The longitudinal association between neighbourhood quality and cardiovascular risk factors among youth receiving obesity treatment.

BACKGROUND: Neighbourhood factors are associated with cardiovascular health in adults, but these relationships are under-explored in youth. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the associations between neighbourhood factors and child and adolescent health among youth with obesity. METHODS: Data were drawn from patient health records at a pediatric weight management clinic (n = 2838) and the Child Opportunity Index (COI). Exposures were area-level neighbourhood factors (commute duration, walkability, greenspace and industrial pollutants). Outcomes included BMI relative to the 95th percentile (BMIp95) and blood pressure (continuous variables). Longitudinal models examined associations between COI indicators and outcomes. RESULTS: Shorter commute duration (ß = -4.31, 95% CI: -5.92, -2.71) and greater walkability (ß = -4.40, 95% CI: -5.98, -2.82) were negatively associated with BMIp95. Increased greenspace availability was positively associated with BMIp95 (ß = 1.93, 95% CI: 0.19, 3.67). None of the COI indicators were associated with cardiovascular outcomes in the full sample. Analyses stratified by sex and race/ethnicity showed similar patterns for BMIp95. For commute duration, there was a negative association with blood pressure for female, non-Hispanic White and other race/ethnicity youth. CONCLUSIONS: Neighbourhood factors should be considered as contextual factors when treating youth with obesity. Additional research is needed to understand the relationship between neighbourhood factors and cardiovascular outcomes.

Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Involvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations. Objective: To determine whether surgeon-palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: From October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients. Intervention: Surgeon-palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended triggers for palliative care consultation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: In total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon-palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon-palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], -0.07 [0.87] vs -0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: To date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care-associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309.

Goal-Concordance in Children with Complex Chronic Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize delivery of goal-concordant end-of-life (EOL) care among children with complex chronic conditions and to determine factors associated with goal-concordance. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of goals of care discussions for 272 children with at least 1 complex chronic condition who died at a tertiary care hospital between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017. Goals of care and code status were assessed before and within the last 72 hours of life. Goals of care discussions were coded as full interventions; considering withdrawal of interventions (palliation); planned transition to palliation; or actively transitioning/transitioned to palliation. RESULTS: In total, 158 children had documented goals of care discussions before and within the last 72 hours of life, 18 had goals of care discussions only >72 hours before death, 54 only in the last 72 hours of life, and 42 had no documented goals of care. For children with goals of care, EOL care was goal-concordant for 82.2%, discordant in 7%, and unclear in 10.8%. Black children had a greater than 8-fold greater odds of discordant care compared with White children (OR 8.34, P = .007). Comparison of goals of care and code status before and within the last 72 hours of life revealed trends toward nonescalation of care. Specifically, rates of active palliation increased from 11.7% to 63.0%, and code status shifted from 32.6% do not resuscitate to 65.2% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, a majority of children had documented goals of care discussions and received goal-concordant EOL care. However, Black children had greater odds of receiving goal-discordant care. Goals of care and code status shifted toward palliation during the last 72 hours of life.

Quality Improvement in Itself Changes Your Thinking: Lessons From Disseminating Quality Improvement Methods Through a Multisite International Collaborative Palliative Care Project in India.

PURPOSE: Seven major palliative care (PC) centers in India were mentored through the Palliative Care-Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) by US and Australian academic institutions to implement a quality improvement (QI) project to improve the accessibility and quality of PC at their respective centers. The objective was to evaluate the experiences of teams in implementing QI methods across diverse geographical settings in India. METHODS: A quota sampling approach was used to elicit perspectives of local stakeholders at each site. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed development of a semistructured interview guide. Analysis leveraged deductive and inductive approaches. RESULTS: We interviewed 44 participants (eight organizational leaders, 12 clinical leaders, and 24 team members) at seven sites and identified five themes. (1) Implementing QI methods enabled QI teams to think analytically to solve a complex problem and to identify resources. (2) Developing a problem statement by identifying specific gaps in patient care fostered team collaboration toward a common goal. (3) Making use of QI tools (eg, A3 process) systematically provided a new, straightforward QI toolkit and improved QI teams' conceptual understanding. (4) Enhancing stakeholder engagement allowed shared understanding of QI team members' roles and processes and shaped interventions tailored to the local context. (5) Designing less subjective processes for patient care such as assessment scales to identify patient's symptomatic needs positively changed work practices and culture. CONCLUSION: Engaging and empowering multiple stakeholders to use QI methods facilitated the expansion and improvement of PC and cancer services in India. PC-PAICE demonstrated an efficient, effective way to apply QI methods in an international context. The impact of PC-PAICE is being magnified by developing a cadre of Indian QI leaders.

Considerations for Fostering Palliative Care Awareness in Developing Contexts: Strategies From Locally Initiated Projects in India.

CONTEXT: Lack of palliative care (PC) awareness is a barrier to its utilization in developing contexts. OBJECTIVES: To identify and understand strategies that changed awareness of the concepts and value of palliative care in a multi-site quality improvement project in India. METHODS: The Palliative Care - Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) evaluation team conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with clinician and organization stakeholders at seven geographically dispersed sites. We used inductive and deductive approaches in this secondary analysis to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: We identified the following strategies to improve awareness of concepts and value of palliative care. Strategy 1: Educate medical trainees, staff, and the community about palliative care and its concepts. Sub-strategies: Participate in community events. Integrate PC concepts into early medical education. Standardize training for practitioners. Strategy 2: Design and disseminate India-specific research to reinforce awareness of the value of palliative care. Sub-strategies: Publish and use India-specific palliative care research. Strategy 3: Facilitate communication between providers and departments to improve awareness of palliative care services and its concepts. Sub-strategies: Create referral frameworks and network with providers referring to palliative care to change awareness of available services and palliative care concepts. CONCLUSION: To increase palliative care utilization, program development can include community and provider-focused efforts on awareness of the concepts and value of palliative care. These three strategies held salience across sites representing diverse Indian geographic and cultural settings; as such, they may be applicable to other contexts.

Barriers and Facilitators of Using Quality Improvement To Foster Locally Initiated Innovation in Palliative Care Services in India.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) methods represent a vehicle for fostering locally initiated innovation cycles. We partnered with palliative care services from seven diverse practice settings in India to foster locally initiated improvement projects. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation experiences of locally initiated palliative care improvement projects at seven diverse sites and understand the barriers and facilitators of using QI to improve palliative care in India. PARTICIPANTS: We use a quota sampling approach to capture the perspectives of 44 local stakeholders in each of the following three categories (organizational leaders, clinic leaders, and clinical team members) through a semi-structured interview guide informed by the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). We use standard qualitative methods to identify facilitators and barriers to using QI methods in seven diverse palliative care contexts. RESULTS: Across all sites, respondents emphasized the following factors important in the success of quality improvement initiative: leveraging clinic level data, QI methods training, provider buy-in, engaged mentors, committed leadership, team support, interdepartmental coordination, collaborations with other providers, local champions, and having a structure for accountability. Barriers to using QI methods to improve palliative care services included lack of designated staff, high patient volume, resources, patient population geographic constraints, general awareness and acceptance of palliative care, and culture. CONCLUSIONS: Empowering local leaders and medical personnel to champion, design, and iterate using QI methods represents a promising powerful tool to spread palliative care services in developing countries.

A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial of Perioperative Palliative Care Surrounding Cancer Surgery for Patients and Their Family Members (PERIOP-PC).

Background: Despite positive outcomes associated with specialist palliative care (PC) in diverse medical populations, little research has investigated specialist PC in surgical ones. Although cancer surgery is predominantly safe, operations can be extensive and unpredictable perioperative morbidity and mortality persist, particularly for patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Objectives and Hypotheses: Our objective is to complete a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing surgeon-PC co-management with surgeon-alone management among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for upper GI cancers. We hypothesize that perioperative PC will improve patient postsurgical quality of life. This study and design are based on >8 years of engagement and research with patients, family members, and clinicians surrounding major cancer surgery and advance care planning/PC for surgical patients. Methods: Randomized controlled superiority trial with two study arms (surgeon-PC team co-management and surgeon-alone management) and five data collection points over six months. The principal investigator and analysts are blinded to randomization. Setting: Four, geographically diverse, academic tertiary care hospitals. Data collection began December 20, 2018 and continues to December 2020. Participants: Patients recruited from surgical oncology clinics who are undergoing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer. Interventions: In the intervention arm, patients receive care from both their surgical team and a specialist PC team; the PC is provided before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at least monthly until three months postsurgery. Patients randomized to the usual care arm receive care from only the surgical team. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: patient quality of life. Secondary outcomes: patient: symptom experience, spiritual distress, prognostic awareness, health care utilization, and mortality. Caregiver: quality of life, caregiver burden, spiritual distress, and prognostic awareness. Intent-to-treat analysis will be used. Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the institutional review boards of all study sites and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03611309, First received: August 2, 2018).