Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline. METHODS: To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria. RESULTS: Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review. CONCLUSION: The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.

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.

Initiation of Transdermal Fentanyl Among US Commercially Insured Patients Between 2007 and 2015.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined patterns of initial transdermal fentanyl (TDF) claims among US commercially insured patients and explored the risk of 30-day hospitalization among patients with and without prior opioid exposure necessary to produce tolerance. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of initial outpatient TDF prescriptions. SETTING: A 10% random sample of commercially insured enrollees within the IQVIA Health Plan Claims Database (formerly known as PharMetrics Plus). SUBJECTS: Individuals with a claim for TDF between 2007 and 2015. METHODS: The primary exposure was a new transdermal fentanyl claim, and the primary outcome was guideline concordance based on time and dose exposure. RESULTS: Among the 24,770 patients in the cohort, 4,848 (20%) patients had sufficient time exposure to opioids before TDF. Among those with sufficient time exposure, 3,971 (82%) had adequate opioid exposure based on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) package insert dosing guidance. Overall, 3,971 of the 24,770 (16%) patients received guideline-consistent TDF. An exploratory analysis of 30-day hospitalization after a TDF claim did not detect a difference in odds between guideline-consistent or -inconsistent groups when adjusted for variables known to influence the risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients met FDA opioid dose thresholds for TDF but had insufficient time exposure based on package insert recommendations for tolerance. Exploratory analysis did not detect a difference in odds for all-cause hospitalization or respiratory-related 30-day hospitalization between guideline-consistent or -inconsistent TDF claims. Prescribers should continue to adhere to FDA TDF labeling, although certain aspects of the labeling should be reevaluated or clarified.

Symptom management challenges in heart failure: pharmacotherapy considerations.

Heart failure is a chronic, progressive illness that is increasing in prevalence in the USA. Patients with advanced heart failure experience a high symptom burden that is comparable to patients with advanced cancer. Palliative care, however, is underutilized in patients with heart failure, and symptoms may go untreated as the disease progresses. A combination of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions should be used to address symptoms and maintain quality of life. While there have been significant advances in evidence-based heart failure treatments in recent years, selection of appropriate palliative medications as symptoms progress is challenging due to limited clinical studies in this patient population. Medications that are commonly used for symptom management in other life-limiting illnesses may have little to no evidence in heart failure, or have undesirable cardiac effects that preclude use. Clinicians must extrapolate available clinical evidence and prescribing considerations relevant to heart failure to palliate symptoms as well as possible. The objectives of this paper are to review the most common and distressing symptoms in heart failure, analyze evidence, or lack thereof, for pharmacologic management of symptoms, and provide prescribing considerations based on side effect profiles and comorbid conditions.

Variability in Opioid Equivalence Calculations.

OBJECTIVE: Equianalgesic conversion methods are commonly used to switch patients from one opioid to another due to suboptimal pain relief or adverse events. There is no universally accepted opioid conversion method, however, and there is often significant variability between conversion resources. As a result, patients are at risk for undertreated pain and serious adverse events. The purpose of this survey was to compare the equianalgesic conversion estimates between nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and physicians for commonly prescribed opioids. METHODS: A survey form was developed using Survey Monkey. Participation was solicited by providing a link to the survey via social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) and emailing professional organizations for sharing with their members and followers. Data collected included demographics and estimated morphine equivalents (MEQs) of hydrocodone 80 mg, fentanyl transdermal patches 1,800 mcg (as 75 mcg/hour), methadone 40 mg, oxycodone 120 mg, and hydromorphone 48 mg. Participants were also asked to provide their choice of reference utilized to complete the conversions, including personal knowledge. Descriptive analyses were performed using measures of central tendency. Hypothesis testing was performed using Pearson's chi-squared and Fisher's Exact Test for categorical data and the Kruskal-Wallis equality of populations rank test for continuous data to assess differences between median opioid doses by professional groups. RESULTS: The total number of respondents included in the analysis was 319. Physicians, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants comprised 25.4%, 56.7%, and 16.3%, respectively, of respondents. The overall mean (± standard deviation) MEQ doses for fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone were: 176 (±117) mg, 88 (±42) mg, 192 (±55) mg, 193 (±201) mg, and 173 (±39) mg, respectively. For fentanyl, the mean (±standard deviation) MEQ doses were 180 (±122) mg, 178 (±128) mg, and 157 (±68) mg, for physicians, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants, respectively. For all three groups of clinicians, the median MEQ dose for fentanyl was 150 mg. The mean (±standard deviation) MEQ doses of methadone for physicians, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants were: 214 (±142) mg, 171 (±107) mg, and 185 (±129) mg, respectively. The median MEQ dose for methadone was 160 mg for each of the clinician groups. CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by large standard deviations, there was significant variation in mean opioid conversions to MEQ doses within each profession type, particularly for fentanyl and methadone. The median MEQ doses provided for opioid conversions were the same among each profession. No universal method exists that allows each of the five studied opioids to be accurately and consistently converted to another opioid (i.e., morphine).

Evaluating the impact of palliative or hospice care provided in nursing homes.

Palliative and hospice care are increasingly being provided in nursing home settings. The current article reviews the existing evidence relevant to nursing homes to provide practitioners with a greater understanding of the impact of palliative and hospice care on clinical care outcomes (e.g., pain, symptom management), processes of care outcomes (e.g., hospitalizations, cost of care), and family member or health care proxy perceptions of care. Overall, the provision of hospice or palliative care in nursing facilities can improve the clinical care residents receive, reduce hospitalizations, and improve family members' perception of care.

Prescribing practices in hospice patients with adult failure to thrive or debility.

OBJECTIVES: Despite being a common admitting diagnosis, there is very little published literature on medication management in hospice patients admitted with a diagnosis of failure to thrive or debility. The purpose of this study was to describe medication prescribing practices in hospice patients with either of these primary diagnoses by characterizing prescribed medications by name and by pharmaceutical class, and determining whether the patient or the hospice organization provided each medication. METHODS: A retrospective review of a patient information database compiled by a national hospice organization was conducted. Patients were included in this retrospective study if they were admitted to hospice care with a primary diagnosis of failure to thrive or debility, and if they were admitted on or after 1 January 2010, and discharged by death on or before 31 December 2010. RESULTS: Overall 293 patients and 6181 medication entries were evaluated. The most commonly prescribed drugs were acetaminophen, lorazepam, morphine, atropine, prochlorperazine, haloperidol, docusate, aspirin, and bisacodyl. The most commonly prescribed pharmacological classes were opioid and non-opioid analgesics, anxiolytics, anticholinergics, antihypertensives, laxatives, antidepressants, and supplements. The hospice organization provided over 90% of prescriptions for analgesics, antipsychotics, anticholinergics, and anxiolytics, and these medications were discontinued before death in less than 5% of patients. CONCLUSION: Recognized clinical components of failure to thrive syndrome include cognitive impairment, malnutrition, and depression. The hospice organization provided 80% of antidepressants, but infrequently provided appetite stimulants and drugs treating dementia. The most commonly provided drugs were those used for symptoms associated with most end-stage diseases.

Old Habits Die Hard: Regression in Learning and Study Strategies Inventory Scores in PharmD Students.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have demonstrated that "learning to learn" (L2L) courses can lead to significant improvements in students' Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) scores immediately following the course. This study aimed to analyze whether improvements in LASSI scores are sustained 1 year following an L2L elective course. METHODS: First-year pharmacy students in the classes of 2024 and 2025 completed the LASSI at the start of the fall semester and again immediately following an L2L course. One year later, during the second professional year, students completed the LASSI a third time. Repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze within-participant differences in LASSI scores across each of the 10 LASSI scales. Univariate analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was used for pairwise comparison. RESULTS: A total of 119 students completed all 3 LASSI assessments. LASSI scores improved in all 10 scales following completion of the L2L course. However, 1 year after the completion of the course, there was a statistically significant regression in all 10 scale scores (Wilks' Λ [20,98] = 8.7). Among the 10 scales, scores for the Attitude and Concentration scales were statistically significantly lower during the second professional year relative to baseline at the start of the first professional year. Selecting Main Ideas was the only scale with a higher score during the second professional year relative to baseline. CONCLUSION: Despite marked improvements in LASSI scores following the implementation of a "learning to learn" course for first-year pharmacy students, the improvements were not sustained after 1 year.

Conversion ratios: Why is it so challenging to construct opioid conversion tables?

Standardizing opioid management is challenging due to the absence of a ceiling dose, the unknown ideal therapeutic plasma level, and the lack of an clear relationship between dose and therapeutic response. Opioid rotation or conversion, which is switching from one opioid, route of administration, or both, to another, to improve therapeutic response and reduce toxicities, occurs in 20-40 percent of patients treated with opioids. Opioid conversion is often needed when there are adverse effects, toxicities, or inability to tolerate a certain opioid formulation. A majority of patients benefit from opioid conversion, leading to improved analgesia and less adverse effects. There are different published ways of converting opioids in the literature. This review of 20 years of literature is centered on opioid conversions and aims to discuss the complexity of converting opioids. We discuss study designs, outcomes and measures, pain phenotypes, patient characteristics, comparisons of equivalent doses between opioids, reconciling conversion ratios between opioids, routes, directional differences, half-lives and metabolites, interindividual variability, and comparison to package insert information. Palliative care specialists have not yet come to a consensus on the ideal opioid equianalgesic table; however, we discuss a recently updated table, based on retrospective evidence, that may serve as a gold standard for practical use in the palliative care population. More robust, well-designed studies are needed to validate and guide future opioid conversion data.

Prevalence and characteristics of patients prescribed opioids and central nervous system depression agents on discharge to hospice care.

BACKGROUND: Hospice patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) have an increased risk of adverse drug events due to physiological changes and changes in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of medications; however, the use of opioid and central nervous system (CNS) depressant prescribing among patients with ESLD is prevalent. This study quantified the frequency and distribution of opioid and concomitant respiratory and CNS depressant prescribing among hospice patients with ESLD compared to other common hospice diagnoses of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), heart failure, and end-stage renal disease. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of adult (age 18 years or older) decedents of a large hospice chain. Patients included had a primary diagnosis of liver, cancer, cardiovascular, or respiratory disease. RESULTS: Among 119,424 hospice decedents, mean age of 77.9 years (standard deviation =13.5 years), 54.6% were female, and 58.9% were of a non-Hispanic white race. There was a similar frequency of prescribing a "scheduled" and "as needed [pro re nata (PRN)]" opioid or benzodiazepine in patients with ESLD compared to other common hospice diagnoses. In addition, there was a high prevalence of concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions among patients with ESLD compared to cardiovascular and respiratory disease at admission (65.4% vs. 63.9% and 64.9%). Opioid requirements, oral morphine equivalent (OME) median [interquartile range (IQR)] at discharge were similar between cancer, liver, and respiratory disease, 120 OME [60-300], 120 OME [50-240], and 120 OME [50-240], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high frequency of opioid and CNS depressant prescribing in a hospice patient population with ESLD which was similar to other common admitting hospice diagnoses.

Short-term healthcare resource utilization associated with receipt of CDC-informed opioid thresholds among commercially insured new chronic opioid users.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) morphine milligram equivalent (MME)/day threshold recommendations on healthcare utilization. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of new chronic opioid users (NCOUs). SETTING: Commercially insured plans across the United States using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics database with new use between January 2014 and March 2015. PATIENTS: NCOUs with ≥60-day coverage of opioids within a 90-day period with ≥30-day opioid-free period prior to the date of the first qualifying opioid -prescription. INTERVENTIONS: NCOU categorized by the CDC three-tiered risk-based average MME/day thresholds: low (>0 to <50), medium (≥50 to <90), and high (≥90). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds of incurring an acute care encounter (ACE) (all-cause and opioid-related) between the thresholds (adjusted odds, 95 percent confidence interval). RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, when compared to low threshold, there was no difference in the odds of all-cause ACE across the medium (1.01, 0.94-1.28) and high (1.01, 0.84-1.22) thresholds. When compared to low threshold, a statistically insignificant increase was observed when evaluating opioid-related ACE among medium (1.86, 0.86-4.02) and high (1.51, 0.65-3.52) thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in odds of an all-cause or opioid-related ACE associated with the thresholds. Early-intervention programs and policies exploring reduction of MME/day among NCOUs may not result in short-term reduction in all-cause or opioid-related ACEs. Further assessment of potential long-term reduction in ACEs among this cohort may be insightful.

State-level policies and receipt of CDC-informed opioid thresholds among commercially insured new chronic opioid users.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of state-level policies on receipt of opioid regimens informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) morphine milligram equivalent (MME)/day recommendations. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of new chronic opioid users (NCOUs). SETTING: Commercially insured plans across the United States using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics database with new chronic use between January 2014 and March 2015. PARTICIPANTS: NCOUs with ≥60-day coverage of opioids within a 90-day period with ≥30-day opioid-free period prior to the date of the first qualifying opioid prescription. INTERVENTIONS: State-level policies including Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) robustness and cannabis policies involving the presence of medical dispensaries and state-wide decriminalization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NCOUs were placed in three-tiered risk-based average MME/day thresholds: low (>0 to <50), medium (≥50 to <90), and high (≥90). Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the association of state-level policies with the thresholds while adjusting for relevant patient-specific factors. RESULTS: NCOUs in states with medium or high PDMP robustness had lower odds of receiving medium (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.69) and high (AOR 0.74; 95 percent CI: 0.59-0.92) thresholds. With respect to cannabis policies, NCOUs in states with medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving high (AOR 0.75; 95 percent CI: 0.60-0.93) thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization had higher odds of receiving high (AOR 1.24; 95 percent CI: 1.04-1.49) thresholds. CONCLUSION: States with highly robust PDMPs and medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving higher opioid thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization correlated with higher odds of receiving high opioid thresholds.

Topical NSAID formulations.

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) formulations available in the United States, including advantages and disadvantages, therapeutic usefulness, adverse effects, and formulation considerations. RESULTS: In the United States, several topical NSAID products are approved to treat painful conditions including diclofenac sodium 1% gel (Voltaren Gel®; Endo Pharmaceuticals), diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% w/w in 45.5% dimethyl sulfoxide (PENNSAID®; Mallinckrodt, Inc.), and diclofenac epolamine 1.3% (Flector Patch®; Alpharma Pharmaceuticals LLC, a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc.). Recent studies suggest topical diclofenac preparations are effective for osteoarthritis pain and suggest the efficacy of topical formulations is similar to that achieved with oral NSAID formulations. All NSAID formulations contain the same boxed warnings regarding cardiovascular and renal toxicity; however, topical NSAIDs are proposed to have a more favorable safety profile than oral NSAIDs due to the low serum concentrations achieved with topical NSAID formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs have been shown to be beneficial from both a therapeutics and adverse effect perspective, and are increasingly recommended in treatment guidelines.

Evaluation of Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in Hospitalized Palliative Care Patients with COPD.

Dry powder inhalers are an effective yet costly COPD medication-delivery device. Patients must possess a minimum peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) for inhaled medication to be properly deposited into the lungs. Hospitalized palliative-care patients with diminished lung function due to advanced COPD may not possess the minimum PIFR (30 L/min) for adequate drug delivery. This study aims to quantify PIFR values for hospitalized palliative-care patients with advanced COPD to evaluate whether these patients meet the minimum PIFR requirements. Hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with a palliative-care consultation were eligible if they had a diagnosis of advanced COPD (GOLD C or D). Patients were excluded if they lacked decision-making capacity or had a positive COVID-19 test within the previous 90 days. Three PIFR values were recorded utilizing the In-CheckTM device, with the highest of the three PIFR attempts being utilized for statistical analysis. Eighteen patients were enrolled, and the mean of the highest PIFR readings was 72.5 L/min (±29 L/min). Post hoc analysis indicated 99.9% power when comparing the average best PIFR to the minimum PIFR (30 L/min) but only 51.4% power when compared to the optimal PIFR (60 L/min). This study found that palliative-care patients possess the minimum PIFR for DPI drug delivery.

50 practical medication tips at end of life.

Patients with a life-limiting illness frequently experience pain and other symptoms. It is important to pay close attention when medication therapy is used to manage these symptoms. Occasionally, practitioners need to be creative in selecting, dosing, administering, and discontinuing medications at the end of life because of the patient's changing health care needs. This article offers practical end-of-life medication tips including, but not limited to, medication administration; guidance on how to increase and decrease doses; medication selection for difficult-to-treat patients; alternative dosage formulations; routes of medication administration; debridement medication regimens; and appropriate drug therapy selection.

Evolving Roles of Palliative Care Pharmacists.

In this article, we provide an overview of pharmacists' involvement with palliative care, starting with recent history, up to present day. The aim of this review is to highlight advances in the field of palliative care pharmacy and the integral role pharmacists have on the palliative care team. We conclude that despite participating on multidisciplinary palliative care teams for over 20 years, pharmacy still lacks a board certification in palliative care.

Variability among Online Opioid Conversion Calculators Performing Common Palliative Care Conversions.

Introduction: Online opioid conversion calculators (OOCCs) are commonly used to aid conversion between opioids to overcome tolerance, reduce adverse effects, or challenges related to administration. The purpose of this study was to describe and characterize variability among OOCC used by health care practitioners when converting common opioids and doses encountered in the hospice and palliative care setting. Methods: We collected 58 quantitative surveys and performed sentiment analysis on 62 qualitative responses from adult learners primarily practicing in the palliative care setting and enrolled in an online palliative care Master of Science program through the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who were asked to perform opioid conversion calculations using realistic patient cases. Results: OOCC have substantial variability leading to a wide range of outputs, which may put patients at risk for opioid-related harm. Assessing participant sentiment toward OOCC showed most participants held a "Negative Sentiment" toward these calculators after the activity. Conclusion: Overall, findings reveal that given the same information, clinicians can come to widely different opioid doses and these differences can be amplified by OOCC. These differences can be particularly dangerous given the higher opioid doses commonly used in the palliative care setting. Considering the significant harm that can arise from an error when converting between opioids, clinicians should avoid the routine use of OOCC in real-world patient care settings. If an OOCC is used, organizations should endorse a specific calculator, provide training and education about the algorithm that supports the calculations, and encourage clinicians to use it only after their own manual calculation, which should be documented in the medical record.

Patient and Family Participation in Medication Decisions on Discharge to Hospice Care.

Background: High-quality hospice care is characterized by patient-centered care and shared decision making between patients, families, and health care workers. However, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of patient and family participation in medication decisions on transition to hospice care. Objective: To quantify the frequency and characteristics of patient and/or family participation in medication decisions. Subjects: Adult (age ≥18 years) patients discharged from Oregon Health & Science University Hospital (OHSU) to hospice care between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016. Design: Cross-sectional study. Measures: The primary outcome was documented patient and/or family participation. Patient or family participation was defined as documentation of patient or family member discussion surrounding medication decisions in the discharge summary. We used logistic regression to identify patient and admission characteristics associated with documentation of patient or family member participation in medication decisions. Results: Among 348 eligible patients, patient and/or family participation was documented in 22% of discharges to hospice care. Higher Charlson comorbidity index (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.17) and having a diagnosis of cancer (aOR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.16-3.43) were associated with an increased documentation of patient or family member participation in medication decisions. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit were less likely to have patient/family member participation (aOR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.94). Having a specialty palliative care consultation was not significantly associated with patient or family member participation in medication decisions (aOR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.40-1.48). Conclusions: Patient or family participation in medication decisions was documented for only 22% patients on discharge to hospice care. Opportunities to improve participation likely include increasing knowledge and capacity regarding primary palliative care for all clinicians and implementation of specialized interventions for patients and families transitioning to hospice care from acute care settings.

Defining Clinical Excellence for Palliative Care Specialists: A Concept Whose Time Has Come.

Experts in the field of palliative care in the United States (U.S.) have defined competence, or "good," mainly for programs, trainees, or providers of primary palliative care. Our interprofessional workgroup of palliative care specialists proposes that setting a standard for clinical excellence, or "great," applicable to palliative care specialists of all professions will elevate the field in the U.S. by providing an aspirational target usable for individual assessment and self-assessment, highlighting the common ground between team roles, and promoting a deeper understanding of teamwork, utilization, and productivity. We call for research that utilizes inclusive methods and broad representation of diverse voices to design a vivid, practical, and evidence-based definition of clinical excellence for palliative care specialists.