Outcomes of a Multi-Site Mentored Implementation Approach to Promoting Goals of Care Conversations.

CONTEXT: The Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment (PACT) Project is a multi-site quality improvement effort that has been shown to increase the frequency of goals of care (GOC) conversations in hospitalized patients with serious illness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of PACT on goal-discordant care and resource utilization. METHODS: Hospitals enrolled in a multi-year mentored implementation quality improvement initiative to facilitate GOC conversations for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with care discordant with stated preferences, assessed by comparing documented wishes to Medicare claims data for patients who were admitted to intervention units and died over the study period. Secondary outcomes evaluated end-of-life resource utilization by comparing Medicare claims data for intervention patients with propensity score-matched controls. RESULTS: In the 9 hospitals included in the study, 1347 intervention group patients were compared to 4019 in the control group. Rates of discordance between wishes and care were generally low in the intervention group. Compared to the control group, patients in the intervention group had lower costs (-976.05 dollars, p=0.010), were less likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR 0.9, p=0.005), less likely to be on a ventilator or undergo CPR or cardioversion, more likely to enroll in hospice (OR 1.81, p<0.001) and had a longer hospice stay (3.35 more days, p=0.041). CONCLUSION: A multi-site mentored implementation quality improvement intervention for seriously ill hospitalized patients resulted in care aligned with goals and decreased resource utilization at the end of life.

The PACT Project: Feasibility of a Multidisciplinary, Multi-Faceted Intervention to Promote Goals of Care Conversations.

BACKGROUND: Patients living with serious illness generally want their physicians to facilitate Goals of Care conversations (GoCc), yet physicians may lack time and skills to engage in these conversations in the outpatient setting. The problem may be addressed by supporting multiple members of the clinical team to facilitate GoCc with the patient while admitted to the hospital. METHODS: A multi-modal training and mentored implementation program was developed. A group of 10 hospitals were recruited to participate. Each hospital selected a primary inpatient unit on which to start the intervention, then expanded to a secondary unit later in the project. The number of trained facilitators (champions) and the number of documented GoCc were tracked over time. RESULTS: Nine of 10 hospitals completed the 3-year project. Most of the units were general medical-surgical units. Forty-eight champions were trained at the kick-off conference, attended primarily by nurses, physicians, and social workers. By the end of the project, 153 champions had been trained. A total of 51 087 patients were admitted to PACT units with 85.4% being screened for eligibility. Of the patients who were eligible, over 68% had documented GoCc. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted quality improvement intervention focused on serious illness communication skills can support a diverse clinical workforce to facilitate inpatient GoCc over time.

Identifying Patients in Need of Goals of Care Conversations: Reliability, Acceptability, and Prognostic Significance of the Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment Conversation Trigger Tool for Patients with Cancer.

Background: Simple methods to help teams identify patients with goals of care (GOC) conversation needs are lacking. Objectives: To develop a tool to identify hospitalized patients who may benefit from GOC conversations. Methods: The Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment (PACT) Conversation Trigger Tool was implemented as part of a quality improvement initiative in 10 Illinois hospitals and validated in a cohort of patients admitted to the coordinating site's oncology unit (n = 135). Results: The tool was reliable and acceptable to clinicians using it across sites. Thirty percent (n = 40) of patients screened at the coordinating site's oncology unit triggered positive. These patients were more likely to have a do-not-resuscitate order (43% vs. 11%) and palliative care consult (53% vs. 20%) and had lower mean survival time (125 vs. 248 days) than those who did not trigger (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The tool is reliable, acceptable, and can identify hospitalized oncology patients who may benefit from GOC conversations.