Search

Background: National Consensus Project for quality palliative care guidelines emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive assessment of all care domains, including physical, psychosocial, and spiritual aspects of care, for seriously ill patients. However, less is known about how real-world practice compares with this guideline. Objective: To describe clinicians' assessment practices and factors influencing their approach. Design: This is a two-part web-based survey of palliative care clinicians from five academic groups in the United States. Results: Nineteen out of 25 invited clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) completed the survey. A majority (62%) reported that, although some elements of assessment were mandatory, their usual practice was to tailor the focus of the consultation. Time limitations and workload received the highest mean scores as reasons for tailored assessment (6.1 on a 0-9 importance scale), followed by beliefs that comprehensive assessment is unnecessary (4.8) and absence of the full interdisciplinary team (4.4). All participants cited symptom acuity, and 91% cited reason for consult as factors influencing a tailored approach. Among domains "always" assessed, physical symptoms were reported most commonly (81%) and spiritual and cultural factors least commonly (24% and 19%, respectively). Although a majority of clinicians reported usually tailoring their consultations, mean importance scores for almost all assessment elements were high (range 3.9-8.8, mean 7.1); however, there was some variation based on reason for consult. Spiritual elements received lower importance scores relative to other elements (5.0 vs. 7.4 mean score for all others). Conclusion: Although clinicians placed high importance on most elements included in comprehensive palliative care, in practice they often tailored their consultations, and the perceived relative importance of domains shifted depending upon the type of consultation.

ContextPalliative care can improve the lives of people with serious illness, yet clear operational definitions of this population do not exist. Prior efforts to identify this population have not focused on Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial health plan enrollees.ObjectivesWe aimed to operationalize our conceptual definition of serious illness to identify those with serious medical conditions (SMC) among commercial insurance and MA enrollees, and to compare the populations identified through electronic health record (EHR) or claims data sources.MethodsWe used de-identified claims and EHR data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (2016-2017), to identify adults age ≥18 with SMC and examine their utilization and mortality. Within the subset found in both data sources, we compared the performance of claims and EHR data.ResultsWithin claims, SMC was identified among 10% of those aged ≥18 (5.4% ages 18-64, 27% age ≥65). Within EHR, SMC was identified among 9% of those aged ≥18 (5.6% ages 18-64, 21% ages ≥65). Hospital, emergency department and mortality rates were similar between the EHR and claims-based groups. Only 50% of people identified as having SMC were recognized by both data sources.ConclusionThese results demonstrate the feasibility of identifying adults with SMC in a commercially insured population, including MA enrollees; yet separate use of EHR or claims result in populations that differ. Future research should examine methods to combine these data sources to optimize identification and support population management, quality measurement, and research to improve the care of those living with serious illness.

Background: Little is known about the provision of palliative care to people with dementia (PWD). Objective: To examine demographic and clinical characteristics of PWD versus nondementia serious illnesses receiving community-based palliative care. Design: Retrospective study of people 65+ receiving an initial consultation from a community-based palliative care practice between September 2014 and February 2018 using registry data entered by clinicians into the Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care. Setting: Large not-for-profit organization that provides community-based hospice and palliative care services. Measurements: Demographics, consult characteristics, advance care planning, and caregiver support. Results: Of 3883 older adults receiving a first palliative care consultation from this organization, 22% (855) had a dementia diagnosis. Compared to those with nondementia serious illnesses, PWD were older with more impaired function; 36% had a prognosis of less than six months. More PWD than those without dementia had a proxy decision maker and documented advance directive. A quarter of PWD were full code before consultation; nearly half changed to some limitation afterward. Symptom characteristics were missing for 67% of PWD due to collection through self-report. Caregivers of PWD were responsible for significantly more activities of daily living than caregivers of people with nondementia serious illnesses. Conclusions: This is the first comparison of a large cohort of people with and without dementia receiving a community-based palliative care consult in the United States. Alternative measures of symptom burden should be used in registries to capture data for PWD. Understanding the unique characteristics of PWD will guide future services for this growing population.

Outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) should reflect the lived experience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, yet patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes (PCROs) are rarely available in large clinical and administrative data sources. Although pragmatic methods may lead to use of existing administrative data rather than new data collected directly from PLWD, interventions are truly impactful only when they change outcomes prioritized by PLWD and their caregivers. The Patient- and Caregiver-Reported Outcomes Core (PCRO Core) of the IMbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory aims to promote optimal use of outcomes relevant to PLWD and their caregivers in pragmatic trials. The PCRO Core will address key scientific challenges limiting outcome measurement, such as gaps in existing measures, methodologic constraints, and burdensome data capture. PCRO Core investigators will create a searchable library of AD/AD-related dementias (ADRD) clinical outcome measures, including measures in existing data sources with potential for AD/ADRD ePCTs, and will support best practices in measure development, including pragmatic adaptation of PCROs. Working together with other Cores and Teams within the IMPACT Collaboratory, the PCRO Core will support investigators to select from existing outcome measures, and to innovate in methods for measurement and data capture. In the future, the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory may galvanize broader embedded use of outcomes that matter to PLWD and their care partners in large health systems. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S55-S61, 2020.

Background: Gold standard dementia assessments are rarely available in large real‐world datasets, leaving researchers to choose among methods with imperfect but acceptable accuracy to identify nursing home (NH) residents with dementia. In healthcare claims, options include claims‐based diagnosis algorithms, diagnosis indicators, and cognitive function measures in the Minimum Data Set (MDS), but few studies have compared these. We evaluated the proportion of NH residents identified with possible dementia and concordance of these three. Methods: Using a 20% random sample of 2018–2019 Medicare beneficiaries, we identified MDS admission assessments for non‐skilled NH stays among individuals with continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D. Dementia was identified using: (1) Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW) claims‐based algorithm for Alzheimer's disease and non‐Alzheimer's dementia; (2) MDS active diagnosis indicators for Alzheimer's disease and non‐Alzheimer's dementias; and (3) the MDS Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) (at least mild cognitive impairment). We compared the proportion of admissions with evidence of possible dementia using each criterion and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and agreement of the CCW claims definition and MDS indicators for identifying any impairment on the CFS. Results: Among 346,013 non‐SNF NH admissions between 2018 and 2019, 57.2% met criteria for at least one definition (44.7% CFS, 40.7% CCW algorithm, 26.0% MDS indicators). The MDS CFS uniquely identified the greatest proportion with evidence of dementia. The CCW claims algorithm had 63.7% sensitivity and 78.1% specificity for identifying any cognitive impairment on the CFS. Active diagnosis indicators from the MDS had lower sensitivity (47.0%), but higher specificity (91.0%). Conclusions: Claims‐ and MDS‐based methods for identifying NH residents with possible dementia have only partial overlap in the cohorts they identify, and neither is an obvious gold standard. Future studies should seek to determine whether additional functional assessments from the MDS or prescriptions can improve identification of possible dementia in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ContextStandardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes.MethodsThis study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from five international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In five Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a seven-point "not-at-all" to "extremely important" scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists' input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings.ResultsOrganizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and health care (e.g., utilization). The top five outcomes included 1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); 2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); 3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); 4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and 5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether "care consistent with goals" can be reliably measured.ConclusionA large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly "care consistent with goals."

ContextDespite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.MethodsWe convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.ResultsPanelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

Rationale: Family caregivers of patients with acute cardiorespiratory failure are at high risk for distress, which is typically defined as the presence of psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress. Interventions to reduce caregiver distress and increase wellness have been largely ineffective to date. An incomplete understanding of caregiver wellness and distress may hinder efforts at developing effective support interventions. Objectives: To allow family caregivers to define their experiences of wellness and distress 6 months after patient intensive care unit (ICU) admission and to identify moderators that influence wellness and distress. Methods: Primary family caregivers of adult patients admitted to the medical ICU with acute cardiorespiratory failure were invited to participate in a semistructured interview 6 months after ICU admission as part of a larger prospective cohort study. Interview guides were used to assess caregiver perceptions of their own well-being, record caregiver descriptions of their experiences of family caregiving, and identify key stress events and moderators that influenced well-being during and after the ICU admission. This study was guided by the Chronic Traumatic Stress Framework conceptual model, and data were analyzed using the five-step framework approach. Results: Among 21 interviewees, the mean age was 58 years, 67% were female, and 76% were White. Nearly half of patients (47%) had died before the caregiver interview. At the time of the interview, 9 caregivers endorsed an overall sense of distress, 10 endorsed a sense of wellness, and 2 endorsed a mix of both. Caregivers defined their experiences of wellness and distress as multidimensional and composed of four main elements: 1) positive versus negative physical and psychological outcomes, 2) high versus low capacity for self-care, 3) thriving versus struggling in the caregiving role, and 4) a sense of normalcy versus ongoing life disruption. Postdischarge support from family, friends, and the community at large played a key role in moderating caregiver outcomes. Conclusions: Caregiver wellness and distress are multidimensional and extend beyond the absence or presence of psychological outcomes. Future intervention research should incorporate novel outcome measures that include elements of self-efficacy, preparedness, and adaptation and optimize postdischarge support for family caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ContextMeasuring What Matters (MWM) for palliative care has prioritized data collection efforts for evaluating quality in clinical practice. How these measures can be implemented across diverse clinical settings using point-of-care data collection on quality is unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the implementation of MWM measures by exploring documentation of quality measure adherence across six diverse clinical settings inherent to palliative care practice.MethodsWe deployed a point-of-care quality data collection system, the Quality Data Collection Tool, across five organizations within the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group. Quality measures were recorded by clinicians or assistants near care delivery.ResultsDuring the study period, 1989 first visits were included for analysis. Our population was mostly white, female, and with moderate performance status. About half of consultations were seen on hospital general floors. We observed a wide range of adherence. The lowest adherence involved comprehensive assessments during the first visit in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit (2.71%); the highest adherence across all settings, with an implementation of >95%, involved documentation of management of moderate/severe pain. We observed differences in adherence across clinical settings especially with MWM Measure #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms, range 45.7%-81.8%); MWM Measure #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs, range 46.1%-96.1%); and MWM Measure #6 (Documentation of Spiritual/Religious Concerns, range 0-69.6%).ConclusionVariations in clinician documentation of adherence to MWM quality measures are seen across clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to better understand benchmarks and acceptable ranges for adherence tailored to various clinical settings.

ImportanceSerious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this population.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of evidence about decision aids and other exportable tools that promote shared decision making in serious illness, thereby (1) identifying tools relevant to the treatment decisions of seriously ill patients and their caregivers, (2) evaluating the quality of evidence for these tools, and (3) summarizing their effect on outcomes and accessibility for clinicians.Evidence reviewWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo from January 1, 1995, through October 31, 2014, and identified additional studies from reference lists and other systematic reviews. Clinical trials with random or nonrandom controls were included if they tested print, video, or web-based tools for advance care planning (ACP) or decision aids for serious illness. We extracted data on the study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Each tool was evaluated for its effect on patient outcomes and accessibility.FindingsSeventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. Nearly all the trials were of moderate or high quality and showed that decision tools improve patient knowledge and awareness of treatment choices. The available tools address ACP, palliative care and goals of care communication, feeding options in dementia, lung transplant in cystic fibrosis, and truth telling in terminal cancer. Five randomized clinical trials provided further evidence that decision tools improve ACP documentation, clinical decisions, and treatment received.Conclusions and relevanceClinicians can access and use evidence-based tools to engage seriously ill patients in shared decision making. This field of research is in an early stage; future research is needed to develop novel decision aids for other serious diagnoses and key decisions. Health care delivery organizations should prioritize the use of currently available tools that are evidence based and effective.

ImportanceFor patients with limited prognosis, some medication risks may outweigh the benefits, particularly when benefits take years to accrue; statins are one example. Data are lacking regarding the risks and benefits of discontinuing statin therapy for patients with limited life expectancy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety, clinical, and cost impact of discontinuing statin medications for patients in the palliative care setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, parallel-group, unblinded, pragmatic clinical trial. Eligibility included adults with an estimated life expectancy of between 1 month and 1 year, statin therapy for 3 months or more for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, recent deterioration in functional status, and no recent active cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomized to either discontinue or continue statin therapy and were monitored monthly for up to 1 year. The study was conducted from June 3, 2011, to May 2, 2013. All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat approach.InterventionsStatin therapy was withdrawn from eligible patients who were randomized to the discontinuation group. Patients in the continuation group continued to receive statins.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included death within 60 days (primary outcome), survival, cardiovascular events, performance status, quality of life (QOL), symptoms, number of nonstatin medications, and cost savings.ResultsA total of 381 patients were enrolled; 189 of these were randomized to discontinue statins, and 192 were randomized to continue therapy. Mean (SD) age was 74.1 (11.6) years, 22.0% of the participants were cognitively impaired, and 48.8% had cancer. The proportion of participants in the discontinuation vs continuation groups who died within 60 days was not significantly different (23.8% vs 20.3%; 90% CI, -3.5% to 10.5%; P=.36) and did not meet the noninferiority end point. Total QOL was better for the group discontinuing statin therapy (mean McGill QOL score, 7.11 vs 6.85; P=.04). Few participants experienced cardiovascular events (13 in the discontinuation group vs 11 in the continuation group). Mean cost savings were $3.37 per day and $716 per patient.Conclusions and relevanceThis pragmatic trial suggests that stopping statin medication therapy is safe and may be associated with benefits including improved QOL, use of fewer nonstatin medications, and a corresponding reduction in medication costs. Thoughtful patient-provider discussions regarding the uncertain benefit and potential decrement in QOL associated with statin continuation in this setting are warranted.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01415934.

Palliative medicine must prioritize the routine assessment of the quality of clinical care we provide. This includes regular assessment, analysis, and reporting of data on quality. Assessment of quality informs opportunities for improvement and demonstrates to our peers and ourselves the value of our efforts. In fact, continuous messaging of the value of palliative care services is needed to sustain our discipline; this requires regularly evaluating the quality of our care. As the reimbursement mechanisms for health care in the U.S. shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value models, palliative care will be expected to report robust data on quality of care. We must move beyond demonstrating to our constituents (including patients and referrers), "here is what we do," and increase the focus on "this is how well we do it" and "let us see how we can do it better." It is incumbent on palliative care professionals to lead these efforts. This involves developing standardized methods to collect data without adding additional burden, comparing and sharing our experiences to promote discipline-wide quality assessment and improvement initiatives, and demonstrating our intentions for quality improvement on the clinical frontline.