported experience measures in our field.

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.

VA nursing home compare metrics as an indicator of skilled nursing facility quality for veterans.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Administration (VA) provides several post-acute care (PAC) options for Veterans, including VA-owned nursing homes (called Community Living Centers, CLCs). In 2016, the VA released CLC Compare star ratings to support decision-making. However, the relationship between CLC Compare star ratings and Veterans CLC post-acute outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective observational study using national VA and Medicare data for Veterans discharged to a CLC for PAC. We used a multivariate regression model with hospital random effects to examine the association between CLC Compare overall star ratings and PAC outcomes while controlling for patient, facility, and hospital factors. Our sample included Veteran enrollees age 65+ who were community-dwelling, experienced a hospitalization, and were discharged to a CLC in 2016-2017. PAC outcomes included 30-day unplanned hospital readmission, 30-day mortality, 100-day successful community discharge, and a secondary composite outcome of unplanned readmission or death within 30-days of the hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of the 25,107 CLC admissions, 4088 (16.3%) experienced an unplanned readmission, 4069 (16.2%) died within 30-days of hospital discharge, and 12,093 (48.2%) had a successful 100-day community discharge. Admission to a lower-quality (1-star) facility was associated with lower odds of successful community discharge (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66, 0.91) and higher odds of a combined endpoint of 30-day mortality and readmission (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09, 1.49), compared to 5-star facilities. However, outcomes were not consistently different between 5-star and 2, 3, or 4-star facilities. Star ratings were not associated with individual readmission or mortality outcomes when considered separately. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest comparisons of 1-star and 5-star CLCs may provide meaningful information for Veterans making decisions about post-acute care. Identifying ways to alter the star ratings so they are differentially associated with outcomes meaningful to Veterans at each level is essential. We found that 1-star facilities had higher rates of 30-day unplanned hospital readmission/death, and lower rates of 100-day successful community discharges compared to 5-star facilities. Yet, like past work on CMS Nursing Home Compare ratings, these relationships were found to be inconsistent or not meaningful across all star levels. CLC Compare may provide useful information for discharge and organizational planning, with some limitations.

Incidence and Trends in the Use of Palliative Care among Patients with Reduced, Middle-Range, and Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend integrating palliative care (PC) into the care of patients with heart failure (HF) to address their many palliative needs. However, the incidence rates of PC use among HF subtypes are unknown. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with the following HF subtypes in the Department of Veterans Affairs: reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid-range ejection fraction (HFmEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients were included at the time of HF diagnosis from 2011 to 2015 and followed until a minimum of five years or death. Incidence rates of receipt of PC (primary outcome) were calculated using generalized estimating equations. We evaluated the time to incident PC by HF subtype with Kaplan-Meier analyses and with adjusted restricted mean survival time. Results: Of the 113,555 patients, 69% were ≥65 years, 98% were male, 73% White, and 18% Black; 58% had HFrEF, 7% HFmEF, and 34% HFpEF. Twenty percent received PC during follow-up, and 66% died. Adjusted PC incidence rates were higher among patients with HFrEF (47 per 1000 person-years, confidence interval [95% CI] 43-52) than for HFmEF and HFpEF (42 per 1000 person-years, CI 38-47 for both). Restricting follow-up to five years, patients with HFrEF received PC six weeks earlier than patients with HFpEF. There was no significant difference in time to PC between patients with HFmEF versus HFpEF. Conclusion: About 1 in 20 patients with HFrEF and 1 in 25 patients with HFmEF and HFpEF receive PC annually. Patients with HFrEF receive PC sooner than patients with HFmEF and HFpEF.

Effect of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications on Negative Events in Older Veteran Nursing Home Residents.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines advocate against tight glycemic control in older nursing home (NH) residents with advanced dementia (AD) or limited life expectancy (LLE). We evaluated the effect of deintensifying diabetes medications with regard to all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and death in NH residents with LLE/AD and tight glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 2,082 newly admitted nonhospice veteran NH residents with LLE/AD potentially overtreated for diabetes (HbA1c ≤7.5% and one or more diabetes medications) in fiscal years 2009-2015. Diabetes treatment deintensification (dose decrease or discontinuation of a noninsulin agent or stopping insulin sustained ≥7 days) was identified within 30 days after HbA1c measurement. To adjust for confounding, we used entropy weights to balance covariates between NH residents who deintensified versus continued medications. We used the Aalen-Johansen estimator to calculate the 60-day cumulative incidence and risk ratios (RRs) for ED or hospital visits and deaths. RESULTS: Diabetes medications were deintensified for 27% of residents. In the subsequent 60 days, 28.5% of all residents were transferred to the ED or acute hospital setting for any cause and 3.9% died. After entropy weighting, deintensifying was not associated with 60-day all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.84, 1.18]) or 60-day mortality (1.52 [0.89, 2.81]). CONCLUSIONS: Among NH residents with LLE/AD who may be inappropriately overtreated with tight glycemic control, deintensification of diabetes medications was not associated with increased risk of 60-day all-cause ED visits, hospitalization, or death.