"We'll deal with it as it comes": A Qualitative Analysis of Romantic Partners' Dyadic Coping in Cystic Fibrosis.

Background: Although cystic fibrosis (CF) is a progressive, life-limiting, genetic disease, recent advances have extended survival, allowing persons with CF the time and physical and mental health to form romantic relationships. Previous studies have shown the importance of dyadic coping to positive psychosocial functioning and relationship satisfaction for people with serious chronic illness and their romantic partners, but little work has been done with persons with CF and their partners. The present study examines dyadic coping processes in persons with CF and their romantic partners. Methods: Sixteen adults with moderate to severe CF (Mage=42.3, 43.8% identified as cisgender male, 56.2% identified as cisgender female) and their romantic partners (Mage=43.8, 56.3% identified as cisgender male, 43.7% identified as cisgender female) participated in individual semi-structured interviews focused on topics related to quality of life, communication, and palliative care. We conducted a directed content analysis utilizing Berg and Upchurch's (2007) developmental-contextual theoretical model to examine dyadic coping processes in persons with CF and their romantic partners. Results: Consistent with the developmental-contextual model of dyadic coping, couples described adapting to health and functional declines that occurred over time. Dyads were aligned in their appraisals of illness representation, illness ownership, and perspectives of illness as a shared stressor; they used shared coping mechanisms that included supportive and collaborative actions rather than uninvolved or controlling strategies. Conclusions: We recommend family-based approaches to medical decision-making and goals of care conversations with persons with CF and their partners, aligning those approaches with supportive and collaborative coping configurations. This may improve psychosocial outcomes for patients and their partners.

Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement.

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration.

Intervention to Promote Communication About Goals of Care for Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Discussions about goals of care are important for high-quality palliative care yet are often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness. Objective: To evaluate a communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care discussions between clinicians and hospitalized older patients with serious illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, randomized clinical trial of a clinician-facing communication-priming intervention vs usual care was conducted at 3 US hospitals within 1 health care system, including a university, county, and community hospital. Eligible hospitalized patients were aged 55 years or older with any of the chronic illnesses used by the Dartmouth Atlas project to study end-of-life care or were aged 80 years or older. Patients with documented goals-of-care discussions or a palliative care consultation between hospital admission and eligibility screening were excluded. Randomization occurred between April 2020 and March 2021 and was stratified by study site and history of dementia. Intervention: Physicians and advance practice clinicians who were treating the patients randomized to the intervention received a 1-page, patient-specific intervention (Jumpstart Guide) to prompt and guide goals-of-care discussions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. There was also an evaluation of whether the effect of the intervention varied by age, sex, history of dementia, minoritized race or ethnicity, or study site. Results: Of 3918 patients screened, 2512 were enrolled (mean age, 71.7 [SD, 10.8] years and 42% were women) and randomized (1255 to the intervention group and 1257 to the usual care group). The patients were American Indian or Alaska Native (1.8%), Asian (12%), Black (13%), Hispanic (6%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.5%), non-Hispanic (93%), and White (70%). The proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days was 34.5% (433 of 1255 patients) in the intervention group vs 30.4% (382 of 1257 patients) in the usual care group (hospital- and dementia-adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 0.4% to 7.8%]). The analyses of the treatment effect modifiers suggested that the intervention had a larger effect size among patients with minoritized race or ethnicity. Among 803 patients with minoritized race or ethnicity, the hospital- and dementia-adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 10.2% (95% CI, 4.0% to 16.5%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. Among 1641 non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 1.6% (95% CI, -3.0% to 6.2%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. There was no evidence of differential treatment effects of the intervention on the primary outcome by age, sex, history of dementia, or study site. Conclusions and Relevance: Among hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04281784.

Health-care Professionals' Perceptions of Critical Care Resource Availability and Factors Associated With Mental Well-being During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Results from a US Survey.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on intensive care unit (ICU) providers' perceptions of resource availability and evaluating the factors associated with emotional distress/burnout can inform interventions to promote provider well-being. METHODS: Between 23 April and 7 May 2020, we electronically administered a survey to physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists (RTs), and advanced practice providers (APPs) caring for COVID-19 patients in the United States. We conducted a multivariate regression to assess associations between concerns, a reported lack of resources, and 3 outcomes: a primary outcome of emotional distress/burnout and 2 secondary outcomes of (1) fear that the hospital is unable to keep providers safe; and (2) concern about transmitting COVID-19 to their families/communities. RESULTS: We included 1651 respondents from all 50 states: 47% were nurses, 25% physicians, 17% RTs, and 11% APPs. Shortages of intensivists and ICU nurses were reported by 12% and 28% of providers, respectively. The largest supply restrictions reported were for powered air purifying respirators (56% reporting restricted availability). Provider concerns included worries about transmitting COVID-19 to their families/communities (66%), emotional distress/burnout (58%), and insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE; 40%). After adjustment, emotional distress/burnout was significantly associated with insufficient PPE access (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-1.55), stigma from community (aRR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41), and poor communication with supervisors (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.21). Insufficient PPE access was the strongest predictor of feeling that the hospital is unable to keep providers safe and worries about transmitting infection to their families/communities. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing insufficient PPE access, poor communication from supervisors, and community stigma may improve provider mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Association of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment With Intensity of Treatment Among Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms are intended to help prevent the provision of unwanted medical interventions among patients with advanced illness or frailty who are approaching the end of life. We seek to evaluate how POLST form completion, treatment limitations, or both influence intensity of treatment among patients who present to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults who presented to the ED at an academic medical center in Oregon between April 2015 and October 2016. POLST form completion and treatment limitations were the main exposures. Primary outcome was hospital admission; secondary outcomes included ICU admission and a composite measure of aggressive treatment. RESULTS: A total of 26,128 patients were included; 1,769 (6.8%) had completed POLST forms. Among patients with POLST, 52.1% had full treatment orders, and 6.4% had their forms accessed before admission. POLST form completion was not associated with hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.12), ICU admission (aOR=0.82; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22), or aggressive treatment (aOR=1.06; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.51). Compared with POLST forms with full treatment orders, those with treatment limitations were not associated with hospital admission (aOR=1.12; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.37) or aggressive treatment (aOR=0.87; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.52), but were associated with lower odds of ICU admission (aOR=0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.61). CONCLUSION: Among patients presenting to the ED with POLST, the majority of POLST forms had orders for full treatment and were not accessed by emergency providers. These findings may partially explain why we found no association of POLST with treatment intensity. However, treatment limitations on POLST forms were associated with reduced odds of ICU admission. Implementation and accessibility of POLST forms are crucial when considering their effect on the provision of treatment consistent with patients' preferences.

Association of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment With ICU Admission Among Patients Hospitalized Near the End of Life.

Importance: Patients with chronic illness frequently use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document treatment limitations. Objectives: To evaluate the association between POLST order for medical interventions and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients hospitalized near the end of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of patients with POLSTs and with chronic illness who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and were hospitalized 6 months or less before death in a 2-hospital academic health care system. Exposures: POLST order for medical interventions ("comfort measures only" vs "limited additional interventions" vs "full treatment"), age, race/ethnicity, education, days from POLST completion to admission, histories of cancer or dementia, and admission for traumatic injury. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the association between POLST order and ICU admission during the last hospitalization of life; the secondary outcome was receipt of a composite of 4 life-sustaining treatments: mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, dialysis, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For evaluating factors associated with POLST-discordant care, the outcome was ICU admission contrary to POLST order for medical interventions during the last hospitalization of life. Results: Among 1818 decedents (mean age, 70.8 [SD, 14.7] years; 41% women), 401 (22%) had POLST orders for comfort measures only, 761 (42%) had orders for limited additional interventions, and 656 (36%) had orders for full treatment. ICU admissions occurred in 31% (95% CI, 26%-35%) of patients with comfort-only orders, 46% (95% CI, 42%-49%) with limited-interventions orders, and 62% (95% CI, 58%-66%) with full-treatment orders. One or more life-sustaining treatments were delivered to 14% (95% CI, 11%-17%) of patients with comfort-only orders and to 20% (95% CI, 17%-23%) of patients with limited-interventions orders. Compared with patients with full-treatment POLSTs, those with comfort-only and limited-interventions orders were significantly less likely to receive ICU admission (comfort only: 123/401 [31%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.45-0.62]; limited interventions: 349/761 [46%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.87]). Across patients with comfort-only and limited-interventions POLSTs, 38% (95% CI, 35%-40%) received POLST-discordant care. Patients with cancer were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without cancer (comfort only: 41/181 [23%] vs 80/220 [36%], aRR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43-0.85]; limited interventions: 100/321 [31%] vs 215/440 [49%], aRR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.51-0.78]). Patients with dementia and comfort-only orders were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without dementia (23/111 [21%] vs 98/290 [34%], aRR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.29-0.67]). Patients admitted for traumatic injury were significantly more likely to receive POLST-discordant care (comfort only: 29/64 [45%] vs 92/337 [27%], aRR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.08-2.14]; limited interventions: 51/91 [56%] vs 264/670 [39%], aRR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09-1.68]). In patients with limited-interventions orders, older age was significantly associated with less POLST-discordant care (aRR, 0.93 per 10 years [95% CI, 0.88-1.00]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with POLSTs and with chronic life-limiting illness who were hospitalized within 6 months of death, treatment-limiting POLSTs were significantly associated with lower rates of ICU admission compared with full-treatment POLSTs. However, 38% of patients with treatment-limiting POLSTs received intensive care that was potentially discordant with their POLST.

Novel Risk Factors for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in Family Members of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors.

OBJECTIVES: Family members of ICU survivors report long-term psychologic symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. We describe patient- and family-member risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among family members of survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of family members of acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors. SETTING: Single tertiary care center in Seattle, Washington. SUBJECTS: From 2010 to 2015, we assembled an inception cohort of adult acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors who identified family members involved in ICU and post-ICU care. One-hundred sixty-two family members enrolled in the study, corresponding to 120 patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Family members were assessed for self-reported psychologic symptoms 6 months after patient discharge using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Civilian Version, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression scale, and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. The primary outcome was posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression and anxiety. We used clustered multivariable logistic regression to identify patient- and family-member risk factors for psychologic symptoms. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms were present in 31% (95% CI, 24-39%) of family participants. Family member risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms included preexisting mental health disorders (adjusted odds ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.42-7.31), recent personal experience of serious physical illness (adjusted odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.40-6.75), and female gender (adjusted odds ratio, 5.18; 95% CI, 1.74-15.4). Family members of previously healthy patients (Charlson index of zero) had higher frequency of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.06-4.77). Markers of patient illness severity were not associated with family posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of long-term posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among family members of acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors is high. Family members with preexisting mental health disorders, recent experiences of serious physical illness, and family members of previously healthy patients are at increased risk for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.

Agreement With Consensus Statements on End-of-Life Care: A Description of Variability at the Level of the Provider, Hospital, and Country.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an enhanced understanding of factors that influence providers' views about end-of-life care, we examined the contributions of provider, hospital, and country to variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Data were drawn from a survey of providers' views on principles of end-of-life care obtained during the consensus process for the Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs study. SUBJECTS: Participants in Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs included physicians, nurses, and other providers. Our sample included 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We examined views on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, using a three-level linear mixed model of responses from providers within hospitals within countries. Of 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries, 1% strongly disagreed, 7% disagreed, 11% were neutral, 44% agreed, and 36% strongly agreed with declining to offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation when not indicated. Of the total variability in those responses, 98%, 0%, and 2% were explained by differences among providers, hospitals, and countries, respectively. After accounting for provider characteristics and hospital size, the variance partition was similar. Results were similar for withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers. Acknowledging the primary source of variability may facilitate efforts to achieve consensus and improve decision-making for critically ill patients and their family members at the end of life.

Models of Peer Support to Remediate Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Report Developed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive International Peer Support Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. DESIGN: We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. CONCLUSIONS: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.

Enablers and Barriers to Implementing ICU Follow-Up Clinics and Peer Support Groups Following Critical Illness: The Thrive Collaboratives.

OBJECTIVES: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them. DESIGN: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. SETTING: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. SUBJECTS: Clinicians from 21 sites. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of "ICU follow-up clinics" were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of "peer support groups" were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising. CONCLUSIONS: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles.

Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. METHODS: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. RESULTS: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

Family-centered outcomes during and after critical illness: current outcomes and opportunities for future investigation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Family-centered outcomes during and after critical illness assess issues that are most important to family members. An understanding of family-centered outcomes is necessary to support the provision of family-centered care and to foster development of interventions to improve care and communication in the ICU. RECENT FINDINGS: Current family-centered outcomes in critical care include satisfaction with care, including end-of-life care, symptoms of psychological distress, and health-related quality of life. Novel measures include assessments of decisional conflict, decision regret, therapeutic alliance, and caregiver burden, as well as positive adaptations and resilience. SUMMARY: Critical illness places a significant burden on family members. A wide variety of family-centered outcomes are available to guide improvements in care and communication. Future research should focus on developing sensitive and responsive measures that capture key elements of the family member experience during and after critical illness.

Estimating the effect of palliative care interventions and advance care planning on ICU utilization: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to answer three questions: 1) Do advance care planning and palliative care interventions lead to a reduction in ICU admissions for adult patients with life-limiting illnesses? 2) Do these interventions reduce ICU length of stay? and 3) Is it possible to provide estimates of the magnitude of these effects? DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases from 1995 through March 2014. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that reported controlled trials (randomized and nonrandomized) assessing the impact of advance care planning and both primary and specialty palliative care interventions on ICU admissions and ICU length of stay for critically ill adult patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Nine randomized controlled trials and 13 nonrandomized controlled trials were selected from 216 references. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen of these studies were used to provide estimates of the magnitude of effect of palliative care interventions and advance care planning on ICU admission and length of stay. Three studies reporting on ICU admissions suggest that advance care planning interventions reduce the relative risk of ICU admission for patients at high risk of death by 37% (SD, 23%). For trials evaluating palliative care interventions in the ICU setting, we found a 26% (SD, 23%) relative risk reduction in length of stay with these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite wide variation in study type and quality, patients who received advance care planning or palliative care interventions consistently showed a pattern toward decreased ICU admissions and reduced ICU length of stay. Although SDs are wide and study quality varied, the magnitude of the effect is possible to estimate and provides a basis for modeling impact on healthcare costs.

The association of spiritual care providers' activities with family members' satisfaction with care after a death in the ICU*.

OBJECTIVES: Spiritual distress is common in the ICU, and spiritual care providers are often called upon to provide care for patients and their families. Our goal was to evaluate the activities spiritual care providers' conduct to support patients and families and whether those activities are associated with family satisfaction with ICU care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three hundred fifty-bed tertiary care teaching hospital with 65 ICU beds. SUBJECTS: Spiritual care providers and family members of patients who died in the ICU or within 30 hours of transfer from the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Spiritual care providers completed surveys reporting their activities. Family members completed validated measures of satisfaction with care and satisfaction with spiritual care. Clustered regression was used to assess the association between activities completed by spiritual care providers and family ratings of care. Of 494 eligible patients, 275 family members completed surveys (response rate, 56%). Fifty-seven spiritual care providers received surveys relating to 268 patients, completing 285 surveys for 244 patients (response rate, 91%). Spiritual care providers commonly reported activities related to supporting religious and spiritual needs (≥ 90%) and providing support for family feelings (90%). Discussions about the patient's wishes for end-of-life care and a greater number of spiritual care activities performed were both associated with increased overall family satisfaction with ICU care (p < 0.05). Discussions about a patient's end-of-life wishes, preparation for a family conference, and total number of activities performed were associated with improved family satisfaction with decision-making in the ICU (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Spiritual care providers engage in a variety of activities with families of ICU patients; several are associated with increased family satisfaction with ICU care in general and decision-making in the ICU specifically. These findings provide insight into spiritual care provider activities and provide guidance for interventions to improve spiritual care delivered to families of critically ill patients.

An alternating-intervention pilot trial on the impact of an informational handout on patient-reported outcomes and follow-up after lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either: 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention). INTERVENTION: A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: 389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible component of a multi-level intervention to address knowledge and follow-up for LCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05265897.

Physician Perspectives on Addressing Anti-Black Racism.

Importance: Uncertainty remains among clinicians regarding processes to address and resolve conflict around anti-Black racism. Objective: To elicit clinicians' perceptions of their role in addressing concerns about anti-Black racism among Black patients with serious illness as well as their families. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, one-on-one semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 physicians at an academic county hospital between August 1 and October 31, 2022. Participants were provided clinical scenarios where anti-Black racism was a concern of a patient with serious illness. Participants were asked open-ended questions about initial impressions, prior similar experiences, potential strategies to address patients' concerns, and additional resources to support these conversations. A framework based on restorative justice was used to guide qualitative analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perspectives on addressing anti-Black racism as described by physicians. Results: A total of 21 medical subspecialists (mean [SD] age, 44.2 [7.8] years) participated in the study. Most physicians were women (14 [66.7%]), 4 were Asian (19.0%), 3 were Black (14.3%), and 14 were White (66.7%). Participants identified practices that are normalized in clinical settings that may perpetuate and exacerbate perceptions of anti-Black racism. Using provided scenarios and personal experiences, participants were able to describe how Black patients are harmed as a result of these practices. Last, participants identified strategies and resources for addressing Black patients' concerns and facilitating conflict resolution, but they stopped short of promoting personal or team accountability for anti-Black racism. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, physicians identified resources, skills, and processes that partially aligned with a restorative justice framework to address anti-Black racism and facilitate conflict resolution, but did not provide steps for actualizing accountability. Restorative justice and similar processes may provide space within a mediated setting for clinicians to repair harm, provide accountability, and facilitate racial healing.