Project description:ImportanceIncreasing inpatient palliative care delivery is prioritized, but large-scale, experimental evidence of its effectiveness is lacking.ObjectiveTo determine whether ordering palliative care consultation by default for seriously ill hospitalized patients without requiring greater palliative care staffing increased consultations and improved outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsA pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial was conducted among patients 65 years or older with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or kidney failure admitted from March 21, 2016, through November 14, 2018, to 11 US hospitals. Outcome data collection ended on January 31, 2019.InterventionOrdering palliative care consultation by default for eligible patients, while allowing clinicians to opt-out, was compared with usual care, in which clinicians could choose to order palliative care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was hospital length of stay, with deaths coded as the longest length of stay, and secondary end points included palliative care consult rate, discharge to hospice, do-not-resuscitate orders, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). A higher percentage of patients in the default order group received palliative care consultation than in the standard care group (43.9% vs 16.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.17 [95% CI, 4.59-5.81]) and received consultation earlier (mean [SD] of 3.4 [2.6] days after admission vs 4.6 [4.8] days; P < .001). Length of stay did not differ between the default order and usual care groups (percent difference in median length of stay, -0.53% [95% CI, -3.51% to 2.53%]). Patients in the default order group had higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders at discharge (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.21-1.63]) and discharge to hospice (aOR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.07-1.57]) than the usual care group, and similar in-hospital mortality (4.7% vs 4.2%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.08]).Conclusions and relevanceDefault palliative care consult orders did not reduce length of stay for older, hospitalized patients with advanced chronic illnesses, but did improve the rate and timing of consultation and some end-of-life care processes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505035.

Project description:Background and objectivesLimited implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis may contribute to end-of-life care that is intensive and not patient centered. We determined whether a learning collaborative for hemodialysis center providers improved delivery of palliative care best practices.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsTen US hemodialysis centers participated in a pre-post study targeting seriously ill patients between April 2019 and September 2020. Three practices were prioritized: screening for serious illness, goals of care discussions, and use of a palliative dialysis care pathway. The collaborative educational bundle consisted of learning sessions, communication skills training, and implementation support. The primary outcome was change in the probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients. Health care utilization was a secondary outcome, and implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and penetration were assessed using mixed methods.ResultsOne center dropped out due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Among the remaining nine centers, 20% (273 of 1395) of patients were identified as seriously ill preimplementation, and 16% (203 of 1254) were identified as seriously ill postimplementation. From the preimplementation to postimplementation period, the adjusted probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients increased by 34.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 4.4 to 68.5). There was no difference in mortality or in utilization of palliative hemodialysis, hospice referral, or hemodialysis discontinuation. Screening for serious illness was widely adopted, and goals of care discussions were adopted with incomplete integration. There was limited adoption of a palliative dialysis care pathway.ConclusionsA learning collaborative for hemodialysis centers spanning the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was associated with adoption of serious illness screening and goals of care discussions as well as improved documentation of advance care planning for seriously ill patients.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberPathways Project: Kidney Supportive Care, NCT04125537.

Project description:Background and objectivesClinician empathy is associated with improved communication and clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that, when clinicians express empathy, families are more likely to deepen discussions, and that clinicians express less empathy in care conferences with language interpretation.MethodsProspective, mixed methods cohort study of English and interpreted audio-recorded transcripts of care conferences for pediatric patients with serious illness hospitalized at a single urban, quaternary medical institution between January 2018 and January 2021. Directed content analysis identified empathic opportunities, clinician empathetic statements or missed opportunities, and family responses. Clinician empathic statements were "buried" if immediately followed by more clinician medical talk. Descriptive analyses summarized demographics and codes. χ2 analyses summarized differences among language interpretation and family responses.ResultsTwenty-nine patient-family dyads participated. Twenty-two (81%) family members were female. Eleven (39%) used language interpretation (8 Spanish, 2 Vietnamese, 1 Somali). Families created 210 empathic opportunities. Clinicians responded with unburied empathy 80 times (38%, no differences for English versus interpreted care conferences, P = .88). When clinicians buried empathy or missed empathic opportunities, families responded with alliance (agreement, gratitude, or emotional deepening) 14% and 15% of the time, respectively. When clinicians responded with unburied empathy, families responded with alliance 83% of the time (P < .01).ConclusionsOur study suggests that clinician empathic expression does not differ when language interpretation is used in pediatric care conferences. Clinicians often miss opportunities to express empathy, or they bury it by medical talk. Although unburied empathy created opportunities for relationship-building and family-sharing, buried empathy negatively impacted these domains similarly to no empathic expression.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the perceived ethical, personal and health service benefits of advance care planning (ACP), the extent to which older and seriously ill Australian inpatients have considered future health decisions remains uncertain. This study aimed to determine in a sample of older and seriously ill inpatients, the proportion who had: 1) engaged in four advance care planning (ACP) activities; 2) not engaged in ACP activities but wanted to; and 3) reasons why they had not engaged.MethodsCross-sectional face-to-face standardised interview survey with inpatients in a tertiary referral centre who were either: aged 80+ years; aged 55+ years with progressive chronic disease(s); or judged by treating clinicians as having a life expectancy of less than 12 months. Patients indicated whether they had engaged in four ACP activities: (1) appointed medical substitute-decision-maker(s), (2) recorded end-of-life wishes in an advance directive or care plan; and talked about their end-of-life wishes with their: (3) support persons and/or (4) doctors. Patients who had not engaged in activities were asked whether they wished this to occur and reasons why.ResultsOne hundred eighty-six inpatients consented to the study (80% of approached). Of these, 9% (n = 16) had engaged in four ACP activities; 27% (n = 50) had not engaged in any. Half (n = 94, 52%) had appointed a medical substitute-decision-maker, 27% (n = 50) had recorded wishes in an advance directive or care plan, 51% (n = 90) had talked about their end-of-life wishes with support persons and 27% (n = 48) had talked with their doctor. Patients who wanted to, but had not, engaged in the four ACP activities were unaware they could record wishes or appoint decision-makers, or indicated providers had not initiated conversations.ConclusionRelatively few inpatients had engaged in all four ACP activities. More inpatients had discussed end of life issues with family and appointed substitute decision makers, than completed written documents or talked with doctors. Community education and a more active role for community and hospital-based providers in supporting patients and families to collaboratively resolve end-of-life decisions may increase the probability wishes are known and followed.

Project description:Importance:Although advance care planning is known to increase patient and caregiver satisfaction, its association with health care utilization is not well understood. Objective:To examine the association between billed advance care planning encounters and subsequent health care utilization among seriously ill patients. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study conducted from October 1, 2015, to May 31, 2018, used a national commercial insurance claims database to retrieve data from 18 484 Medicare Advantage members 65 years or older who had a claim that contained a serious illness diagnosis. Exposure:A claim that contained an advance care planning billing code between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Receipt of intensive therapies, hospitalization, emergency department use, hospice use, costs, and death during the 6-month follow-up period. Results:The final study sample included 18 484 seriously ill patients (mean [SD] age, 79.7 [7.9] years; 10 033 [54.3%] female), 864 (4.7%) of whom had a billed advanced care planning encounter between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. In analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and a propensity score for advance care planning, the presence of a billed advance care planning encounter was associated with a higher likelihood of hospice enrollment (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.52; 95% CI, 2.22-2.86) and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.79-2.88) compared with no billed advance care planning encounter. Although patients with billed advance care planning encounters were also more likely to be hospitalized (IRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49), including in the intensive care unit (IRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.08-1.45), they were less likely to receive any intensive therapies (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92), such as chemotherapy (IRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78). Similar results were observed in a propensity score-matched analysis (99% matched) and in a decedent analysis of patients who died during the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusions and Relevance:Patients with billed advance care planning encounters were more likely than those without these encounters to receive hospice services and less likely to receive any intensive therapies, such as chemotherapy. However, they were also hospitalized more frequently than patients without billed advance care planning encounters. Although these findings were robust to multiple analytic methods, the results may be attributable to residual confounding because of a higher unmeasured severity of illness in the advance care planning group. Additional evidence appears to be needed to understand the effect of advance care planning on these outcomes.

Dataset Information

Palliative Care for the Seriously Ill.

Publications

Palliative Care for the Seriously Ill.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets