Forms or Free-Text? Measuring Advance Care Planning Activity Using Electronic Health Records.

Advance care planning (ACP) discussions seek to guide future serious illness care. These discussions may be recorded in the electronic health record by documentation in clinical notes, structured forms and directives, and physician orders. Yet, most studies of ACP prevalence have only examined structured electronic health record elements and ignored data existing in notes. We sought to investigate the relative comprehensiveness and accuracy of ACP documentation from structured and unstructured electronic health record data sources. We evaluated structured and unstructured ACP documentation present in the electronic health records of 435 patients with cancer drawn from three separate healthcare systems. We extracted structured ACP documentation by manually annotating written documents and forms scanned into the electronic health record. We coded unstructured ACP documentation using a rule-based natural language processing software that identified ACP keywords within clinical notes and was subsequently reviewed for accuracy. The unstructured approach identified more instances of ACP documentation (238, 54.7% of patients) than the structured ACP approach (187, 42.9% of patients). Additionally, 16.6% of all patients with structured ACP documentation only had documents that were judged as misclassified, incomplete, blank, unavailable, or a duplicate of a previously entered erroneous document. ACP documents scanned into electronic health records represent a limited view of ACP activity. Research and measures of clinical practice with ACP should incorporate information from unstructured data.

Structural Barriers to Well-grounded Advance Care Planning for the Seriously Ill: a Qualitative Study of Clinicians' and Administrators' Experiences During a Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning (ACP) comprises an iterative communication process aimed at understanding patients' goals, values, and preferences in the context of considering and preparing for future medical treatments and decision making in serious illness. The COVID pandemic heightened patients' and clinicians' awareness of the need for ACP. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to explore the experiences of clinicians and administrators in the context of an intervention to improve ACP during the COVID pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and administrators across five sites that participated in the ACP-COVID trial. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews examining the context and approach to ACP. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis to systematically organize the data and facilitate review across the categories and participants. Templates were developed with iterative input and line-by-line review by the analytic team, to reach consensus. Findings were then organized into emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: Across 20 interviews (4 administrators, 16 clinicians) we identified three themes related to how participants thought about ACP: (1) clinicians have varying views of what constitutes ACP; (2) the health system critically shapes ACP culture and norms; and (3) the centrality of clinicians' affective experience and own needs related to ACP. Varying approaches to ACP include a forms-focused approach; a discussion-based approach; and a parental approach. System features that shape ACP norms are (1) the primacy of clinician productivity measures; (2) the role of the EHR; and (3) the culture of quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high organizational commitment to ACP, we found that the health system channeled clinicians' ACP efforts narrowly on completion of forms, in tension with the ideal of well-grounded ACP. This resulted in a state of moral distress that risks undermining confidence in the process of ACP and may increase risk of harm for patients, family/caregivers, and providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

Efficacy of ketamine mouthwash in the management of oral and pharyngeal toxicity associated with head and neck chemoradiotherapy: protocol for a phase II, Simon's two-stage trial.

INTRODUCTION: Curative intent treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) is frequently radiation therapy over 7 weeks with concurrent chemotherapy. This regimen is effective but carries a burden of toxicity leading to severe pain and treatment breaks portending inferior outcomes. Conventional palliation methods include opioids, anticonvulsants and local anaesthetics. Breakthrough toxicities are nevertheless ubiquitous and present an urgent unmet need. Ketamine is an inexpensive drug with mechanisms of analgesia outside the opioid pathway including N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism and a pharmacologically unique property of opioid desensitisation. Systemic ketamine is validated in randomised controlled trials for efficacy in reducing pain and/or opioid burden in the oncologic setting. Literature supports peripherally administered ketamine for pain control without systemic toxicity. These data support our rationale of using ketamine mouthwash to decrease acute toxicity of curative treatment of HNC, the efficacy of which is our aim to elucidate. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase II, Simon's two-stage trial. Patients have pathologically confirmed HNC and an intended regimen of 70 Gy of radiation with concurrent cisplatin. The protocol is initiated on diagnosis of grade 3 mucositis and consists of 2 weeks of 4 times daily (QID) ketamine mouthwash use. The primary endpoint is pain response defined as a combination of pain score and opioid use. 23 subjects will be enrolled in stage 1. If statistical criteria are met, 33 subjects will be enrolled in stage 2. Secondary endpoints include daily pain, daily opioid use, dysphagia at baseline and completion, nightly sleep quality, feeding tube placement and any unscheduled treatment breaks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All trial data will be stored in an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database. The protocol is registered under Northwell IRB registration number #22-0292 and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational New Drug (IND) approval has been granted under IND number 161609. Results are intended to be published in an open-source journal and further data, statistics and source documents are available on request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05331131.

From evidence to practice: early integration of palliative care in a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that all patients with a diagnosis of advanced cancer be referred to a palliative care team within 8 weeks of diagnosis. The benefits of early integrated palliative care are well recognized; however, there is a lack of consensus to guide operational aspects of a palliative care service within a comprehensive cancer center. In this study, we explore current palliative care referral patterns at an academic cancer center and provide recommendations for operationalizing palliative care services as a program within comprehensive cancer centers in order to adequately meet the needs of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer or advanced hematologic malignancy referred to the palliative care team at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021, was conducted. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to the initiation of the chart review. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer or advanced hematologic malignancy were included in this review. Patients with gastrointestinal (26%), gynecologic (19%), and thoracic (21%) malignancies constituted 66% of the total cohort. The most frequent reason for referral was pain (52%). In total, 39% of patients were referred within 8 weeks of an advanced cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: ASCO recommends that all patients with advanced cancer be referred to a palliative care specialist within 8 weeks of diagnosis. Of the newly referred patients with advanced cancer, only 39% were referred to the palliative care team within 8 weeks of their diagnosis. This considerable gap suggests the need for a consensus with regard to operationalizing the palliative care team.

Association of an Advance Care Planning Video and Communication Intervention With Documentation of Advance Care Planning Among Older Adults: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: COVID-19 has disproportionately killed older adults and racial and ethnic minority individuals, raising questions about the relevance of advance care planning (ACP) in this population. Video decision aids and communication skills training offer scalable delivery models. Objective: To assess whether ACP video decision aids and a clinician communication intervention improved the rate of ACP documentation during an evolving pandemic, with a focus on African American and Hispanic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Advance Care Planning: Communicating With Outpatients for Vital Informed Decisions trial was a pre-post, open-cohort nonrandomized controlled trial that compared ACP documentation across the baseline pre-COVID-19 period (September 15, 2019, to March 14, 2020), the COVID-19 wave 1 period (March 15, 2020, to September 14, 2020), and an intervention period (December 15, 2020, to June 14, 2021) at a New York metropolitan area ambulatory network of 22 clinics. All patients 65 years or older who had at least 1 clinic or telehealth visit during any of the 3 study periods were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ACP documentation. Results: A total of 14 107 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.0 [8.4] years; 8856 [62.8%] female; and 2248 [15.9%] African American or Hispanic) interacted with clinicians during the pre-COVID-19 period; 12 806 (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [8.5] years; 8047 [62.8%] female; and 1992 [15.6%] African American or Hispanic), during wave 1; and 15 106 (mean [SD] 80.9 [8.3] years; 9543 [63.2%] female; and 2535 [16.8%] African American or Hispanic), during the intervention period. Clinicians documented ACP in 3587 patients (23.8%) during the intervention period compared with 2525 (17.9%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (rate difference [RD], 5.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-7.9%; P = .01) and 1598 (12.5%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.3%; 95% CI, 6.3%-12.1%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented in 447 African American patients (30.0%) during the intervention period compared with 233 (18.1%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 11.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-15.9%; P < .001) and 130 (11.0%) during wave 1 (RD, 19.1%; 95% CI, 11.7%-21.2%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented for 222 Hispanic patients (21.2%) during the intervention period compared with 127 (13.2%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 8.0%; 95% CI, 2.1%-10.9%; P = .004) and 82 (10.2%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.1%; 95% CI, 5.5%-14.5%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This intervention, implemented during the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, was associated with higher rates of ACP documentation, especially for African American and Hispanic patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

Risk Factor Assessment of Hospice Patients Readmitted within 7 Days of Acute Care Hospital Discharge.

Factors surrounding readmission rates for hospice patients within seven days are still relatively unknown. The present study specifically investigates the seven-day readmission rate of patients newly discharged to hospice, and the predictive factors associated with readmission for this population. In a retrospective case-control study, we seek to identify potential predictors by comparing the characteristics of patients discharged to hospice and readmitted within one week to patients who were not readmitted. Cases (n = 46) were patients discharged to home hospice and readmitted to the hospital within seven days. Controls (n = 117) were patients discharged to home hospice and not readmitted to the hospital within seven days. Significant risk factors for readmission within seven days were found to be: age (p < 0.01), race (p < 0.001), language (p < 0.001), and insurance (p < 0.001). Further study of these predictors may identify opportunities for interventions that address patient and family concerns that may lead to readmission.

Palliative Care in New York State Nursing Homes: A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current landscape of palliative care (PC) in nursing homes (NHs) in New York State (NYS). MEASUREMENTS: A statewide survey was completed by 149 respondents who named 61 different NHs as their workplace. Questions were related to presence, type, and composition of PC programs; perceptions of PC; barriers to implementing PC; and qualifying medical conditions. RESULTS: Hospice is less available than palliative or comfort care programs, with three-fourths of NYS NH responded providing a PC program. In general, medical directors and physicians were more similar in perspective about the role/impact of PC compared to nursing and others. There was general agreement about the positive impact and role of PC in the NH. Funding and staffing were recognized as barriers to implementing PC. CONCLUSION: There is growing penetration of PC programs in NH facilities in NYS, with good perception of the appropriate utilization of PC programs. Financial reimbursement and staffing are barriers to providing PC in the NH and need to be addressed by the health-care system.