Search

During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals did not allow caregiver visitation. Little is known about how caregivers' absence affected patients' care.This study aimed to describe visitation restrictions' impact on patients and their caregivers experiences.We used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design. First, we randomly selected 200 adult patients with cancer or heart failure hospitalized before (n = 100) and during visitor restrictions (n = 100) and abstracted data from the electronic medical record on communication between medical teams and caregivers and the topics discussed. Results from the quantitative analysis guided our thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with a subsample of patients hospitalized during visitor restrictions and their caregivers to understand the impact of visitor restrictions on their experiences.Compared to prerestrictions, caregivers under visitation restrictions communicated less frequently with the medical team (29% vs. 37% of hospitalized days; p = .04), fewer received discharge counseling (37% vs. 52%; p = .04), and disproportionately more had no contact with the medical team (36% vs. 17%; p .01). Video conferencing was documented for caregivers of only five patients. Qualitative analysis revealed that both caregivers and patients experienced emotional distress, increased conflict, and decreased perception of quality of care because of visitation restrictions.Hospital visitor restrictions significantly reduced caregivers' communication with patients' medical team, causing caregivers and patients emotional distress. Protocols that facilitate communication between caregivers and care teams may benefit caregivers who cannot be physically present at care facilities, including distance caregivers.

As palliative care (PC) programs rapidly grow and expand across settings, the need to measure, improve, and standardize high-quality PC has also grown. The electronic health record (EHR) is a key component of these efforts as a central hub of care delivery and a repository of patient and system data. Deliberate efforts to leverage the EHR for PC quality improvement (QI) can help PC programs and health systems improve care for patients with serious illnesses. This article, written by clinicians with experience in QI, informatics, and clinical program development, provides practical tips and guidance on EHR strategies and tools for QI and quality measurement.

Guidelines recommend goals of care conversations (GOCC) and specialty palliative care at the time of initiation of palliative inotropes for patients with advanced heart failure. The extent to which GOCC are occurring, the content of the GOCC, and the frequency of palliative care involvement is unknown.We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients discharged from a tertiary medical center between October 2015 and April 2020 initiated on continuous palliative inotropes. We identified 53 patients who were discharged on continuous palliative inotropes. Most patients (46/53 [87%]) had a documented GOCC, including discussions around preferences for life-sustaining treatments, hospice, and/or prognosis. However, just more than one-half of the patients (55% [15/27]) with an ICD had a documented discussion regarding preferences for ICD deactivation. Patients seen by palliative care were more likely to have a documented discussion about ICD deactivation (68% vs 0%, P = .0098). The frequency of palliative care consultation and documented GOCC conversations increased over time.Although we observed overall high rates of documented GOCC, there is room for improving the rate of discussions with patients about whether they wish to have their ICD deactivated. Future research should test interventions to improve the frequency of ICD discussions.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often receive burdensome care at end-of-life (EOL) and infrequently complete advance care planning (ACP). The surprise question (SQ) is a prognostic tool that may facilitate ACP. OBJECTIVE: To assess how well the SQ predicts mortality and prompts ACP for COPD patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of COPD between July 2015 and September 2018. MAIN MEASURES: Emergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians answered, “Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days (ED)/one year (inpatient)?” The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the SQ in predicting 30-day and 1-year mortality. The secondary outcome was the correlation between SQ and ACP (palliative care consultation, documented goals-of-care conversation, change in code status, or completion of ACP document). KEY RESULTS: The 30-day SQ had a high specificity but low sensitivity for predicting 30-day mortality: sensitivity 12%, specificity 95%, PPV 11%, and NPV 96%. The 1-year SQ demonstrated better accuracy for predicting 1-year mortality: sensitivity 47%, specificity 75%, PPV 35%, and NPV 83%. After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, and prior 6-month admissions, 1-year SQ+ responses were associated with greater odds of 1-year mortality (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.39–4.08) versus SQ-. One-year SQ+ patients were more likely to have a goals-of-care conversation (25% vs. 11%, p < 0.01) and complete an advance directive or POLST (46% vs. 23%, p < 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, SQ+ responses to the 1-year SQ were associated with greater odds of ACP receipt (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.64–4.36). CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year surprise question may be an effective component of prognostication and advance care planning for COPD patients in the inpatient setting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06512-8.