Search

BackgroundDonation after circulatory death (DCD) is becoming increasingly common, yet little is known about the way potential donors receive end-of-life care.PurposeThe aims of this systematic review are to describe the current practice in end-of-life care for potential donors and identify metrics that are being used to assess discomfort among these patients.Research design and Study SampleThis review encompasses published literature between June 1, 2000 and June 31, 2020 of end-of-life care received by potential DCD patients. The population of interest was defined as patients eligible for Maastracht classification III donation after circulatory death for a solid organ transplantation. Outcomes examined included: analgesic or palliative protocols, and surrogates of discomfort (eg dyspnea, agitation).ResultsAmong 141 unique articles, 27 studies were included for full review. The primary reason for exclusion was lack of protocol description, or lack of reporting on analgesic medications. No primary research studies specifically examined distress in the DCD eligible population. Numerous professional guidelines were identified. Surveys of critical care practitioners identified concerns regarding the impact of symptom management on hastening the dying process in the DCD population as a potential barrier to end-of-life palliative treatment.ConclusionsThere is a paucity of empirical evidence for end-of-life symptom assessment and management for DCD patients. Key evidence gaps identified for DCD include the need for: i) a multidisciplinary structure of treatment teams and preferred environment for DCD, ii) objective tools for monitoring of distress in this patient population, and iii) evidence guiding the administration of analgesic medications following withdrawal of life sustaining therapy.

BACKGROUND: Each year, approximately one million older adults die in American ICUs or survive with significant functional impairment. Inadequate symptom management, surrogates’ psychological distress and inappropriate healthcare use are major concerns. Pioneering work by Dr. J. Randall Curtis paved the way for integrating palliative care (PC) specialists to address these needs, but convincing proof of efficacy has not yet been demonstrated. DESIGN: We will conduct a multicenter patient-randomized efficacy trial of integrated specialty PC (SPC) versus usual care for 500 high-risk ICU patients over age 60 and their surrogate decision-makers from five hospitals in Pennsylvania. INTERVENTION: The intervention will follow recommended best practices for inpatient PC consultation. Patients will receive care from a multidisciplinary SPC team within 24 hours of enrollment that continues until hospital discharge or death. SPC clinicians will meet with patients, families, and the ICU team every weekday. SPC and ICU clinicians will jointly participate in proactive family meetings according to a predefined schedule. Patients in the control arm will receive routine ICU care. OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome is patient-centeredness of care, measured using the modified Patient Perceived Patient-Centeredness of Care (PPPC) scale. Secondary outcomes include surrogates’ psychological symptom burden and health resource utilization. Other outcomes include patient survival, as well as interprofessional collaboration. We will also conduct prespecified subgroup analyses using variables such as PC needs, measured by the Needs of Social Nature, Existential Concerns, Symptoms, and Therapeutic Interaction (NEST) scale. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide robust evidence about the impact of integrating SPC with critical care on patient, family, and health system outcomes.

Background Large-scale efforts to train clinicians in serious-illness communication skills are needed, but 2 important gaps in knowledge remain. (1) No proven training method exists that can be readily scaled to train thousands of clinicians. (2) Though the value of interprofessional collaboration to support incapacitated patients’ surrogates is increasingly recognized, few interventions for training intensive care unit (ICU) nurses in important communication skills can be leveraged to provide interprofessional family support. Objective To develop and test a web/videoconference-based platform to train nurses to communicate about serious illness. Methods A user-centered process was used to develop the intervention, including (1) iteratively engaging a stakeholder panel, (2) developing prototype and beta versions of the platform, and (3) 3 rounds of user testing with 13 ICU nurses. Participants’ ratings of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results Stakeholders stressed that the intervention should leverage interactive learning and a streamlined digital interface. A training platform was developed consisting of 6 interactive online training lessons and 3 group-based video-conference practice sessions. Participants rated the program as usable (mean summary score 84 [96th percentile]), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5; SD, 0.7), and effective (mean, 4.8/5; SD, 0.6). Ten of 13 nurses would recommend the intervention over 2-day in-person training. Conclusions Nurses testing this web-based training program judged it usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding with an appropriately powered efficacy trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer often have unrealistic expectations about prognosis and treatment. This study assessed the effect of an oncology nurse-led primary palliative care intervention on illness expectations among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial of primary palliative care conducted at 17 oncology clinics. Adult patients with advanced solid tumors for whom the oncologist would not be surprised if died within 1 year were enrolled. Monthly visits were designed to foster realistic illness expectations by eliciting patient concerns and goals for their medical care and empowering patients and families to engage in discussions with oncologists about treatment options and preferences. Baseline and 3-month questionnaires included questions about life expectancy, treatment intent, and terminal illness acknowledgment. Odds of realistic illness expectations at 3 months were adjusted for baseline responses, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, and intervention dose. RESULTS: Among 457 primarily White patients, there was little difference in realistic illness expectations at 3 months between intervention and standard care groups: 12.8% v 11.4% for life expectancy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.59 to 2.22; P = .684); 24.6% v 33.3% for treatment intent (aOR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.27; P = .290); 53.6% v 44.7% for terminal illness acknowledgment (aOR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.00; P = .288). Results did not differ when accounting for variation in clinic sites or intervention dose. CONCLUSION: Illness expectations are difficult to change among patients with advanced cancer. Additional work is needed to identify approaches within oncology practices that foster realistic illness expectations to improve patient decision making.

Context Although many patients with critical illness may benefit from involvement of palliative care specialists, adoption of these services in the intensive care unit (ICU) is variable. Objective To characterize reasons for variable buy-in for specialty palliative care in the ICU, and identify factors associated with routine involvement of specialists in appropriate cases. Methods Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with ICU attendings, nurses, and palliative care clinicians, purposively sampled from eight ICUs (medical, surgical, cardiothoracic, neurological) with variable use of palliative care services within two urban, academic medical centers. Interviews were transcribed and coded using an iterative and inductive approach with constant comparison. Results We identified three types of specialty palliative care adoption in ICUs, representing different phases of buy-in. The “nascent” phase was characterized by the need for education about palliative care services and clarification of which patients may be appropriate for involvement. During the key “transitional” phase, use of specialists depended on development of “comfort and trust”, which centered on four aspects of the ICU-palliative care clinician relationship: 1) increasing familiarity between clinicians; 2) navigating shared responsibility with primary clinicians; 3) having a collaborative approach to care; and 4) having successful experiences. In the “mature” phase, ICU and palliative care clinicians worked to strengthen their existing collaboration, but further adoption was limited by the availability and resources of the palliative care team. Conclusion This conceptual framework identifying distinct phases of adoption may assist institutions aiming to foster sustained adoption of specialty palliative care in an ICU setting.

Background Clinicians often cite a fear of giving up hope as a reason they defer advance care planning (ACP) among patients with advanced cancer. The objective of this study was to determine whether engagement in ACP affects hope in these patients. Methods This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of primary palliative care in advanced cancer. Patients who had not completed ACP at baseline were included in the analysis. ACP was assessed in the forms of an end-of-life (EOL) conversation with one's oncologist and completion of a living will or advance directive (AD). Measurements were obtained at baseline and at 3 months. Hope was measured using the Herth Hope Index (HHI) (range, 12-48; higher scores indicate higher hope). Multivariate regression was performed to assess associations between ACP and hope, controlling for baseline HHI score, study randomization, patient age, religious importance, education, marital status, socioeconomic status, time since cancer diagnosis, pain/symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), and anxiety/depression score (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale)-all variables known to be associated with ACP and/or hope. Results In total, 672 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled in the overall study. The mean age was 69 ± 10 years, and the most common cancer types were lung cancer (36%), gastrointestinal cancer (20%) and breast/gynecologic cancers (16%). In this group, 378 patients (56%) had not had an EOL conversation at baseline, of whom 111 of 378 (29%) reported having an EOL conversation by 3 months. Hope was not different between patients who did or did not have an EOL conversation over the study period (mean ± standard deviation ∆HHI, 0.20 ± 5.32 vs -0.53 ± 3.80, respectively; P = .136). After multivariable adjustment, hope was significantly increased in patients who had engaged in an EOL conversation (adjusted mean difference in ∆HHI, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.08-1.82; P = .032). Similarly, of 216 patients (32%) without an AD at baseline, 67 (31%) had subsequently completed an AD. Unadjusted hope was not different between those who did and did not complete an AD (∆HHI, 0.20 ± 3.89 vs -0.91 ± 4.50, respectively; P = .085). After adjustment, hope was significantly higher in those who completed an AD (adjusted mean difference in ∆HHI, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.13-2.49; P = .030). Conclusions The current results demonstrate that hope is not decreased after engagement in ACP and indeed may be increased. These findings may provide reassurance to clinicians who are apprehensive about having these important and difficult conversations. Lay summary Many oncologists defer advance care planning (ACP) out of concern for giving up hope. This study demonstrates that hope is not decreased in patients who have engaged in ACP either as a conversation with their oncologists or by completing an advance directive. With this information, providers may feel more comfortable having these important conversations with their patients.

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Before the predicted March 2020 surge of COVID-19, US healthcare organizations were charged with developing resource allocation policies. We assessed policy preparedness and substantive triage criteria within existing policies using a cross-sectional survey distributed to public health personnel and healthcare providers between March 23 and April 23, 2020. Personnel and providers from 68 organizations from 34 US states responded. While half of the organizations did not yet have formal allocation policies, all but 4 were in the process of developing policies. Using manual abstraction and natural language processing, we summarize the origins and features of the policies. Most policies included objective triage criteria, specified inapplicable criteria, separated triage and clinical decision making, detailed reassessment plans, offered an appeals process, and addressed palliative care. All but 1 policy referenced a sequential organ failure assessment score as a triage criterion, and 10 policies categorically excluded patients. Six policies were almost identical, tracing their origins to influenza planning. This sample of policies reflects organizational strategies of exemplar-based policy development and the use of objective criteria in triage decisions, either before or instead of clinical judgment, to support ethical distribution of resources. Future guidance is warranted on how to adapt policies across disease type, choose objective criteria, and specify processes that rely on clinical judgments.

Although multiple consensus statements have called for large-scale efforts to improve clinicians' communication skills regarding a variety of difficult conversations in medicine, this goal will be difficult to attain because there are no readily scalable, validated communication skills training programs for clinicians. However, novel applications of existing technologies and approaches grounded in learning science can overcome the scalability barriers. Moreover, future advances in virtual reality and artificial intelligence are likely to greatly enhance the possibilities for communication skills training programs. The purpose of this paper is to propose a scalable, theoretically grounded method to train clinicians in advanced communication skills in medicine. First, we summarize four key principles of adult learning relevant to communication skills training in medicine. Second, we discuss recommended practices to design effective technology-enhanced educational interventions, with an emphasis on achieving high amounts of user engagement. Third, we synthesize these principles into a framework for a web- and videoconference-based platform for teaching advanced communication skills in medicine. Once developed, this low-cost, scalable training platform has the potential to allow thousands of clinicians to acquire the advanced communication skills needed for difficult conversations in medicine.

The September-October 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report highlights the important topic of allocating scarce critical care resources during the Covid-19 pandemic. The article by Alex Rajczi and colleagues urges that policy-makers use public reasoning, not private reasoning, when developing triage policies. We completely agree. We show how the allocation framework we developed as private scholars, the "Pittsburgh framework," has been supported by public reasoning. The article by MaryKatherine Gaurke and colleagues criticizes rationing based on maximizing life-years saved and mistakenly claims that our framework recommended this approach. We explain that our framework never contained such a criterion but instead included a more limited consideration of near-term prognosis. In December 2020, in response to emerging data and important criticisms, we modified our framework to further strengthen equity. We are committed to improving allocation guidelines during crisis standards of care through reflective discussions and debates.

Although trust is central to successful clinician-family relationships in intensive care units (ICUs), little is known about how to promote surrogates' trust of ICU clinicians in this setting.Does the conduct of family conferences and clinicians' use of shared decision-making (SDM) within family conferences impact surrogates' trust in the clinician?Mixed methods secondary analysis of a multi-center prospective cohort study of 369 surrogate decision-makers of 204 decisionally incapacitated patients at high risk of death or severe functional impairment within 13 ICUs at 6 U.S. medical centers between 2008 and 2012. Surrogates completed the Abbreviated Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (range 5-25) before and after an audio-recorded family conference conducted within 5 days of ICU admission. We qualitatively coded transcribed conferences to determine clinicians' use of 5 SDM behaviors: discussing surrogate's role, explaining medical condition and prognosis, providing emotional support, assessing understanding, and eliciting patient's values and preferences. Using multivariable linear regression with adjustment for clustering, we assessed whether surrogates' trust in the physician increased after the family meeting; we also examined whether the number of SDM behaviors used by clinicians during the family meeting impacted trust scores.In adjusted models, conduct of a family meeting was associated with increased trust (average change pre-to-post: 0.91-points (95% CI 0.4-1.4, P-value0.01)). Every additional element of SDM used during the family meeting, including discussing surrogate's role, providing emotional support, assessing understanding, and eliciting patient's values and preferences, was associated with a 0.37-point increase in trust (95% CI 0.08-0.67, P-value=0.01). If all 4 elements were used trust increased by 1.48-points. Explaining medical condition or prognosis was observed in nearly every conference (98.5%) and excluded from the final model.The conduct of family meetings and clinicians' use of SDM behaviors during meetings were both associated with increases in surrogates' trust in the treating clinician.

ObjectivesFamily caregiver burden among older adults with advanced cancer remains poorly understood. We sought to (1) identify patient factors associated with caregiver burden and (2) examine how amount of time caregiving modifies these relationships.MethodsCross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a cluster-randomized palliative care intervention trial including patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers, recruited from 17 oncology practices in Pennsylvania. Caregiver burden was measured using Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12; range 0-48). Patient factors included functional status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Palliative Care). Using adjusted multivariable regression, we analyzed (1) independent associations between patient factors and caregiver burden and (2) how weekly caregiving hours modified these relationships.ResultsAmong 441 patient-caregiver dyads, mean patient age was 70±10 and caregiver age was 62±13years. Most caregivers (59%) were patients' partners. Caregivers reported 44.5±53.5 average hours spent caregiving weekly; mean ZBI-12 scores were 10.3±7.3. Worse patient functional status (β=4.20, p&nbsp

OBJECTIVE: Patient–oncologist therapeutic alliance is a foundation of quality cancer care, although there is limited research demonstrating its relationship with patient outcomes. We investigated the relationship between therapeutic alliance and patient quality of life with a secondary goal of determining whether the association varied by patients’ baseline level of psychological distress. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized clinical trial of 672 patients with advanced cancer participating in a primary palliative care intervention trial. Patients completed baseline self-reported measures of therapeutic alliance (The Human Connection Scale, range: 16–64), overall quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Palliative Care, range: 0–184), and psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, range: 0–42). First, we determined the relationship between therapeutic alliance and quality of life using multivariable regression adjusting for confounders. We then examined if psychological distress was an effect modifier in this relationship by adding interaction effects of depression and anxiety symptoms on therapeutic alliance into the regression model. RESULTS: Patients reported high levels of therapeutic alliance (56.4 ± 7.4) and moderate quality of life (130.3 ± 25.5). Stronger therapeutic alliance was associated with better quality of life after adjusting for other confounding factors (β = 3.7, 95% confidence interval = 2.1, 5.3, p < 0.01). The relationship between therapeutic alliance and quality of life was generally consistent regardless of psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative, trusting relationships between patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists are associated with better patient quality of life. Future research should investigate the causal, longitudinal nature of these relationships.

ImportanceDiagnostic errors made during triage at nontrauma centers contribute to preventable morbidity and mortality after injury.ObjectiveTo test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effect of a novel deliberate practice intervention to improve diagnostic reasoning in trauma triage.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted online in a national convenience sample of 72 emergency physicians between January 1 and March 31, 2022, without follow-up.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive either usual care (ie, passive control) or a deliberate practice intervention, consisting of 3 weekly, 30-minute, video-conferenced sessions during which physicians played a customized, theory-based video game while being observed by content experts (coaches) who provided immediate, personalized feedback on diagnostic reasoning.Main Outcomes and MeasuresUsing the Proctor framework of outcomes for implementation research, the feasibility, fidelity, acceptability, adoption, and appropriateness of the intervention was assessed by reviewing videos of the coaching sessions and conducting debriefing interviews with participants. A validated online simulation was used to assess the intervention’s effect on behavior, and triage among control and intervention physicians was compared using mixed-effects logistic regression. Implementation outcomes were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, but participants who did not use the simulation were excluded from the efficacy analysis.ResultsThe study enrolled 72 physicians (mean [SD] age, 43.3 [9.4] years; 44 men [61%]) but limited registration of physicians in the intervention group to 30 because of the availability of the coaches. Physicians worked in 20 states; 62 (86%) were board certified in emergency medicine. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity, with 28 of 30 physicians (93%) completing 3 coaching sessions and with coaches delivering 95% of session components (642 of 674). A total of 21 of 36 physicians (58%) in the control group participated in outcome assessment; 28 of 30 physicians (93%) in the intervention group participated in semistructured interviews, and 26 of 30 physicians (87%) in the intervention group participated in outcome assessment. Most physicians in the intervention group (93% [26 of 28]) described the sessions as entertaining and valuable; most (88% [22 of 25]) affirmed the intention to adopt the principles discussed. Suggestions for refinement included providing more time with the coach and addressing contextual barriers to triage. During the simulation, the triage decisions of physicians in the intervention group were more likely to adhere to clinical practice guidelines than those in the control group (odds ratio; 13.8, 95% CI, 2.8-69.6; P = .001).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this pilot randomized clinical trial, coaching was feasible and acceptable and had a large effect on simulated trauma triage decisions, setting the stage for a phase 3 trial.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05168579

The burdens of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have fallen disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, including the poor and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. There is substantial concern that the use of existing ICU triage protocols to allocate scarce ventilators and critical care resources—most of which are designed to save as many lives as possible—may compound these inequities. As governments and health systems revisit their triage guidelines in the context of impending resource shortages, scholars have advocated a range of alternative allocation strategies, including the use of a random lottery to give all patients in need an equal chance of ICU treatment. However, both the save-the-most-lives approach and random allocation are seriously flawed. In this Perspective, we argue that ICU triage policies should simultaneously promote population health outcomes and mitigate health inequities. These ethical goals are sometimes in conflict, which will require balancing the goals of maximizing the number of lives saved and distributing health benefits equitably across society. We recommend three strategies to mitigate health inequities during ICU triage: introducing a correction factor into patients’ triage scores to reduce the impact of baseline structural inequities; giving heightened priority to individuals in essential, high-risk occupations; and rejecting use of longer-term life expectancy and categorical exclusions as allocation criteria. We present a practical triage framework that incorporates these strategies and attends to the twin public health goals of promoting population health and social justice.

PURPOSE: Providers have cited fear of taking away hope from patients as one of the principal reasons for deferring advance care planning (ACP). However, research is lacking on the relationship between ACP and hope. We sought to investigate the potential association between ACP and hope in advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a primary palliative care intervention trial. All patients had advanced solid cancers. Three domains of ACP were measured using validated questions to assess discussion with oncologists about end-of-life (EOL) planning, selection of a surrogate decision maker, and completion of an advance directive. Hope was measured using the Hearth Hope Index (HHI). Multivariable regression was performed, adjusting for variables associated with hope or ACP. RESULTS: A total of 672 patients were included in this analysis. The mean age was 69.3 ± 10.2 years; 54% were female, and 94% were White. Twenty percent of patients (132 of 661) reported having a discussion about EOL planning, 51% (342 of 668) reported completing an advance directive, and 85% (565 of 666) had chosen a surrogate. There was no difference in hope between patients who had and had not had an EOL discussion (adjusted mean difference in HHI, 0.55; P = .181 for adjusted regression), chosen a surrogate (adjusted HHI difference, 0.31; P = .512), or completed an advance directive (adjusted HHI difference, 0.11; P = .752). CONCLUSION: In this study, hope was equivalent among patients who had or had not completed 3 important domains of ACP. These findings do not support concerns that ACP is associated with decreased hope for patients with advanced cancer.

Rationale: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) have shifted communication with patients’ families toward chiefly telehealth methods (phone and video) to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Family and clinician perspectives about phone and video communication in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet well understood. Increased knowledge about clinicians’ and families’ experiences with telehealth may help to improve the quality of remote interactions with families during periods of hospital visitor restrictions during COVID-19. Objectives: To explore experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of family members and ICU clinicians about phone and video interactions during COVID-19 hospital visitor restrictions. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interviewing study with an intentional sample of 21 family members and 14 treating clinicians of cardiothoracic and neurologic ICU patients at an academic medical center in April 2020. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with each participant. We used content analysis to develop a codebook and analyze interview transcripts. We specifically explored themes of effectiveness, benefits and limitations, communication strategies, and discordant perspectives between families and clinicians related to remote discussions. Results: Respondents viewed phone and video communication as somewhat effective but inferior to in-person communication. Both clinicians and families believed phone calls were useful for information sharing and brief updates, whereas video calls were preferable for aligning clinician and family perspectives. Clinicians and families expressed discordant views on multiple topics—for example, clinicians worried they were unsuccessful in conveying empathy remotely, whereas families believed empathy was conveyed successfully via phone and video. Communication strategies suggested by families and clinicians for remote interactions include identifying a family point person to receive updates, frequently checking family understanding, positioning the camera on video calls to help family see the patient and their clinical setting, and offering time for the family and patient to interact without clinicians participating. Conclusions: Telehealth communication between families and clinicians of ICU patients appears to be a somewhat effective alternative when in-person communication is not possible. Use of communication strategies specific to phone and video can improve clinician and family experiences with telehealth.

Background: This analysis describes associations between area deprivation and patient-reported outcomes among patients with advanced cancer. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a multisite primary palliative care intervention trial. Participants were adult patients with advanced cancer. Patient-level area deprivation scores were calculated using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Quality of life and symptom burden were measured. Uni- and multivariate regressions estimated associations between area deprivation and outcomes of interest. Results: Among 672 patients, ∼0.5 (54%) were women and most (94%) were Caucasian. Mean age was 69.3±10.2 years. Lung (36%), breast (13%), and colon (10%) were the most common malignancies. Mean ADI was 64.0, scale of 1 (low)–100 (high). In unadjusted univariate analysis, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Palliative (p=0.002), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (p=0.025) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (p=0.003) and depression (p=0.029) scores were significantly associated with residence in more deprived areas (p=0.003). In multivariate analysis, controlling for patient-level factors, living in more deprived areas was associated with more anxiety (p=0.019). Conclusion: Higher ADI was associated with higher levels of anxiety among patients with advanced cancer. Geographic information could assist clinicians with providing geographically influenced social support strategies.

Background Although proactive interprofessional family meetings are widely recommended as a best practice for patient- and family-centered care in intensive care units (ICUs), adherence to this recommendation is low. Objectives To enhance understanding of practices, barriers, and facilitators related to the conduct of family meetings from the perspective of ICU clinicians and to elicit clinicians’ ideas and opinions about strategies to achieve proactive interprofessional family meetings. Methods Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with ICU clinicians who were purposively selected from among a national sample. Constant comparative analysis was used to generate a matrix of themes; enrollment ceased when no new ideas emerged. Results Interviews were conducted with 14 participants (10 nurses, 3 physicians, and 1 care manager). Rather than having a protocol for proactive family meetings, participants primarily held family meetings when physicians thought that it was time to discuss a transition to comfort-focused care. Other barriers included clinicians’ discomfort with end-of-life conversations, physicians’ time constraints, and nurses’ competing clinical responsibilities. Facilitators included physicians’ skill and comfort with difficult conversations, advocacy for family meetings from care managers/ social workers, and having full-time intensivists. Participants offered/endorsed multiple intervention ideas, including scheduling preemptively, monitoring unit performance, and adding discussion of a family meeting to daily rounds. Conclusions A key barrier to proactive family meetings is the mindset that family meetings need occur only when a clinical decision must be made, rather than proactively to support and engage families. Clinicians suggested ways to make proactive family meetings routine.

Background Communication in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) between families and the health care team affects the family experience, caregiver psychological morbidity, and patient outcomes. Objective To test the feasibility of studying and implementing a PICU communication intervention called PICU Supports, and to assess families’ and health care teams’ perceptions of the intervention. Methods This study involved patients requiring more than 24 hours of PICU care. An interventionist trained in PICU-focused health care navigation, a “navigator,” met with parents and the health care team to discuss communication, decision-making, emotional, informational, and discharge or end-of-life care needs; offered weekly family meetings; and checked in with parents after PICU discharge. The feasibility of implementing the intervention was assessed by tracking navigator activities. Health care team and family perceptions were assessed using surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Results Of 53 families approached about the study, 35 (66%) agreed to participate. The navigator met with parents on 71% and the health care team on 85% of possible weekdays, and completed 86% of the postdischarge check-ins. Family meetings were offered to 95% of eligible patients. The intervention was rated as helpful by 97% of parents, and comments during interviews were positive. Conclusions The PICU Supports intervention is feasible to implement and study and is viewed favorably by parents.

During public health crises including the COVID-19 pandemic, resource scarcity and contagion risks may require health systems to shift-to some degree-from a usual clinical ethic, focused on the well-being of individual patients, to a public health ethic, focused on population health. Many triage policies exist that fall under the legal protections afforded by "crisis standards of care," but they have key differences. We critically appraise one of the most fundamental differences among policies, namely the use of criteria to categorically exclude certain patients from eligibility for otherwise standard medical services. We examine these categorical exclusion criteria from ethical, legal, disability, and implementation perspectives. Focusing our analysis on the most common type of exclusion criteria, which are disease-specific, we conclude that optimal policies for critical care resource allocation and the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) should not use categorical exclusions. We argue that the avoidance of categorical exclusions is often practically feasible, consistent with public health norms, and mitigates discrimination against persons with disabilities.

ObjectiveTo determine whether groups of surrogates for patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) with poor prognosis can be identified based on their prioritization of goals-of-care (GOC) decisional concerns, an online survey of 1,588 adults recruited via a probability-based panel representative of the US population was conducted.MethodsParticipants acted as a surrogate for a GOC decision for a hypothetical patient with SABI and were randomized to 1 of 2 prognostic scenarios: the patient likely being left with a range of severe functional disability (SD) or remaining in a vegetative state (VS). Participants prioritized a list of 12 decisional concerns via best-worst scaling. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to discover decisional groups.ResultsThe completion rate was 44.6%; data weighting was conducted to mitigate nonresponse bias. For 792 SD respondents, LCA revealed 4 groups. All groups shared concerns regarding respecting patient wishes and minimizing suffering. The 4 groups were otherwise distinguished by unique concerns that their members highlighted: an older adult remaining severely disabled (34.4%), family consensus (26.4%), doubt regarding prognostic accuracy (20.7%), and cost of long-term care (18.6%). For the 796 VS respondents, LCA revealed 5 groups. Four of the 5 groups had similar concern profiles to the 4 SD groups. The largest (29.0%) expressed the most prognostic doubt. An additional group (15.8%) prioritized religious concerns.ConclusionsAlthough surrogate decision makers for patients with SABI are concerned with respecting patient wishes and minimizing suffering, certain groups highly prioritize other specific decisional factors. These data can help inform future interventions for supporting decision makers.

CONTEXT. Severe Acute Brain Injury (SABI) is neurologically devastating, and surrogates for these patients may struggle with particularly complex decisions due to substantial prognostic uncertainty. OBJECTIVES. To compare anxiety and depression symptoms over time between SABI surrogates and non-SABI surrogates for patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). METHODS. We conducted a secondary analysis of the data from a multicenter randomized trial of a decision aid intervention for surrogates of adults experiencing PMV. Eligible patients were enrolled from medical, surgical, trauma, cardiac, and neurologic intensive care units (ICUs). ICU admitting diagnoses were used to identify patients experiencing SABI. We compared anxiety and depression symptoms as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score 6 months after trial enrollment between surrogates of patients with SABI and surrogates of patients experiencing PMV for other reasons. RESULTS. Our analysis included 206 patients, 60 (29%) with SABI and 146 (71%) without SABI, and their primary surrogate decision makers. After adjusting for potential confounders including surrogate demographics, surrogate financial distress, patient severity of illness baseline GCS, and patient health status at 6 months, we found that surrogates of patients experiencing SABI had higher symptoms of anxiety and depression than surrogates of non-SABI patients (adjusted mean difference 3.6, 95% CI 1.2–6.0). CONCLUSION. Surrogates of PMV patients with SABI experience persistently elevated anxiety and depression symptoms over 6 months compared to surrogates of PMV patients without SABI. Further work is needed to understand contributors to prolonged distress in this higher risk population.

The National Academy of Medicine recently identified improving clinicians' serious illness communication skills as a necessary step in improving patient and family outcomes near the end of life, but there is not an accepted set of core communication skills for engaging with surrogate decision makers.To determine the core serious illness communication skills clinicians should acquire to care for incapacitated, hospitalized patients with acute, life-threatening illness, including patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.From January 2019 to July 2020, we conducted a modified Delphi study with a panel of 79 experts in the field of serious illness communication. We developed a preliminary list of candidate communication skills through a structured literature review. We presented the candidate skills to the panelists in the context of three prototypical serious illness conversations. Over three rounds, panelists first augmented the list of candidate skills, then voted on the skills. The final set included skills deemed "very important" or "essential" by 70% of panelists. For external validation, we engaged 11 practicing clinicians and 7 community stakeholders for their perspectives on the expert-endorsed list of skills.The panelists' ratings indicate the importance of a diverse set of communication skills related to providing clear information exchange as well as emotional and psychological support to surrogates. The final set included 33 skills, 12 of which were endorsed for all three prototypical serious illness conversations. Practicing clinicians and community stakeholders supported the expert-endorsed framework with only minor additions.We generated a stakeholder-endorsed list of skills that can inform the content of communication skills training programs for clinicians who care for incapacitated patients in the inpatient setting. The skills go beyond those required to provide traditional cognitive decision support and suggest the need for a paradigm shift in curricular content for communication training.

Importance Guidelines recommend early specialty palliative care for all patients with advanced cancer, but most patients lack access to such services. Objective To assess the effect of CONNECT (Care Management by Oncology Nurses to Address Supportive Care Needs), a primary palliative care intervention delivered by oncology nurses, on patient outcomes. Design, setting, and participants This cluster randomized clinical trial of the CONNECT intervention vs standard care was conducted from July 25, 2016, to October 6, 2020. Participants were adult patients with metastatic solid tumors who were undergoing oncological care and for whom an oncologist would agree with the statement "would not be surprised if the patient died in the next year." The trial was conducted at 17 community oncology practices in western Pennsylvania. Data analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions The CONNECT intervention included 3 monthly visits with an existing infusion room nurse who was trained to address symptoms, provide emotional support, engage in advance care planning, and coordinate care. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome was quality of life. At baseline and 3 months, participants completed assessments of quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative care: score range, 0-184, with higher scores indicating better quality of life), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: score range, 0-90, with higher scores indicating greater symptom burden), and mood symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]: score range, 0-21, with higher scores indicating substantial anxiety and depression). Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate adjusted mean differences in 3-month outcomes. Preplanned, intensity-adjusted analyses were conducted. Results A total of 672 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [10.2] years; 360 women [53.6%]). The mean (SD) number of CONNECT visits completed was 2.2 (1.0). At 3 months, no difference in mean (SD) quality-of-life score was found between the CONNECT and standard care groups (130.7 [28.2] vs 134.1 [28.1]; adjusted mean difference, 1.20; 95% CI, -2.75 to 5.15; P = .55). Similarly, there was no difference between groups in 3-month mean (SD) symptom burden (23.2 [16.6] vs 24.0 [16.1]; adjusted mean difference, -2.64; 95% CI, -5.85 to 0.58; P = .11) or mood symptoms (HADS depression subscale score: 5.1 [3.4] vs 4.8 [3.7], adjusted mean difference, -0.08 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.57], P = .82; HADS anxiety subscale score: 5.7 [3.9] vs 5.4 [4.2], adjusted mean difference, -0.31 [95% CI, -0.96 to 0.33], P = .34). Intensity-adjusted analyses revealed a larger estimated treatment effect for patients who received a full dose (3 visits) of the CONNECT intervention. Conclusions and relevance This cluster randomized clinical trial found that a primary palliative care intervention that was delivered by oncology nurses did not improve patient-reported outcomes at 3 months. Primary palliative care interventions with a higher dose intensity may be beneficial for most patients with advanced cancer who lack access to palliative care specialists. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02712229.

PURPOSE: To understand clinicians’ views regarding use of clinical criteria, or triggers, for specialist palliative care consultation in the ICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of a qualitative study that explored factors associated with adoption of specialist palliative care in the ICU. Semi-structured interviews with 36 ICU and palliative care clinicians included questions related to triggers for specialist palliative care. We performed a thematic analysis to identify participants’ views on use of triggers, including appropriateness of cases for specialists and issues surrounding trigger implementation. RESULTS: We identified five major themes: 1) Appropriate triggers for specialist palliative care, 2) Issues leading to clinician ambivalence for triggers, 3) Prospective buy-in of stakeholders, 4) Workflow considerations in deploying a trigger system, and 5) Role of ICU clinicians in approving specialist palliative care consults. Appropriate triggers included end-of-life care, chronic critical illness, frequent ICU admissions, and patient/family support. Most clinicians had concerns about “trigger overload” and ICU clinicians wanted to be broadly involved in implementation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: ICU and palliative care clinicians identified important issues to consider when implementing triggers for specialist palliative care consultation. Future research is needed to longitudinally examine the most appropriate triggers and best practices for trigger implementation.

Objectives:The Critical Care Choosing Wisely Task Force recommends that intensivists offer patients at high risk for death or severe functional impairment the option of pursuing care focused on comfort. We tested the a priori hypothesis that intensivists who are prompted to document patient prognosi

12030 Background: Palliative care specialists are experts in conducting advance care planning (ACP), but are a limited resource. We sought to determine the impact of a nurse-led primary palliative care intervention on ACP completion among patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial looking at the impact of nurse-based primary palliative care at community cancer centers. In the parent trial, patients with advanced cancer received either monthly primary palliative care visits with trained nurses within their cancer center or usual care. Nurses in the intervention arm received special training in addressing symptom management and ACP. ACP uptake was assessed at enrollment and 3 months later via validated questionnaire in the forms of an end-of-life conversation (EOLC) with one’s oncologist or completion of an advance directive (AD). The present analyses were restricted to patients without ACP at baseline. Multivariable logistic regression tested differences in ACP uptake by treatment arm when adjusting for age, religious importance, education, time with current oncologist, and ECOG. Results: Of 672 patients enrolled, 182/336 in the intervention arm and 196/336 in usual care lacked an EOLC at baseline and completed three-month assessments. Of those, 82/182 (45.1%) in the intervention arm and 29/196 (14.8%) in the usual care arm reported having an EOLC at three months (Table). Similarly, 111/336 in the intervention arm and 105/336 in usual care lacked an AD at baseline and completed the three-month assessments. Of those, 48/111 (43.2%) in the intervention arm and 19/105 (18.1%) in usual care completed an AD over the study period (Table). For both types of ACP, the treatment effect suggested increased uptake of new ACP in the intervention arm after controlling for variables known to be associated with ACP (Table) Conclusions: Nurse-led primary palliative care increased the uptake of ACP among patients with advanced cancer. Training oncology nurses embedded within community cancer centers may represent a feasible mechanism to improve access to primary palliative care and uptake of advance care planning. Clinical trial information: NCT02712229. [Table: see text]

Elucidate how physicians formulate a neurological prognosis after cardiac arrest and compare differences between experts and general providers.We performed semi-structured interviews with experts in post-arrest care and general physicians. We created an initial model and interview guide based on professional society guidelines. Two authors independently coded interviews based on this initial model, then identified new topics not included in it. To describe individual physicians' cognitive approach to prognostication, we created a graphical representation. We summarized these individual "mental models" into a single overall model, as well as two models stratified by expertise.We performed 36 interviews (17 experts and 19 generalists), most of whom practice in Europe (23) or North America (12). Participants described their approach to prognosis formulation as complex and iterative, with sequential and repeated data acquisition, interpretation, and prognosis formulation. Eventually, this cycle results in a final prognosis and treatment recommendation. Commonly mentioned factors were diagnostic test performance, time from arrest, patient characteristics. Participants also discussed factors rarely discussed in prognostication research including physician and hospital characteristics. We found no substantial differences between experts and general physicians.Physicians' cognitive approach to neurologic prognostication is complex and influenced by many factors, including some rarely considered in current research. Understanding these processes better could inform interventions designed to aid physicians in prognostication.

We respond to recent comments on our proposal to improve justice in ventilator triage, in which we used as an example New Jersey's (NJ) publicly available and legally binding Directive Number 2020-03. We agree with Bernard Lo and Doug White that equity implications of triage frameworks should be continually reassessed, which is why we offered six concrete options for improvement, and called for monitoring the consequences of adopted triage models. We disagree with their assessment that we mis-characterised their Model Guidance, as included in the NJ Directive, in ways that undermine our conclusions. They suggest we erroneously described their model as a two-criterion allocation framework; that recognising other operant criterion reveals it 'likely mitigate[s] rather than exacerbate[s] racial disparities during triage', and allege that concerns about inequitable outcomes are 'without evidence'. We highlight two major studies robustly demonstrating why concerns about disparate outcomes are justified. We also show that White and Lo seek to retrospectively-and counterfactually-correct the version of the Model Guideline included in the NJ Directive. However, as our facsimile reproductions show, neither the alleged four-criteria form, nor other key changes, such as dropping the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, are found in the Directive. These points matter because (1) our conclusions hence stand, (2) because the public version of the Model Guidance had not been updated to reduce the risk of inequitable outcomes until June 2021 and (3) NJ's Directive still does not reflect these revisions, and, hence, represents a less equitable version, as acknowledged by its authors. We comment on broader policy implications and call for ways of ensuring accurate, transparent and timely updates for users of high-stakes guidelines.

Emergency authorized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–neutralizing monoclonal antibodies can aid outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. Many report barriers to adequate distribution and uptake. We present our model for distribution in a large health system as well as early lessons learned.

Patients with a severe acute brain injury admitted to the intensive care unit often have a poor neurological prognosis. In these situations, a clinician is responsible for conducting a goals-of-care conversation with the patient’s surrogate decision makers. The diversity in thought and background of surrogate decision makers can present challenges during these conversations. For this reason, our study aimed to identify predictive characteristics of US surrogate decision makers’ favoring life-sustaining treatment (LST) over comfort measures only for patients with severe acute brain injury. We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey study that had recruited 1588 subjects from an online probability-based US population sample. Seven hundred and ninety-two subjects had randomly received a hypothetical scenario regarding a relative intubated with severe acute brain injury with a prognosis of severe disability but with the potential to regain some consciousness. Seven hundred and ninety-six subjects had been randomized to a similar scenario in which the relative was projected to remain vegetative. For each scenario, we conducted univariate analyses and binary logistic regressions to determine predictors of LST selection among available respondent characteristics. 15.0% of subjects selected LST for the severe disability scenario compared to 11.4% for the vegetative state scenario (p = 0.07), with those selecting LST in both groups expressing less decisional certainty. For the severe disability scenario, independent predictors of LST included having less than a high school education (adjusted OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.23–6.76), concern regarding prognostic accuracy (7.64, 3.61–16.15), and concern regarding the cost of care (4.07, 1.80–9.18). For the vegetative scenario, predictors included the youngest age group (30–44 years, 3.33, 1.02–10.86), male gender (3.26, 1.75–6.06), English as a second language (2.94, 1.09–7.89), Evangelical Protestant (3.72, 1.28–10.84) and Catholic (4.01, 1.72–9.36) affiliations, and low income (

Background Failure to deliver care near the end of life that reflects the needs, values and preferences of patients with advanced cancer remains a major shortcoming of our cancer care delivery system. Methods A mixed-methods comparative effectiveness trial of in-person advance care planning (ACP) discussions versus web-based ACP is currently underway at oncology practices in Western Pennsylvania. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers are invited to enroll. Participants are randomized to either (1) in-person ACP discussions via face-to-face visits with a nurse facilitator following the Respecting Choices® Conversation Guide or (2) web-based ACP using the PREPARE for your care™ web-based ACP tool. The trial compares the effect of these two interventions on patient and family caregiver outcomes (engagement in ACP, primary outcome; ACP discussions; advance directive (AD) completion; quality of end-of-life (EOL) care; EOL goal attainment; caregiver psychological symptoms; healthcare utilization at EOL) and assesses implementation costs. Factors influencing ACP effectiveness are assessed via in-depth interviews with patients, caregivers and clinicians. Discussion This trial will provide new and much-needed empirical evidence about two patient-facing ACP approaches that successfully overcome limitations of traditional written advance directives but entail very different investments of time and resources. It is innovative in using mixed methods to evaluate not only the comparative effectiveness of these approaches, but also the contexts and mechanisms influencing effectiveness. Data from this study will inform clinicians, payers and health systems seeking to adopt and scale the most effective and efficient ACP strategy in real-world oncology settings.

Coronavirus disease 2019 can lead to respiratory failure. Some patients require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. During the current pandemic, health care resources in some cities have been overwhelmed, and doctors have faced complex decisions about resource allocation. We present a case in which a pediatric hospital caring for both children and adults seeks to establish guidelines for the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation if there are not enough resources to treat every patient. Experts in critical care, end-of-life care, bioethics, and health policy discuss if age should guide rationing decisions.