Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented adjustments to ICU organization and care processes globally. Research Questions Did hospital emergency responses to the COVID-19 pandemic differ depending on hospital setting? Which strategies worked well to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists? Study Design and Methods Between August and November 2020, we carried out semistructured interviews of intensivists from tertiary and community hospitals across six regions in the United States that experienced early or large surges of COVID-19 patients, or both. We identified themes of hospital emergency responses using the four S framework of acute surge planning: space, staff, stuff, system. Results Thirty-three intensivists from seven tertiary and six community hospitals participated. Clinicians across both settings believed that canceling elective surgeries was helpful to increase ICU capabilities and that hospitals should establish clearly defined thresholds at which surgeries are limited during future surge events. ICU staff was the most limited resource; staff shortages were improved by the use of tiered staffing models, just-in-time training for non-ICU clinicians, designated treatment teams, and deployment of trainees. Personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages and reuse were widespread, causing substantial distress among clinicians; hands-on PPE training was helpful to reduce clinicians’ anxiety. Transparency and involvement of frontline clinicians as stakeholders were important components of effective emergency responses and helped to maintain trust among staff. Interpretation We identified several strategies potentially to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists working in both tertiary and community hospital settings. Our study also demonstrated the importance of trust and transparency between frontline staff and hospital leadership as key components of effective emergency responses during public health crises.

Background Palliative care is associated with improved survival and quality of life among patients with lung cancer; however, its influence on health-care utilization and quality of care is unclear. Research Question Is palliative care, and the setting in which it occurs, associated with health-care resource utilization and quality of care among patients with advanced lung cancer? Study Design and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 23,142 patients with stage IIIB/IV lung cancer in the Veterans Affairs HealthCare System between 2007 and 2013. Exposures included the receipt of specialist-delivered palliative care, and the setting of the initial palliative care encounter (inpatient or outpatient) received after cancer diagnosis. Primary outcomes included rates of ED visits, along with rates of hospitalization and odds of ICU admission within the last 30 days of life. Secondary outcomes included any health-care utilization (ED, hospital, or ICU) related to chemotherapy toxicity. We used propensity score methods to perform Poisson and logistic regression modeling. Results Among the 23,142 patients, 57% received palliative care, and 36% of initial palliative care encounters were outpatient. Compared with no palliative care, initial palliative care encounter in the outpatient setting was associated with reduced rates of ED visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96) and hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (aIRR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.70). Initial palliative care encounters in both inpatient (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75) and outpatient (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.35-0.52) settings were associated with reduced odds of ICU admission in the last 30 days of life. Palliative care was also associated with reduced health-care utilization related to chemotherapy toxicity (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95). Interpretation Palliative care (particularly in outpatient settings) is associated with reduced health-care utilization at the end of life and may improve the quality of care among patients with advanced lung cancer. These findings support the role of palliative care as an important component of comprehensive cancer care and highlight the potential benefits of outpatient palliative care services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care systems and has resulted in widespread critical care staffing shortages, negatively impacting the quality of care delivered.How have hospitals' emergency responses to the pandemic influenced the well-being of frontline intensivists, and do any potential strategies exist to improve their well-being and to help preserve the critical care workforce?We conducted semistructured interviews of intensivists at clusters of tertiary and community hospitals located in six regions across the United States between August and November 2020 using the "four S" framework of acute surge planning (ie, space, staff, stuff, and system) to organize the interview guide. We then used inductive thematic analysis to identify themes describing the influence of hospitals' emergency responses on intensivists' well-being.Thirty-three intensivists from seven tertiary and six community hospitals participated. Intensivists reported experiencing substantial moral distress, particularly because of restricted visitor policies and their perceived negative impacts on patients, families, and staff. Intensivists also frequently reported burnout symptoms as a result of their experiences with patient death, exhaustion over the pandemic's duration, and perceived lack of support from colleagues and hospitals. We identified several potentially modifiable factors perceived to improve morale, including the proactive provision of mental health resources, establishment of formal backup schedules for physicians, and clear actions demonstrating that clinicians are valued by their institutions.Restrictive visitation policies contributed to moral distress as reported by intensivists, highlighting the need to reconsider the risks and benefits of these policies. We also identified several interventions as perceived by intensivists that may help to mitigate moral distress and to improve burnout as part of efforts to preserve the critical care workforce.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States and is a serious respiratory illness characterized by years of progressively debilitating breathlessness, high prevalence of associated depression and anxiety, frequent hospitalizations, and diminished wellbeing. Despite the potential to confer significant quality of life benefits for patients and their care partners and to improve end-of-life care, specialist palliative care is rarely implemented in COPD and when initiated it often occurs only at the very end of life. Primary palliative care delivered by frontline clinicians is a feasible model, but is not routinely integrated in COPD. In this review, we discuss the following: 1) the role of specialist and primary palliative care for patients with COPD and the case for earlier integration into routine practice; 2) the domains of the National Consensus Project Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care applied to people living with COPD and their care partners; and, 3) triggers for initiating palliative care and practical ways to implement palliative care using case-based examples. In the end, this review solidifies that palliative care is much more than hospice and end-of-life care and demonstrates that early palliative care is appropriate at any point during the COPD trajectory. We emphasize that palliative care should be integrated long before the end of life to provide comprehensive support for patients and their care partners and to better prepare them for the end of life.

BACKGROUND As lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scanning is implemented, an increasing number of people will be diagnosed with pulmonary nodules. Primary care clinicians care for the vast majority of these patients, but their experiences with communication and managing distress in this population are not well understood. METHODS We conducted qualitative interviews of 15 primary care providers (PCPs) at two academic medical centers who care for patients with pulmonary nodules. We used qualitative description analysis, focusing on clinicians' information exchange and other communication behaviors. METHODS Most PCPs believed they had inadequate information to counsel patients regarding lung nodules, although this information is desired. PCPs were concerned patients could "fall through the cracks" but did not have access to a reliable system to ensure follow-up adherence. They were limited by time, knowledge, and resources in providing the preferred level of care. Most PCPs did not discuss the specific risk a nodule was lung cancer, in part because they did not have ready access to this information. PCPs believed most patients did not have substantial distress as a result of nodule detection. Most PCPs did not include patients when making decisions about the follow-up plan. CONCLUSIONS PCPs often lack systemic resources to optimize patient-centered approaches when discussing incidental pulmonary nodules with patients. With the advent of lung cancer screening, pulmonologists can assist primary care colleagues by providing accurate information to counsel patients and assisting in managing conversations about the risk of cancer. Pulmonologists should support efforts to implement reliable systems to ensure adherence to follow-up.

We report a case of Cryptococcus neoformans pneumonia in a patient taking ruxolitinib, a janus kinase 1,2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis. We hypothesize that ruxolitinib contributed to this infection through its effects on cell-mediated immunity. Clinicians should be aware of the potential for intracellular or opportunistic infections associated with this novel drug class.