Palliative Care and Advance Care Planning Intervention Fidelity Monitoring: Methods and Lessons Learned From PCORI-Funded Large-Scale, Pragmatic Clinical Trials.

Over the past decade, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded multiple large-scale, comparative effectiveness clinical trials evaluating palliative care and advance care planning interventions. These are complex multicomponent interventions that need robust but flexible fidelity monitoring. Fidelity is necessary to maintain both internal and external validity within palliative care intervention research and to ultimately evaluate the real-world impact of high-quality interventions. Different trials not only took varying approaches to fidelity monitoring but also uncovered both unique and common challenges and facilitators. This article summarizes 8 of these trials and highlights approaches, adaptations, barriers, and facilitators for intervention fidelity monitoring. Identifying and delivering core elements while simultaneously allowing adaptations of noncore elements is a vital part of fidelity monitoring. Dissemination of such experiences can inform both future palliative care research as well as ongoing implementation of palliative care and advance care planning interventions across diverse clinical practices. Adoption of rigorous intervention fidelity methods is critical to advancing the science and reproducibility of palliative care interventions.

Implementing Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Stakeholder Engagement Principles in Models of Palliative Care Delivery and Advance Care Planning Research.

BACKGROUND: Given the many challenges of conducting research that addresses the palliative and end-of-life care needs of patients with serious illnesses, stakeholder engagement starting from the moment of study conceptualization and design is critical to ensure successful participant recruitment, data collection, intervention delivery, data analysis, and dissemination. METHODS: Guided by a conceptual model published by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) entitled, "Measuring What Matters for Advancing the Science and Practice of Engagement"14 and with the support of a PCORI Engagement Officer, representatives from 9 PCORI-funded study teams formed a working group to survey team members and review, outline, and describe key lessons learned and best practices for promoting stakeholder engagement in palliative care research. RESULTS: Almost all study teams engaged with patients/caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and health care system experts as stakeholder partners. About half the teams also included payers and training institutions as part of their stakeholder advisors as well as a range of content experts. Study teams relied on a variety of support structures and resources, and they employed 10 distinct methods for maintaining engagement. All engagement methods were generally considered to be effective by teams who used the method, though there was some variability in team-rated engagement quality of each method. Nine barriers to stakeholder engagement were identified across the 9 studies as well as 9 strategies (or facilitators) to overcome these barriers. We share examples of how stakeholder engagement impacted studies in all phases, including the preparatory phase, study initiation phase, execution phase, and data analysis/dissemination phase. CONCLUSIONS: Teams utilized a variety of resources and support structures as well as capitalized on multiple engagement methods for fostering stakeholder engagement, resulting in a high level of collaboration and integration.

Conducting Comparative Effectiveness, Multisite Palliative Care and Advance Care Planning Trials: Lessons Learned and Future Directions From PCORI-Funded Studies.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded multiple large-scale comparative effectiveness clinical trials evaluating palliative care (PC) and advance care planning (ACP) healthcare delivery models. This article provides an overview of the most common barriers our investigative teams encountered while implementing these trials and the strategies we utilized to overcome these challenges, with particular attention to identifying research partners for multisite trials; addressing contracting and regulatory issues; creating a team governance structure; training and engaging study staff across sites; recruiting, consenting, and enrolling study participants; collecting PC and ACP data and study outcomes; and managing multisite collaborations. The goal of this article is to provide guidance on how to best plan for and conduct rigorous trials evaluating PC and ACP healthcare delivery interventions moving forward.

Serious illness communication skills training for emergency physicians and advanced practice providers: a multi-method assessment of the reach and effectiveness of the intervention.

BACKGROUND: EM Talk is a communication skills training program designed to improve emergency providers' serious illness conversational skills. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this study aims to assess the reach of EM Talk and its effectiveness. METHODS: EM Talk consisted of one 4-h training session during which professional actors used role-plays and active learning to train providers to deliver serious/bad news, express empathy, explore patients' goals, and formulate care plans. After the training, emergency providers filled out an optional post-intervention survey, which included course reflections. Using a multi-method analytical approach, we analyzed the reach of the intervention quantitatively and the effectiveness of the intervention qualitatively using conceptual content analysis of open-ended responses. RESULTS: A total of 879 out of 1,029 (85%) EM providers across 33 emergency departments completed the EM Talk training, with the training rate ranging from 63 to 100%. From the 326 reflections, we identified meaning units across the thematic domains of improved knowledge, attitude, and practice. The main subthemes across the three domains were the acquisition of Serious Illness (SI) communication skills, improved attitude toward engaging qualifying patients in SI conversations, and commitment to using these learned skills in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Our study showed the extensive reach and the effectiveness of the EM Talk training in improving SI conversation. EM Talk, therefore, can potentially improve emergency providers' knowledge, attitude, and practice of SI communication skills. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03424109; Registered on January 30, 2018.

Emergency Nurses' Perceived Barriers and Solutions to Engaging Patients With Life-Limiting Illnesses in Serious Illness Conversations: A United States Multicenter Mixed-Method Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess emergency nurses' perceived barriers toward engaging patients in serious illness conversations. METHODS: Using a mixed-method (quant + QUAL) convergent design, we pooled data on the emergency nurses who underwent the End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium training across 33 emergency departments. Data were extracted from the End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium post-training questionnaire, comprising a 5-item survey and 1 open-ended question. Our quantitative analysis employed a cross-sectional design to assess the proportion of emergency nurses who report that they will encounter barriers in engaging seriously ill patients in serious illness conversations in the emergency department. Our qualitative analysis used conceptual content analysis to generate themes and meaning units of the perceived barriers and possible solutions toward having serious illness conversations in the emergency department. RESULTS: A total of 2176 emergency nurses responded to the survey. Results from the quantitative analysis showed that 1473 (67.7%) emergency nurses reported that they will encounter barriers while engaging in serious illness conversations. Three thematic barriers-human factors, time constraints, and challenges in the emergency department work environment-emerged from the content analysis. Some of the subthemes included the perceived difficulty of serious illness conversations, delay in daily throughput, and lack of privacy in the emergency department. The potential solutions extracted included the need for continued training, the provision of dedicated emergency nurses to handle serious illness conversations, and the creation of dedicated spaces for serious illness conversations. DISCUSSION: Emergency nurses may encounter barriers while engaging in serious illness conversations. Institutional-level policies may be required in creating a palliative care-friendly emergency department work environment.

Barriers to recruitment into emergency department-initiated palliative care: a sub-study of a multi-site, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits among older adults are common near the end of life. Palliative care has been shown to reduce ED visits and to increase quality of life among patients, but recruitment into these programs is often challenging. This descriptive analysis explores the barriers to enrolling seriously ill patients scheduled for discharge from the ED into palliative care research. METHODS: This descriptive sub-study aims to assess the reasons why patients with advanced illness scheduled for discharge home from 11 EDs across the United States decline to participate in Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA), a Phase IV randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing two modes of palliative care delivery. Our aim was to understand why patients decline to enroll to improve future recruitment rates and expand care for patients discharged home from the ED. Research coordinators documented reasons that patients declined to enroll in the larger EMPallA trial; reasons for refusing participation were independently analyzed by two researchers to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: Enrollment rate across all sites was 45%; of the 504 eligible patients who declined participation, 47% (n = 237) declined for reasons related to illness severity. 28% of refusals (n = 143) were related to the mode of palliative care delivery, while 24% (n = 123) were due to misconceptions or stigma related to palliative care. Less commonly, patients refused due to general research barriers (16.5%), family/caregiver barriers (11.7%), and physician-related barriers (< 1%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced illnesses presenting to the ED often refuse to participate in palliative care research due to the severity of their illness, the mode of care delivery, and misconceptions about palliative care. In contrast with other studies, our study found minimal physician gatekeeping, which may be the result of both changing attitudes toward palliative care and the nature of the ED setting. Robust training programs are crucial to overcome these misconceptions and to educate patients and providers about the role of palliative care. Future palliative care programs and study designs should recognize the burden this vulnerable population endures and consider alternative modes of care delivery in an effort to increase participation and enrollment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03325985 , October 30, 2017.

Providing Hearing Assistance to Veterans in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication is essential to good health care, and hearing loss disrupts patient-provider communication. For the more than 2 million veterans with severe hearing loss, communication is particularly challenging in noisy health care environments such as emergency departments. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe patient and provider perspectives of feasibility and potential benefit of providing a hearing assistance device, a personal amplifier, during visits to an emergency department in an urban setting affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study was conducted in parallel with a randomized controlled study. We completed a semistructured interview with 11 veterans and 10 health care providers to elicit their previous experiences with patient-provider communication in the ED setting and their perspectives on hearing screening and using the personal amplifier in the emergency department. Interview data were analyzed using content analysis and Atlas.ti V8.4 software (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany). RESULTS: The veteran sample (n = 11) had a mean age of 80.3 years (SD = 10.2). The provider sample included 7 nurses and 3 physicians. In the ED setting, hearing loss disrupts patient-provider communication. Screening for hearing loss in the emergency department was feasible except in urgent/emergent cases. The use of the personal amplifier made communication more effective and less effortful for both veterans and providers. DISCUSSION: Providing the personal amplifier improved the ED experience for veterans and offers a promising intervention that could improve health care quality and safety for ED patient populations.

Opening Pandora's Box: From Readmissions to Transitional Care Patient-Centered Outcome Measures.

BACKGROUND: Measuring the effectiveness of transitional care interventions has historically relied on health care utilization as the primary outcome. Although the Care Transitions Measure was the first outcome measure specifically developed for transitional care, its applicability beyond the hospital-to-home transition is limited. There is a need for patient-centered outcome measures (PCOMs) to be developed for transitional care settings (ie, TC-PCOMs) to ensure that outcomes are both meaningful to patients and relevant to the particular care transition. The overall objective of this paper is to describe the opportunities and challenges of integrating TC-PCOMs into research and practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: This narrative review was conducted by members of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Transitional Care Evidence to Action Network. We define TC-PCOMs as outcomes that matter to patients because they account for their individual experiences, concerns, preferences, needs, and values during the transition period. The cardinal features of TC-PCOMs should be that they are developed following direct input from patients and stakeholders and reflect their lived experience during the transition in question. Although few TC-PCOMs are currently available, existing patient-reported outcome measures could be adapted to become TC-PCOMs if they incorporated input from patients and stakeholders and are validated for the relevant care transition. CONCLUSION: Establishing validated TC-PCOMs is crucial for measuring the responsiveness of transitional care interventions and optimizing care that is meaningful to patients.

Pragmatic Considerations in Incorporating Stakeholder Engagement Into a Palliative Care Transitions Study.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder involvement in health care research has been shown to improve research development, processes, and dissemination. The literature is developing on stakeholder engagement methods and preliminarily validated tools for evaluating stakeholder level of engagement have been proposed for specific stakeholder groups and settings. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the methodology for engaging a Study Advisory Committee (SAC) in research and reports on the use of a stakeholder engagement survey for measuring level of engagement. METHODS: Stakeholders with previous research connections were recruited to the SAC during the planning process for a multicenter randomized control clinical trial, which is ongoing at the time of this writing. All SAC meetings undergo qualitative analysis, while the Stakeholder Engagement Survey instrument developed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is distributed annually for quantitative evaluation. RESULTS: The trial's SAC is composed of 18 members from 3 stakeholder groups: patients and their caregivers; patient advocacy organizations; and health care payers. After an initial in-person meeting, the SAC meets quarterly by telephone and annually in-person. The SAC monitors research progress and provides feedback on all study processes. The stakeholder engagement survey reveals improved engagement over time as well as continued challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder engagement in the research process has meaningfully contributed to the study design, patient recruitment, and preliminary analysis of findings.

Effectiveness and Reach of the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) Pilot Study: a Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care interventions in the ED capture high-risk patients at a time of crisis and can dramatically improve patient-centered outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To understand the facilitators that contributed to the success of the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) quality improvement pilot intervention. DESIGN: Effectiveness was evaluated through semi-structured interviews. Reach outcomes were measured by percent of all full-time emergency providers (physicians, physician assistants, nurses) who completed the intervention education components and baseline survey assessing attitudes and knowledge on end-of-life care. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency medicine providers affiliated with two medical centers (N = 197). Interviews conducted with six key informants at both institutions. APPROACH: Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive approaches. Descriptive statistics include reach outcomes and baseline survey results. KEY RESULTS: Both sites successfully implemented all components of the intervention and achieved a high level (> 75%) of intervention reach. Two themes emerged as facilitators to successful effectiveness facilitators of PRIM-ER: (1) institutional leadership support and (2) leveraging established quality improvement (QI) processes. Institutional support included leveraging leadership with authority to (a) mandate trainings; (b) substitute PRIM-ER education for normally scheduled education; and (c) provide protected time to implement intervention components. Effectiveness was also enhanced by capitalizing on existing QI processes which included (a) leveraging interdisciplinary partnerships and communication plans and (b) monitoring performance improvement data. CONCLUSIONS: Capitalizing on strong institutional leadership support and established QI processes enhanced the reach and effectiveness of the PRIM-ER pilot. These findings will guide the PRIM-ER researchers in scaling up the intervention in the remaining 33 sites, as well as enhance the planning of other complex quality improvement interventions in clinical settings. REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109; Grant Number: AT009844-01.

Cancer pain management in the emergency department: a multicenter prospective observational trial of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN).

PURPOSE: Many patients with cancer seek care for pain in the emergency department (ED). Prospective research on cancer pain in this setting has historically been insufficient. We conducted this study to describe the reported pain among cancer patients presenting to the ED, how pain is managed, and how pain may be associated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cohort study on adult patients with active cancer presenting to 18 EDs in the USA. We reported pain scores, response to medication, and analgesic utilization. We estimated the associations between pain severity, medication utilization, and the following outcomes: 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and ED disposition. RESULTS: The study population included 1075 participants. Those who received an opioid in the ED were more likely to be admitted to the hospital and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.88) and OR 1.56 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.07)), respectively. Severe pain at ED presentation was associated with increased 30-day mortality (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.05, 5.02), though this risk was attenuated when adjusting for clinical factors (most notably functional status). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe pain had a higher risk of mortality, which was attenuated when correcting for clinical characteristics. Those patients who required opioid analgesics in the ED were more likely to require admission and were more at risk of 30-day hospital readmission. Future efforts should focus on these at-risk groups, who may benefit from additional services including palliative care, hospice, or home-health services.

Design and implementation of a clinical decision support tool for primary palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER).

BACKGROUND: The emergency department is a critical juncture in the trajectory of care of patients with serious, life-limiting illness. Implementation of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool automates identification of older adults who may benefit from palliative care instead of relying upon providers to identify such patients, thus improving quality of care by assisting providers with adhering to guidelines. The Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) study aims to optimize the use of the electronic health record by creating a CDS tool to identify high risk patients most likely to benefit from primary palliative care and provide point-of-care clinical recommendations. METHODS: A clinical decision support tool entitled Emergency Department Supportive Care Clinical Decision Support (Support-ED) was developed as part of an institutionally-sponsored value based medicine initiative at the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Emergency Medicine at NYU Langone Health. A multidisciplinary approach was used to develop Support-ED including: a scoping review of ED palliative care screening tools; launch of a workgroup to identify patient screening criteria and appropriate referral services; initial design and usability testing via the standard System Usability Scale questionnaire, education of the ED workforce on the Support-ED background, purpose and use, and; creation of a dashboard for monitoring and feedback. RESULTS: The scoping review identified the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) survey as a validated instrument in which to adapt and apply for the creation of the CDS tool. The multidisciplinary workshops identified two primary objectives of the CDS: to identify patients with indicators of serious life limiting illness, and to assist with referrals to services such as palliative care or social work. Additionally, the iterative design process yielded three specific patient scenarios that trigger a clinical alert to fire, including: 1) when an advance care planning document was present, 2) when a patient had a previous disposition to hospice, and 3) when historical and/or current clinical data points identify a serious life-limiting illness without an advance care planning document present. Monitoring and feedback indicated a need for several modifications to improve CDS functionality. CONCLUSIONS: CDS can be an effective tool in the implementation of primary palliative care quality improvement best practices. Health systems should thoughtfully consider tailoring their CDSs in order to adapt to their unique workflows and environments. The findings of this research can assist health systems in effectively integrating a primary palliative care CDS system seamlessly into their processes of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109. Registered 6 February 2018, Grant Number: AT009844-01.

Validation of the Emergency Severity Index (Version 4) for the Triage of Adult Emergency Department Patients With Active Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with active cancer account for a growing percentage of all emergency department (ED) visits and have a unique set of risks related to their disease and its treatments. Effective triage for this population is fundamental to facilitating their emergency care. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the validity of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI; version 4) triage tool to predict ED-relevant outcomes among adult patients with active cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the observational cohort established by the National Cancer Institute-supported Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network's multicenter (18 sites) study of ED visits by patients with active cancer (N = 1075). We used a series of χ2 tests for independence to relate ESI scores with 1) disposition, 2) ED resource use, 3) hospital length of stay, and 4) 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among the 1008 subjects included in this analysis, the ESI distribution skewed heavily toward high acuity (>95% of subjects had an ESI level of 1, 2, or 3). ESI was significantly associated with patient disposition and ED resource use (p values < 0.05). No significant associations were observed between ESI and the non-ED based outcomes of hospital length of stay or 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: ESI scores among ED patients with active cancer indicate higher acuity than the general ED population and are predictive of disposition and ED resource use. These findings show that the ESI is a valid triage tool for use in this population for outcomes directly relevant to ED care.

Emergency department staff priorities for improving palliative care provision for older people: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department-based palliative care services are increasing, but research to develop these services rarely includes input from emergency clinicians, jeopardizing the effectiveness of subsequent palliative care interventions. AIM: To collaboratively identify with emergency clinicians' improvement priorities for emergency department-based palliative care for older people. DESIGN: This was one component of an experience-based co-design project, conducted using semi-structured interviews and feedback sessions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In-depth interviews with 15 emergency clinicians (nurses and doctors) at a large teaching hospital emergency department in the United Kingdom exploring experiences of palliative care delivery for older people. A thematic analysis identified core challenges that were presented to 64 clinicians over five feedback sessions, validating interview findings, and identifying shared priorities for improving palliative care delivery. RESULTS: Eight challenges emerged: patient age; access to information; communication with patients, family members, and clinicians; understanding of palliative care; role uncertainty; complex systems and processes; time constraints; and limited training and education. Through feedback sessions, clinicians selected four challenges as improvement priorities: time constraints; communication and information; systems and processes; and understanding of palliative care. As resulting improvement plans evolved, "training and education" replaced "time constraints" as a priority. CONCLUSION: Clinician priorities for improving emergency department-based palliative care were identified through collaborative, iterative processes. Though generally aware of older palliative patients' needs, clinicians struggled to provide high-quality care due to a range of complex factors. Further research should identify whether priorities are shared across other emergency departments, and develop, implement, and evaluate strategies developed by clinicians.

The Association Between Limited English Proficiency and Unplanned Emergency Department Revisit Within 72 Hours.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Language barriers are known to negatively affect many health outcomes among limited English proficiency patient populations, but little is known about the quality of care such patients receive in the emergency department (ED). This study seeks to determine whether limited English proficiency patients experience different quality of care than English-speaking patients in the ED, using unplanned revisit within 72 hours as a surrogate quality indicator. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in an urban adult ED in 2012, with a total of 41,772 patients and 56,821 ED visits. We compared 2,943 limited English proficiency patients with 38,829 English-speaking patients presenting to the ED after excluding patients with psychiatric complaints, altered mental status, and nonverbal states, and those with more than 4 ED visits in 12 months. Two main outcomes-the risk of inpatient admission from the ED and risk of unplanned ED revisit within 72 hours-were measured with odds ratios from generalized estimating equation multivariate models. RESULTS: Limited English proficiency patients were more likely than English speakers to be admitted (32.0% versus 27.2%; odds ratio [OR]=1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 1.30). This association became nonsignificant after adjustments (OR=1.04; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15). Included in the analysis of ED revisit within 72 hours were 32,857 patients with 45,546 ED visits; 4.2% of all patients (n=1,380) had at least 1 unplanned revisit. Limited English proficiency patients were more likely than English speakers to have an unplanned revisit (5.0% versus 4.1%; OR=1.19; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.45). This association persisted (OR=1.24; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.53) after adjustment for potential confounders, including insurance status. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in hospital admission rates between limited English proficiency patients and English-speaking patients. Yet limited English proficiency patients were 24% more likely to have an unplanned ED revisit within 72 hours, with an absolute difference of 0.9%, suggesting challenges in ED quality of care.

Integration of palliative care into emergency medicine: the Improving Palliative Care in Emergency Medicine (IPAL-EM) collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) providers commonly care for seriously ill patients who suffer from advanced, chronic, life-limiting illnesses in addition to those that are acutely ill or injured. Both the chronically ill and those who present in extremis may benefit from application of palliative care principles. CASE REPORT: We present a case highlighting the opportunities and need for better integration of emergency medicine and palliative care. DISCUSSION: We offer practical guidelines to the ED faculty/administrators who seek to enhance the quality of patient care in their own unique ED setting by starting an initiative that better integrates palliative principles into daily practice. Specifically, we outline four things to do to jumpstart this collaborative effort. CONCLUSION: The Improving Palliative Care in Emergency Medicine project sponsored by the Center to Advance Palliative Care is a resource that assists ED health care providers with the process and structure needed to integrate palliative care into the ED setting.

"Rehabbed to Death" in Oncology: Where Do We Go From Here?

To break the cycle of "rehabbed to death" in oncology, we must focus on improving communication and care coordination.

Emergency Palliative Care: Nongoal Concordant Care and Time-Limited Trials in the Emergency Department.

When advance care plans are not communicated or goals are in conflict, significant family and clinician distress may result. The distress is especially high when potentially nongoal concordant care is expected by surrogates in the emergency department (ED). To demonstrate the effect of off-hour, phone consultations by palliative care clinicians in reducing the family and clinician distress when nongoal concordant care is expected in the ED. A partnership between palliative care and emergency medicine can decrease the burden of decision making and provide opportunities for modeling a goals-of-care discussion by experts in this important procedure.

Psychometric Properties of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General for Evaluating Quality of Life in Patients With Life-Limiting Illness in the Emergency Department.

Background: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) is a widely used quality-of-life measure. However, no studies have examined the FACT-G among patients with life-limiting illnesses who present to emergency departments (EDs). Objective: The goal of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the FACT-G among patients with life-limiting illnesses who present to EDs in the United States. Methods: This cross-sectional study pooled data from 12 EDs between April 2018 and January 2020 (n = 453). Patients enrolled in the study were adults with one or more of the four life-limiting illnesses: advanced cancer, Congestive Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or End-Stage Renal Disease. We conducted item, exploratory, and confirmatory analyses (exploratory factor analysis [EFA] and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) to determine the psychometric properties of the FACT-G. Results: The FACT-G had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha α = 0.88). The simplest EFA model was a six-factor structure. The CFA supported the six-factor structure, evidenced by the adequate fit indices (comparative fit index = 0.93, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.92, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.05; 90% confidence interval: 0.04 - 0.06). The six-factor structure comprised the physical, emotional, work and daily activities-related functional well-being, and the family and friends-related social well-being domains. Conclusions: The FACT-G is a reliable measure of health-related quality of life among patients with life-limiting illnesses who present to the ED. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03325985.

Predictors of Specialty Outpatient Palliative Care Utilization Among Persons with Serious Illness.

CONTEXT: Outpatient Palliative Care (OPC) benefits persons living with serious illness, yet barriers exist in utilization. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with OPC clinic utilization. METHODS: Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access is a multicenter, randomized control trial comparing two models of palliative care for patients recruited from the Emergency Department (ED): nurse-led telephonic case management and OPC (one visit a month for 6 months). Patients were aged 50+ with advanced cancer or end-stage organ failure and recruited from 19 EDs. Using a mixed effects hurdle model, we analyzed patient, provider, clinic and healthcare system factors associated with OPC utilization. RESULTS: Among the 603 patients randomized to OPC, about half (53.6%) of patients attended at least one clinic visit. Those with less than high school education were less likely to attend an initial visit than those with a college degree or higher (aOR 0.44; CI 0.23, 0.85), as were patients who required considerable assistance (aOR 0.45; CI 0.25, 0.82) or had congestive heart failure only (aOR 0.46; CI 0.26, 0.81). Those with higher symptom burden had a higher attendance at the initial visit (aOR 1.05; CI 1.00, 1.10). Reduced follow up visit rates were demonstrated for those of older age (aRR 0.90; CI 0.82, 0.98), female sex (aRR 0.84; CI 0.71, 0.99), and those that were never married (aRR 0.62; CI 0.52, 0.87). CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve OPC utilization should focus on those with lower education, more functional limitations, older age, female sex, and those with less social support. TRIAL REGISTRATION CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03325985.