Search

BackgroundThe Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) aims to safeguard patient information; however, complex legal language may lead to confusion and mistrust, and hinder enrollment in clinical trials.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a standard HIPAA authorization included in mailed survey packets on study enrollment for a multi-site pragmatic trial.DesignThis study is nested within an advance care planning pragmatic trial at 50 primary care clinics across three University of California (UC) Health Systems.ParticipantsWe included English and Spanish-speaking seriously ill patients.InterventionsOne third of eligible patients received and 2/3 did not receive the HIPAA authorization in their enrollment packet.Main measuresWe compared enrollment rates at 3 months and assessed the readability, understandability, and actionability of the standard HIPAA form using the Federal Plain Language Guidelines Checklist for Plain Language, the Automatic Readability Checker consensus calculator (grade 8 is the average reading level for US adults), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P, 0-100%, 70% considered the minimum).Key resultsOf 4632 eligible patients (mean age 71, 48% women, 11% Spanish-speaking, 40% racial/ethnic minority); 1543 received a mailed enrollment packet with a HIPAA form and 3089 did not. Patients mailed the HIPAA form were less likely to enroll (10.2% vs. 14.8%, p

ObjectivesHealth systems are increasingly accountable for patients and require accurate electronic health record (EHR) vital status. We recently demonstrated that 19% of seriously ill primary care patients in one system were not marked dead in the EHR and 80% of these decedents had an encounter or appointment outstanding after death. Herein we describe the mechanism of identifying decedents whose death is not captured at the level of the EHR, characterize these decedents, and describe medications refilled after death.Materials and methodsDescription of multistep process to identify deceased patients not marked dead in the EHR among a cohort of seriously ill primary care patients including public death file matching, utilization analysis, and chart abstraction. We compared decedents not marked dead in the EHR to known decedents and described pharmacy requests and refills.ResultsNearly 90% of encounters and appointments occurred because the health system EHR did not record the death although 11% of these encounters contained condolences or death notifications. Decedents not marked dead in the EHR were older and lived in more vulnerable areas than those marked dead. Of 146 refill requests after death, 88 medications were authorized.Discussion and conclusionMatching with a limited public death file is an inadequate solution to inaccurate vital status. Better workflows are needed to capture deaths about which clinicians and staff are aware, but will identify only a fraction of the decedents inaccurately listed as alive. Efforts are needed to connect EHRs with more specific sources of linkable decedent information.

BackgroundEnd-of-life (EOL) care patterns may differ by physician age given differences in how physicians are trained or changes associated with aging. We sought to compare patterns of EOL care delivered to older Americans according to physician age.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥66 years who died in 2016-2019 (n = 487,293). We attributed beneficiaries to the physician who had >50% of primary care visits during the last 6 months of life. We compared beneficiary-level outcomes by physician age (

BackgroundGeriatric training is designed to prepare physicians to meet the complex needs of older adults, including persons with dementia at the end-of-life (EOL) stage. We sought to compare patterns of EOL care delivered to persons with dementia between physicians with versus without geriatric training.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with dementia who died in 2016-2018 (n = 99,631). We attributed beneficiaries to a physician who had the largest number of primary care visits during the last 6 months of life and determined whether the physician was trained in geriatrics. Our outcome measures included: (i) advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care (e.g., ACP, hospice enrollment in the last 90 days of life), and (ii) high-intensity EOL care (e.g., emergency department visits or hospital admissions in the last 30 days of life).ResultsBeneficiaries with dementia under the care of physicians with geriatric training had a higher proportion of ACP (adjusted proportion, 15.8% vs. 13.0%; p

ObjectiveWe performed a scoping review of algorithms using electronic health record (EHR) data to identify patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), to advance their use in research and clinical care.Materials and methodsStarting with a previous scoping review of EHR phenotypes, we performed a cumulative update (April 2020 through March 1, 2023) using Pubmed, PheKB, and expert review with exclusive focus on ADRD identification. We included algorithms using EHR data alone or in combination with non-EHR data and characterized whether they identified patients at high risk of or with a current diagnosis of ADRD.ResultsFor our cumulative focused update, we reviewed 271 titles meeting our search criteria, 49 abstracts, and 26 full text papers. We identified 8 articles from the original systematic review, 8 from our new search, and 4 recommended by an expert. We identified 20 papers describing 19 unique EHR phenotypes for ADRD: 7 algorithms identifying patients with diagnosed dementia and 12 algorithms identifying patients at high risk of dementia that prioritize sensitivity over specificity. Reference standards range from only using other EHR data to in-person cognitive screening.ConclusionA variety of EHR-based phenotypes are available for use in identifying populations with or at high-risk of developing ADRD. This review provides comparative detail to aid in choosing the best algorithm for research, clinical care, and population health projects based on the use case and available data. Future research may further improve the design and use of algorithms by considering EHR data provenance.

BackgroundPatients experiencing systemic patterns of disadvantage, such as racial/ethnic minorities and those with limited English proficiency, are underrepresented in research. This is particularly true for large pragmatic trials of potentially sensitive research topics, such as advance care planning (ACP). It is unclear how phone outreach may affect research participation by underrepresented individuals.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of phone outreach, in addition to standard mail survey recruitment, in a population-based ACP pragmatic trial at three academic health systems in California.DesignRetrospective cohort study PATIENTS: Primary care patients with serious illness were mailed a survey in their preferred language. Patients who did not initially respond by mail received up to three reminder phone calls with the option of survey completion by phone.Main measuresEffect of phone outreach on survey response rate associated with respondent demographic characteristics (e.g., Social Vulnerability Index [SVI], range 0 (low) to 1 (high)).ResultsAcross the health systems, 5998 seriously ill patients were mailed surveys. We obtained completed surveys from 1215 patients (20% response rate); 787 (65%) responded after mail alone and 428 (35%) participated only after phone outreach. Patients recruited after phone outreach compared to mail alone were more socially vulnerable (SVI 0.41 v 0.35, P < 0.001), were more likely to report being a racial/ethnic minority (35% v 28%, P = 0.006), and non-English speaking (16% v 10%, P = 0.005). Age and gender did not differ significantly. The inclusion of phone outreach resulted in a sample that better represented the baseline population than mail alone in racial/ethnic minority (28% mail alone, 30% including phone outreach, 36% baseline population), non-English language preference (10%, 12%, 15%, respectively), and SVI (0.35, 0.37, 0.38, respectively).ConclusionsPhone outreach for a population-based survey in a pragmatic trial concerning a potentially sensitive topic significantly enhanced recruitment of underrepresented seriously ill patients.

Background: High-quality doctor-patient communication is essential for patients with serious illnesses. The reliability and validity of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) communication items among these patients are unknown. Methods: Five CAHPS communication items, a 4-item Advance Care Planning (ACP) engagement scale, 5-item confidence in others' knowledge of ACP medical wishes scale, and a question about confidence in filling out ACP-related medical forms were administered to 1100 patients (20% response rate) with serious illness receiving primary care at three University of California Health Systems. Results: Average age was 69 (range 22-102); 52% male, 18% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 7% Black; 24% had high school or less education. Eigenvalues and internal consistency reliability (0.88) supported a 5-item communication scale. Item characteristic curves showed a monotonic relationship of response options with the communication score. Item thresholds indicated that most patients reported positive patient experiences (i.e., items were negatively skewed). Item slopes ranging from 2.52 to 5.10 confirmed that all items were strongly related to the communication score. Information (reliability) of the communication scale was higher for assessing patients with negative experiences of care than for the positive end of the spectrum. Communication was positively correlated with confidence in other's knowledge of ACP medical wishes (r = 0.32, p

BackgroundThe end-of-life (EOL) experience in the intensive care unit (ICU) is emotionally challenging, and there are opportunities for improvement. The 3 Wishes Program (3WP) promotes the dignity of dying patients and their families by eliciting and implementing wishes at the EOL.AimTo assess whether the 3WP is associated with improved ratings of EOL care.Program descriptionIn the 3WP, clinicians elicit and fulfill simple wishes for dying patients and their families.Setting2-hospital academic healthcare system.ParticipantsDying patients in the ICU and their families.Program evaluationA modified Bereaved Family Survey (BFS), a validated tool for measuring EOL care quality, was completed by families of ICU decedents approximately 3 months after death. We compared patients whose care involved the 3WP to those who did not using three BFS-derived measures: Respectful Care and Communication (5 questions), Emotional and Spiritual Support (3 questions), and the BFS-Performance Measure (BFS-PM, a single-item global measure of care).ResultsOf 314 completed surveys, 117 were for patients whose care included the 3WP. Bereaved families of 3WP patients rated the Emotional and Spiritual Support factor significantly higher (7.5 vs. 6.0, p = 0.003, adjusted p = 0.001) than those who did not receive the 3WP. The Respectful Care and Communication factor and BFS-PM were no different between groups.DiscussionThe 3WP is a low-cost intervention that may be a feasible strategy for improving the EOL experience.

BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated positive impacts of advance care planning (ACP) on end-of-life (EOL) care. We sought to examine trends in ACP and EOL care intensity among persons living with dementia who required surrogate decision-making in their final days of life.MethodsWe analyzed the participants of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative longitudinal panel study of U.S. residents, with dementia 70 years and older who required surrogate decision-making in the final days of life and died between 2000 and 2014. Based on surrogate reports after the death of a participant, our study measured the completion of three specific types of patient-engaged ACP (written EOL care instructions, assignment of a durable power of attorney for healthcare, patient engagement in EOL care discussions) and four measures of EOL care in the final days of life (death in hospital, receipt of life-prolonging treatments, limiting or withholding certain treatments, and receipt of comfort-oriented care). All analyses accounted for the complex survey design of HRS.ResultsAmong 870 adults (weighted N = 2,812,380) with dementia who died in 2000-2014 and required surrogate decision-making at EOL, only 34.8% of patients participated in all three aspects of ACP, and there was not a significant increase in ACP completion between 2000 and 2014. The receipt of life-prolonging treatments in the final days of life has increased over time (adjusted change per year, 1.4 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.2 pp; P-for-trend = 0.002), while the percentage of death in hospital, limiting or withholding certain treatments, or comfort-oriented care did not change.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the rates of ACP completion have not increased over time despite its potential benefits and life-prolonging treatments are still common among PLWD who require surrogate decision-making, a population who might benefit greatly from early ACP.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Introduction: Varying intensity of advance care planning (ACP) interventions at the population level has not been compared among seriously ill patients in primary care. This project will implement, test, and disseminate real-world scalable ACP interventions among primary care clinics across three University of California Health systems. The three ACP interventions are (1) distribution of an advance directive (AD) with targeted ACP messaging, (2) the AD, messaging, plus prompting patients to engage with the Prepare For Your Care website (PREPARE), and (3) the AD, messaging, PREPARE, plus Care Coordinator engagement with patients and clinicians. Methods: We will identify a population cohort of seriously ill primary care patients and implement the ACP interventions using electronic health record (EHR) patient portals and postal mailings. Forty-five clinics across the three health systems will be cluster randomized to one of the three ACP interventions. The primary outcome for the population cohort is AD or Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment documentation in the EHR. A subset of the population cohort will be surveyed to assess patient-centered outcomes, including care consistent with goals at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Caregivers will be interviewed if patients are unable to be surveyed or die. ACP documentation, goal concordant care, and among decedents, health care utilization will be compared among intervention arms. Study Implementation: Challenges and Contributions: The project is guided by a Study Advisory Group and Community Advisory Groups at each site to ensure rigorous patient-centered methods and consistency of implementation. Intervention fidelity will be evaluated using the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Challenges to implementation of this three-site health system trial and to intervention fidelity stem from site/clinic/system cultures, increasing attention to end-of-life care from payers and regulators, and growing pressures by health systems to implement ACP interventions. Stakeholder engagement is required to ensure consistent interventions across sites.

Background & aimsThere has been increased attention on ways to improve the quality of end-of-life care for patients with end-stage liver disease; however, there have been few reports of care experiences for patients during terminal hospitalizations. We analyzed data from a large national database to increase our understanding of palliative care for and health care utilization by patients with end-stage liver disease.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional, observational study to examine terminal hospitalizations of adults with decompensated cirrhosis using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2009 through 2013. We collected data on palliative care consultation and total hospital costs, and performed multivariate regression analyses to identify factors associated with palliative care consultation. We also investigated whether consultation was associated with lower costs.ResultsAmong hospitalized adults with terminal decompensated cirrhosis, 30.3% received palliative care; the mean cost per hospitalization was $48,551 ± $1142. Palliative care consultation increased annually, and was provided to 18.0% of patients in 2009 and to 36.6% of patients in 2013 (P < .05). The mean cost for the terminal hospitalization did not increase significantly ($47,969 in 2009 to $48,956 in 2013, P = .77). African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and liver transplant candidates were less likely to receive palliative care, whereas care in large urban teaching hospitals was associated with a higher odds of receiving consultation. Palliative care was associated with lower procedure burden-after adjusting for other factors, palliative care was associated with a cost reduction of $10,062.ConclusionsPalliative care consultation for patients with end-stage liver disease increased from 2009 through 2013. Palliative care consultation during terminal hospitalizations is associated with lower costs and procedure burden. Future research should evaluate timing and effects of palliative care on quality of end-of-life care in this population.

BackgroundDiscussing goals of care and advance care planning is beneficial, yet how to best integrate goals of care communication into clinical care remains unclear.ObjectiveTo develop and determine the feasibility of a structured goals of care communication guide for nurses and social workers.Design/setting/subjectsDevelopmental study with providers in an academic and Veterans Affairs (VA) health system (n = 42) and subsequent pilot testing with patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure (n = 15) and informal caregivers (n = 4) in a VA health system. During pilot testing, the communication guide was administered, followed by semistructured, open-ended questions about the content and process of communication. Changes to the guide were made iteratively, and subsequent piloting occurred until no additional changes emerged.MeasurementsProvider and patient feedback to the communication guide.ResultsIterative input resulted in the goals of care communication guide. The guide included questions to elicit patient understanding of and attitudes toward the future of illness, clarify values and goals, identify end-of-life preferences, and agree on a follow-up plan. Revisions to guide content and phrasing continued during development and pilot testing. In pilot testing, patients validated the importance of the topic; none said the goals of care discussion should not be conducted. Patients and informal caregivers liked the final guide length (∼30 minutes), felt it flowed well, and was clear.ConclusionsIn this developmental and pilot study, a structured goals of care communication guide was iteratively designed, implemented by nurses and social workers, and was feasible based on administration time and acceptability by patients and providers.

Our case describes the efforts of team members drawn from oncology, palliative care, supportive care, and primary care to assist a woman with advanced cancer in accepting care for her psychosocial distress, integrating prognostic information so that she could share in decisions about treatment planning, involving family in her care, and ultimately transitioning to hospice. Team members in our setting included a medical oncologist, oncology nurse practitioner, palliative care nurse practitioner, oncology social worker, and primary care physician. The core members were the patient and her sister. Our team grew organically as a result of patient need and, in doing so, operationalized an explicitly shared understanding of care priorities. We refer to this shared understanding as a shared mental model for care delivery, which enabled our team to jointly set priorities for care through a series of warm handoffs enabled by the team's close proximity within the same clinic. When care providers outside our integrated team became involved in the case, significant communication gaps exposed the difficulty in extending our shared mental model outside the integrated team framework, leading to inefficiencies in care. Integration of this shared understanding for care and close proximity of team members proved to be key components in facilitating treatment of our patient's burdensome cancer-related distress so that she could more effectively participate in treatment decision making that reflected her goals of care.

ContextAlthough recent randomized controlled trials support early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, the specific processes of care associated with these findings and whether these improvements can be replicated in the broader health care system are uncertain.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of palliative care consultation and its association with specific processes of supportive care in a national cohort of Veterans using the Cancer Quality ASSIST (Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment) measures.MethodsWe abstracted data from 719 patients' medical records diagnosed with advanced lung, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer in 2008 over a period of three years or until death who received care in the Veterans Affairs Health System to evaluate the association of palliative care specialty consultation with the quality of supportive care overall and by domain using a multivariate regression model.ResultsAll but 54 of 719 patients died within three years and 293 received at least one palliative care consult. Patients evaluated by a palliative care specialist at diagnosis scored seven percentage points higher overall (P

ImportanceEvidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes.ObjectiveTo inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system.Evidence reviewSystematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015).ResultsRandomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p

PurposeLittle is known about factors associated with unmet needs for symptom management in patients with cancer.MethodsPatients with a new diagnosis of lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance cohort completed a survey approximately 5 months after diagnosis (N = 5,422). We estimated the prevalence of unmet need for symptom management, defined as patients who report that they wanted help for at least one common symptom (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, diarrhea) during the 4 weeks before the survey but did not receive it. We identified patient factors associated with unmet need by using logistic regression with random effects to account for clustering within study sites.ResultsOverall, 15% (791 of 5,422) of patients had at least one unmet need for symptom management. Adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, African American race, being uninsured or poor, having early-stage lung cancer, and the presence of moderate to severe symptoms were associated with unmet need (all P < .05). Furthermore, patients who rated their physician's communication score < 80 (on a 0 to 100 scale) had adjusted rates of an unmet need for symptom management that were more than twice as high as patients who rated their physicians with a perfect communication score (23.1% v 10.0%; P < .001).ConclusionA significant minority of patients with newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer report unmet needs for symptom management. Interventions to improve symptom management should consider the importance of physician communication to the patient's experience of disease.

BackgroundEarly discussions about advance care planning (ACP) have been associated with improved patient and caregiver outcomes for patients with serious illness. Many patients with heart failure (HF) may benefit from more timely ACP, in part due to the unpredictable trajectory of the disease.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a multiple-component hospital-based intervention on completion of ACP forms among HF patients.MethodsA brief hospital-based ACP intervention was led by a nonclinician health educator that included (1) an educational video about shared decision making and (2) a protocol to engage HF providers in patients' ACP decision making after the hospitalization. We surveyed patients regarding attitudes toward the ACP intervention and studied completion rates of advance directives (ADs) or physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST) forms six months following discharge.ResultsThe educational video component of this intervention was considered helpful by 92% of participants, and 70% said they were more likely to talk with their physician about their end-of-life preferences after watching the video and interacting with the health educator. Of 37 participants, 49% had evidence of completion of an AD or POLST in their medical records six months after the index hospitalization compared to 32% before the intervention. The number of patients having a signed scanned POLST form increased from 10 (27%) before the intervention to 16 (43%) six months after the intervention (p = 0.03).ConclusionsA hospital-based ACP intervention using nonclinician health educators is feasible to implement and has the potential to facilitate the ACP process.

BackgroundEarly patient-physician care planning discussions may influence the intensity of end-of-life (EOL) care received by veterans with advanced cancer.ObjectiveThe study objective was to evaluate the association between medical record documentation of patient-physician care planning discussions and intensity of EOL care among veterans with advanced cancer.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study. Subjects were 665 veteran decedents diagnosed with stage IV colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer in 2008, and followed till death or the end of the study period in 2011. We estimated the effect of patient-physician care planning discussions documented within one month of metastatic diagnosis on the intensity of EOL care measured by receipt of acute care, intensive interventions, chemotherapy, and hospice care, using multivariate logistic regression models.ResultsVeterans in our study were predominantly male (97.1%), white (74.7%), with an average age at diagnosis of 66.4 years. Approximately 31% received some acute care, 9.3% received some intensive intervention, and 6.5% had a new chemotherapy regimen initiated in the last month of life. Approximately 41% of decedents received no hospice or were admitted within three days of death. Almost half (46.8%) had documentation of a care planning discussion within the first month after diagnosis and those who did were significantly less likely to receive acute care at EOL (OR: 0.67; p=0.025). Documented discussions were not significantly associated with intensive interventions, chemotherapy, or hospice care.ConclusionEarly care planning discussions are associated with lower rates of acute care use at the EOL in a system with already low rates of intensive EOL care.

ContextRelatively few data are available about symptoms among cancer patients.ObjectivesTo describe the prevalence and severity of symptoms among a large, representative cohort of newly diagnosed cancer patients.MethodsWe collected survey data about symptoms (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, and diarrhea) from 5422 patients with incident lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse, nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium cohort. We described the prevalence of any symptoms and moderate/severe symptoms approximately four to six months after diagnosis. We used logistic regression to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with symptoms, and calculated adjusted proportions of patients with symptoms.ResultsIn total, 5067 (93.5%) patients reported at least one symptom in the four weeks before their survey, with 51% reporting at least one moderate/severe symptom. Lung cancer patients reported more symptoms than colorectal cancer patients. Patients who received treatment or had more comorbidities were more likely to report symptoms. For example, after adjustment, patients who received chemotherapy during the six weeks before the survey were more likely than others to report at least one symptom (97.3% vs. 90.8%, P

ImportanceCharacterizing the quality of supportive cancer care can guide quality improvement.ObjectiveTo evaluate nonhospice supportive cancer care comprehensively in a national sample of veterans.Design, setting, and participantsUsing a retrospective cohort study design, we measured evidence-based cancer care processes using previously validated indicators of care quality in patients with advanced cancer, addressing pain, nonpain symptoms, and information and care planning among 719 veterans with a 2008 Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry diagnosis of stage IV colorectal (37.0%), pancreatic (29.8%), or lung (33.2%) cancer.Main outcomes and measuresWe abstracted medical records from diagnosis for 3 years or until death among eligible veterans (lived ≥ 30 days following diagnosis with ≥ 1 Veterans Affairs hospitalization or ≥ 2 Veterans Affairs outpatient visits). Each indicator identified a clinical scenario and an appropriate action. For each indicator for which a veteran was eligible, we determined whether appropriate care was provided. We also determined patient-level quality overall and by pain, nonpain symptoms, and information and care planning domains.ResultsMost veterans were older (mean age, 66.2 years), male (97.2%), and white (74.3%). Eighty-five percent received both inpatient and outpatient care, and 92.5% died. Overall, the 719 veterans triggered a mean of 11.7 quality indicators (range, 1-22) and received a mean 49.5% of appropriate care. Notable gaps in care were that inpatient pain screening was common (96.5%) but lacking for outpatients (58.1%). With opioids, bowel prophylaxis occurred for only 52.2% of outpatients and 70.5% of inpatients. Few patients had a timely dyspnea evaluation (15.8%) or treatment (10.8%). Outpatient assessment of fatigue occurred for 31.3%. Of patients at high risk for diarrhea from chemotherapy, 24.2% were offered appropriate antidiarrheals. Only 17.7% of veterans had goals of care addressed in the month after a diagnosis of advanced cancer, and 63.7% had timely discussion of goals following intensive care unit admission. Most decedents (86.4%) were referred to palliative care or hospice before death. Single- vs multiple-fraction radiotherapy should have been considered in 28 veterans with bone metastasis, but none were offered this option.Conclusions and relevanceThese care gaps reflect important targets for improving the patient and family experience of cancer care.

Background: Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis. Methods: We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes. Results: Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time. Conclusion: Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]