Search

BackgroundFailure 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.MethodsA 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.DiscussionThis 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.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Author(s): J. Randall Curtis [sup.1] [sup.2], Irene J. Higginson [sup.3], Douglas B. White [sup.4] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.34477.33, 0000000122986657, Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence at UW Medicine, A. Bruce [...]

ObjectivesOptimistic expectations about prognosis by surrogate decision-makers in ICUs are common, but there are few data about the causes and clinical consequences. Our objective was to determine the causes of optimistic expectations about prognosis among surrogates and whether it is associated with more use of life support at the end of life.DesignProspective, multicenter cohort study from 2009 to 2012.SettingTwelve ICUs from multiple regions of the United States.SubjectsThe surrogates and physicians of 275 incapacitated ICU patients at high risk of death.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsSurrogates and physicians completed a validated instrument assessing their prognostic expectations for hospital survival. We determined the proportion of surrogates with optimistic expectations, defined as a prognostic estimate that was at least 20% more optimistic than the physician's, then determined how frequently this arose from surrogates miscomprehending the physicians' prognosis versus holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. We used multivariable regression to examine whether optimistic expectations were associated with length of stay, stratified by survival status, and time to withdrawal of life support among nonsurvivors. Overall, 45% of surrogates (95% CI, 38-51%) held optimistic expectations about prognosis, which arose from a combination of misunderstanding the physician's prognostic expectations and from holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. Optimistic expectations by surrogates were associated with significantly longer duration of ICU treatment among nonsurvivors before death (β coefficient = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; p = 0.027), corresponding to a 56% longer ICU stay. This difference was associated with a significantly longer time to withdrawal of life support among dying patients whose surrogates had optimistic prognostic expectations compared with those who did not (β coefficient = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16-1.07; p = 0.009).ConclusionsThe prevalent optimism about prognosis among surrogates in ICUs arises both from surrogates' miscomprehension of physicians' prognostications and from surrogates holding more hopeful beliefs. This optimism is associated with longer duration of life support at the end of life.

Objective: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU.Methods: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Support of the Family in the Patient-Centered Intensive Care Unit. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with guideline development.Results: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and PICO question development. The systematic review search yielded 4158 reports after de-duplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice.Conclusions: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

ImportancePoor communication by health care professionals contributes to physical and psychological suffering in patients living with serious illness. Patients may not fully understand their illness, prognosis, and treatment options or may not receive medical care consistent with their goals. Despite considerable research exploring the role of communication in this setting, many questions remain, and a clear agenda for communication research is lacking.ObservationsThrough a consensus conference and subsequent activities, we reviewed the state of the science, identified key evidence gaps in understanding the impact of communication on patient outcomes, and created an agenda for future research. We considered 7 broad topics: shared decision making, advance care planning, communication training, measuring communication, communication about prognosis, emotion and serious illness communication, and cultural issues. We identified 5 areas in which further research could substantially move the field forward and help enhance patient care: measurement and methodology, including how to determine communication quality; mechanisms of communication, such as identifying the specific clinician behaviors that patients experience as both honest and compassionate, or the role of bias in the clinical encounter; alternative approaches to advance care planning that focus on the quality of serious illness communication and not simply completion of forms; teaching and disseminating communication skills; and approaches, such as economic incentives and other clinician motivators, to change communication behavior.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the urgent need to improve quality of communication between health care professionals and patients living with serious illness through a broad range of research that covers communication skills, tools, patient education, and models of care.

ObjectivesThe existing risk prediction model for patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation is not applicable until after 21 days of mechanical ventilation. We sought to develop and validate a mortality prediction model for patients earlier in the ICU course using data from day 14 of mechanical ventilation.DesignMulticenter retrospective cohort study.SettingForty medical centers across the United States.PatientsAdult patients receiving at least 14 days of mechanical ventilation.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsPredictor variables were measured on day 14 of mechanical ventilation in the development cohort and included in a logistic regression model with 1-year mortality as the outcome. Variables were sequentially eliminated to develop the ProVent 14 model. This model was then generated in the validation cohort. A simplified prognostic scoring rule (ProVent 14 Score) using categorical variables was created in the development cohort and then tested in the validation cohort. Model discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve. Four hundred ninety-one patients and 245 patients were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The most parsimonious model included age, platelet count, requirement for vasopressors, requirement for hemodialysis, and nontrauma admission. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the ProVent 14 model using continuous variables was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83) in the development cohort and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.83) in the validation cohort. The ProVent 14 Score categorized age at 50 and 65 years old and platelet count at 100×10(9)/L and had similar discrimination as the ProVent 14 model in both cohorts.ConclusionUsing clinical variables available on day 14 of mechanical ventilation, the ProVent 14 model can identify patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation with a high risk of mortality within 1 year.

PurposePatients with hematologic malignancies are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. Reasons for this difference are poorly understood.MethodsThis was a multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic and solid tumor oncologists using surveys assessing referral practices and in-depth semistructured interviews exploring views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We analyzed qualitative interview data using constant comparative methods to explore reasons for observed differences.ResultsAmong 66 interviewees, 23 oncologists cared exclusively for patients with hematologic malignancies; 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven (30%) of 23 hematologic oncologists reported never referring to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred. In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex patient cases. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophic concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and preference for controlling even palliative aspects of patient care.ConclusionMost hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for comanaging patients with complex cases. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic malignancy specialists.

RationaleSurrogates of critically ill patients often have inaccurate expectations about prognosis. Yet there is little research on how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians should discuss prognosis, and existing expert opinion-based recommendations give only general guidance that has not been validated with surrogate decision makers.ObjectiveTo determine the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding how prognostic information should be conveyed in critical illness.MethodsThis was a multicenter study at three academic medical centers in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington. One hundred eighteen key stakeholders completed in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants included 47 surrogates of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 45 clinicians working in study ICUs, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers; and 26 experts in health communication, decision science, ethics, family-centered care, geriatrics, healthcare disparities, palliative care, psychology, psychiatry, and critical care.Measurements and main resultsThere was broad support among surrogates for existing expert recommendations, including truthful prognostic disclosure, emotional support, tailoring the disclosure strategy to each family's needs, and checking for understanding. In addition, stakeholders offered suggestions that add specificity to existing recommendations, including: (1) In addition to conveying prognostic estimates, clinicians should help families "see the prognosis for themselves" by showing families radiographic images and explaining the clinical significance of physical manifestations of severe disease at the bedside. (2) Many physicians did not support using numeric estimates to convey prognosis to families, whereas many surrogates, clinicians from other disciplines, and experts believed numbers could be helpful. (3) Clinicians should conceptualize prognostic communication as an iterative process that begins with a preliminary mention of the possibility of death early in the ICU stay and becomes more detailed as the clinical situation develops. (4) Although prognostic information should be initially disclosed by physicians, other members of the multidisciplinary team-nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers-should be given explicit role responsibilities to reinforce physicians' prognostications and help families process a poor prognosis emotionally.ConclusionsFamily members, clinicians, and experts identified specific communication behaviors that clinicians should use to discuss prognosis in the critical care setting. These findings extend existing opinion-based recommendations and should guide interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs.

PurposeRecent research and professional guidelines support expanded use of outpatient subspecialty palliative care in oncology, but provider referral practices vary widely. We sought to explore oncologist factors that influence referrals to outpatient palliative care.MethodsMultisite, qualitative interview study at three academic cancer centers in the United States with well-established palliative care clinics. Seventy-four medical oncologists participated in semistructured interviews between February and October 2012. The interview guide asked about experiences and decision making regarding outpatient palliative care use. A multidisciplinary team analyzed interview transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop and refine themes related to palliative care referral decisions.ResultsWe identified three main oncologist barriers to subspecialty palliative care referrals at sites with comprehensive palliative care clinics: persistent conceptions of palliative care as an alternative philosophy of care incompatible with cancer therapy, a predominant belief that providing palliative care is an integral part of the oncologist's role, and a lack of knowledge about locally available services. Participants described their views of subspecialty palliative care as evolving in response to increasing availability of services and positive referral experiences, but emphasized that views of palliative care as valuable in addition to standard oncology care were not universally shared by oncologists.ConclusionsImproving provision of palliative care in oncology will likely require efforts beyond increasing service availability. Raising awareness of ways in which subspecialty palliative care complements standard oncology care and developing ways for oncologists and palliative care physicians to collaborate and integrate their respective skills may help.

Introduction: Therapeutic alliance (TA), or the extent to which patients feel a sense of caring and trust with their physician, may have an impact on health care utilization. We sought to determine if TA is associated with: (1) emergency department (ED) visits within 30 days of death and (2) hospice enrollment. Methods and Materials: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. We used restricted cubic splines to assess the relationship between TA scores and health care utilization. Results: Six hundred seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study, with 331 (49.3%) dying within 12 months. Patients with higher TA were less likely to have an ED visit in the last 30 days of life, but there was no evidence of a relationship between TA and enrollment in hospice. Conclusions: Higher TA was associated with decreased ED visits within 30 days of death. There was no association between TA and rates of hospice enrollment. Clinical Registration Number: NCT02712229. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundSurrogates of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) want honest prognostic information, but they also want to hear good news. There has been little examination of how surrogates navigate these dual needs or how clinicians should respond.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was explore how surrogates in the ICU experience and cope with prognostic information and describe their recommendations for clinicians.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative interview study with 30 surrogates facing life-sustaining treatment decisions in five ICUs in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates in the ICU focused on general experiences, emotional needs, informational needs, and recommendations for clinicians. We inductively analyzed transcripts for key themes using constant comparative methods.ResultsSurrogates experience a tension between wanting to know what to expect and needing to remain hopeful. This tension underlies their experience receiving prognostic information and may lead to behaviors that allow continued hope in the face of bad news, including: 1) focusing on small details rather than the big picture, 2) relying on gut instincts or personal beliefs about the patient, 3) seeking more positive prognostic information from other sources, and, for a minority, 4) avoiding or disbelieving prognostic information. Surrogates emphasize the importance of frequent communication and call on physicians to gently help them prepare for the worst and hope for the best.ConclusionsSurrogates in the ICU experience conflicting emotional and informational needs. They describe behaviors that give the appearance of avoiding bad news while simultaneously asking physicians to help them cope with prognostic information.

BackgroundAlthough numerous studies have addressed external factors associated with difficulty in surrogate decision making, intrapersonal sources of tension are an important element of decision making that have received little attention.ObjectiveTo characterize key intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit (ICU), and explore associated coping strategies.DesignQualitative interview study.ParticipantsThirty surrogates from five ICUs at two hospitals in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who were actively involved in making life-sustaining treatment decisions for a critically ill loved one.ApproachWe conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogates, focused on intrapersonal tensions, role challenges, and coping strategies. We analyzed transcripts using constant comparative methods.Key resultsSurrogates experience significant emotional conflict between the desire to act in accordance with their loved one's values and 1) not wanting to feel responsible for a loved one's death, 2) a desire to pursue any chance of recovery, and 3) the need to preserve family well-being. Associated coping strategies included 1) recalling previous discussions with a loved one, 2) sharing decisions with family members, 3) delaying or deferring decision making, 4) spiritual/religious practices, and 5) story-telling.ConclusionsSurrogates' struggle to reconcile personal and family emotional needs with their loved ones' wishes, and utilize common coping strategies to combat intrapersonal tensions. These data suggest reasons surrogates may struggle to follow a strict substituted judgment standard. They also suggest ways clinicians may improve decision making, including attending to surrogates' emotions, facilitating family decision making, and eliciting potential emotional conflicts and spiritual needs.

Background: The fear of taking away hope hinders clinicians' willingness to share serious news with patients with advanced disease. Unrealistic illness expectations, on the other hand, can complicate decision making and end-of-life care outcomes. Exploration of the association between hope and illness expectations can support clinicians in better communication with their patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore whether realistic illness expectations are associated with reduced hope in people with advanced cancer. Design: This is a cross-sectional secondary analysis of baseline data from a primary palliative care cluster-randomized trial CONNECT (data collected from July 2016 to October 2020). Hope was measured by Herth Hope Index. Illness expectations were measured by assessing patients' understanding of their treatment goals, life expectancy, and terminal illness acknowledgement. Multivariable regression was performed, adjusting for demographical and clinical confounders. Setting/participants: Adult patients with advanced solid cancers recruited across 17 oncology clinics. Results: Data from 672 patients were included in the study, with mean age of 69.3 years (±10.2), 53.6% were female. Proportion of patients indicating realistic expectations varied based on which question was asked from 10% to 46%. Median level of hope was 39 (IQR = 36–43). Multivariate non-inferiority regression did not find any significant differences in hope between patients with more and less realistic illness expectations. Conclusions: Our results suggest that hope can be sustained while holding both realistic and unrealistic illness expectations. Communication about serious news should focus on clarifying the expectations as well as supporting people's hopes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]