Search

Introduction This study evaluated the impact of receiving a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) diagnosis on healthcare utilization from patients at a community-based multispecialty provider organization. Methods A cohort of patients with MGUS (n = 429) were matched on sex, age, and length of enrollment to a cohort of patients without MGUS (n = 1286). Healthcare utilization was assessed: 1-12 months before, 1 month before and after, and 1-12 months after diagnosis/index date. Multivariable conditional Poisson models compared change in utilization of each service in patients with and without MGUS. Results During the 2 months around diagnosis/index date, the rates of emergency room, hospital and outpatient visits were higher for patients with MGUS than patients without MGUS. In the year before MGUS diagnosis, the association was still elevated, although attenuated. Conclusion Understanding the care of MGUS patients is important given that multiple myeloma patients with a pre-existing MGUS diagnosis may have a better prognosis.

Introduction. Shared Decision-Making may facilitate information exchange, deliberation, and effective decision-making, but no decision aids currently exist for difficult decisions in neurocritical care patients. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards, a framework for the creation of high-quality decision aids (DA), recommends the presentation of numeric outcome and risk estimates. Efforts are underway to create a goals-of-care DA in critically-ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients. To inform its content, we examined physicians’ perceptions, and use of the IMPACT-model, the most widely validated ciTBI outcome model, and explored physicians’ preferences for communicating prognostic information towards families. Methods. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in 20 attending physicians (neurosurgery,neurocritical care,trauma,palliative care) at 7 U.S. academic medical centers. We used performed qualitative content analysis of transcribed interviews to identify major themes. Results. Only 12 physicians (60%) expressed awareness of the IMPACT-model; two stated that they “barely” knew the model. Seven physicians indicated using the model at least some of the time in clinical practice, although none used it exclusively to derive a patient’s prognosis. Four major themes emerged: the IMPACT-model is intended for research but should not be applied to individual patients; mistrust in the IMPACT-model derivation data; the IMPACT-model is helpful in reducing prognostic variability among physicians; concern that statistical models may mislead families about a patient’s prognosis. Discussion: Our study identified significant variability of the awareness, perception, and use of the IMPACT-model among physicians. While many physicians prefer to avoid conveying numeric prognostic estimates with families using the IMPACT-model, several physicians thought that they “ground” them and reduce prognostic variability among physicians. These findings may factor into the creation and implementation of future ciTBI-related DAs.

Objectives:. Families in the neurologic ICU urgently request goals-of-care decision support and shared decision-making tools. We recently developed a goals-of-care decision aid for surrogates of critically ill traumatic brain injury patients using a systematic development process adherent to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. To widen its applicability, we adapted this decision aid to critically ill patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and large hemispheric acute ischemic stroke. Design:. Prospective observational study. Setting:. Two academic neurologic ICUs. Subjects:. Twenty family members of patients in the neurologic ICU were recruited from July 2018 to October 2018. Interventions:. None. Measurements and Main Results:. We reviewed the existing critically ill traumatic brain injury patients decision aid for content and changed: 1) the essential background information, 2) disease-specific terminology to “hemorrhagic stroke” and “ischemic stroke”, and 3) disease-specific prognosis tailored to individual patients. We conducted acceptability and usability testing using validated scales. All three decision aids contain information from validated, disease-specific outcome prediction models, as recommended by international decision aid standards, including careful emphasis on their uncertainty. We replaced the individualizable icon arrays graphically depicting probabilities of a traumatic brain injury patient’s prognosis with icon arrays visualizing intracerebral hemorrhage and hemispheric acute ischemic stroke prognostic probabilities using high-quality disease-specific data. We selected the Intracerebral Hemorrhage Score with validated 12-month outcomes, and for hemispheric acute ischemic stroke, the 12-month outcomes from landmark hemicraniectomy trials. Twenty family members participated in acceptability and usability testing (n = 11 for the intracerebral hemorrhage decision aid; n = 9 for the acute ischemic stroke decision aid). Median usage time was 22 minutes (interquartile range, 16–26 min). Usability was excellent (median System Usability Scale = 84/100 [interquartile range, 61–93; with > 68 indicating good usability]); 89% of participants graded the decision aid content as good or excellent, and greater than or equal to 90% rated it favorably for information amount, balance, and comprehensibility. Conclusions:. We successfully adapted goals-of-care decision aids for use in surrogates of critically ill patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and hemispheric acute ischemic stroke and found excellent usability and acceptability. A feasibility trial using these decision aids is currently ongoing to further validate their acceptability and test their feasibility for use in busy neurologic ICUs.

Nurses who care for patients with life-limiting illness operate at the interface of family caregivers (FCGs), patients, and prescribers and are uniquely positioned to guide late-life medication management, including challenging discussions about deprescribing. The study objective was to describe nurses' perspectives about their role in hospice FCG medication management. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative interviews with nurses from a parent study exploring views on medication management and deprescribing for advanced cancer patients. Ten home and inpatient hospice nurses, drawn from 3 hospice agencies and their referring hospital systems in New England, were asked to describe current practices of medication management and deprescribing and to evaluate a pilot tool to standardize hospice medication review. Analysis of the 10 interviews revealed that hospice nurses are receptive to a standardized approach for comprehensive medication review upon hospice transition and responded favorably to opportunities to discuss medication discontinuation with FCGs and prescribers. Effective framing for discussions included focus on reducing harmful and nonessential medications and reducing caregiver burden. Results indicate that nurses who care for hospice-eligible and enrolled patients are willing to discuss deprescribing with FCGs and prescribers when conversations are framed around medication harms and their impact on quality of life.