Hospice & Palliative Medicine

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.

Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.

Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.

The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.

Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.

Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.

Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.

For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.

Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.

Commentary

Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.¹ Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,² which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.³

This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.

As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 2017⁴; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.⁵ Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.

Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.

Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.

The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.

Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.

Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.

Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.

For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.

Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.

Commentary

Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.¹ Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,² which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.³

This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.

As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 2017⁴; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.⁵ Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.

Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.

Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.

The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.

Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.

Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.

Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.

For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.

Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.

Commentary

Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.¹ Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,² which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.³

This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.

As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 2017⁴; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.⁵ Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

As SARS-CoV-2 cases surged in New York this past spring, one hospital system met the growing demand for palliative care in COVID-19 patients in acute care and emergency settings by training and redeploying psychiatry trainees, producing 100 consultations during a crisis period. Developers of this program wrote about their experience in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.

Research shows that psychiatrists can play an important, complementary role in palliative care, but not many models have explored this in practice. Over a 45-day period in March and April, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center saw an influx of 7,600 COVID-19 patients. Many were critically ill, and palliative care needs skyrocketed. Initial efforts to install a palliative care team at the emergency department and a proactive consultation model in the step-down units failed to meet demand for consults.

COVID-19 patients present unique challenges. Their clinical trajectory is less clear than those with cancer or other illnesses, Daniel Shalev, MD, a fellow in hospice and palliative medicine at Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and the study’s first author, said in an interview. “Ethical and systems issues around distribution of scarce resources may inflect patients’ and physicians’ responses,” Dr. Shalev said. “And families may not be able to be at the bedside with patients.”

To rapidly expand the palliative care workforce and meet patient needs, Dr. Shalev and colleagues recruited 16 psychiatry trainees from NYP, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and Weill Cornell Medicine to work at NYP/Columbia University Irving Medical Center’s section of adult palliative medicine. Senior general psychiatry residents, child and adolescent psychiatry fellows, addiction psychiatry fellows, and postresidency T32 research fellows became part of a psychiatry-palliative care liaison team, offering psychosocial support and care goal strategies to patients and families.

Already well-versed in serious illness communication and psychosocial aspects of medical illness, the residents and fellows received additional training and education about SARS-CoV-2 and goals-of-care conversations. Child and adolescent psychiatry fellows participated in a communication workshop about the virus at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Working closely with the medical center’s palliative care service, the liaison team did consults around the clock at the ED under the supervision of a consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatrist specializing in primary palliative care skills. The team managed 16 cases a day during the peak of New York’s COVID-19 outbreak, operating on a rotating schedule of one to three shifts weekly. Some shifts took place remotely to reduce exposure to the virus.

“We were fortunate that New York Presbyterian was early and aggressive in ensuring all clinical staff had personal protective equipment” in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, Dr. Shalev said.

The C-L psychiatry coordinator served as a traffic controller of sorts, overseeing daily staffing changes, maintaining a psychiatry–palliative care liaison team–shared patient list, and ensuring follow-up and continuity on patient care. The rotating schedule freed up time for trainees to meet other research and outpatient obligations.

The liaison team held a meeting each morning and accompanied the adult palliative care service on its daily virtual rounds to help streamline case management and care coordination among the various palliative care channels. Modifications in personnel took place as cases started to recede. Overall, the team participated in 100 consultations.

The findings show that there is significant overlap in psychiatry and palliative care skill sets, Dr. Shalev said. “Furthermore, many patients benefiting from palliative care services have mental health needs. But there are gaps between psychiatry and palliative care, including a lack of collaboration and cross-training. Our model showed how easily our disciplines can work together to improve the care available to all patients,” he added.

Some things could have gone more smoothly. Working under the duress of a pandemic, project leaders didn’t have enough time to train and supervise the team about advanced symptom management. Psychiatry staff members also weren’t as comfortable with nonpsychiatric symptom management as serious illness communication and psychiatric symptom management. Dr. Shalev expects these growth areas to improve over time.

The model could easily translate to other facilities, he believes. “Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have foundational communication skills that can be adapted to serious illness care and palliative care.” As of this writing, the liaison team was transitioning to a longer-term assignment involving patients on mechanical ventilation and their families.

The program increased access to care during a time of limited resources,and successfully combined psychiatric and palliative services – two specialties that, at times, can have conflicting recommendations, noted Maria I. Lapid, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a faculty member of the Mayo Clinic Center for Palliative Medicine, who was not part of the study. As urgent training for psychiatric trainees proved useful in the current crisis, long-term psychiatric programs will need to explore and consider how to integrate palliative care training into the psychiatric curriculum.

“Not only is this relevant in the current pandemic, but this will continue to be relevant in the context of the rapidly aging population” in the United States, said Dr. Lapid.

Dr. Shalev and colleagues declared no conflicts of interest in their study. Their research received no funds or grants from public, commercial, or nonprofit agencies.

SOURCE: Shalev D et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Jun 13. doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.06.009.

As SARS-CoV-2 cases surged in New York this past spring, one hospital system met the growing demand for palliative care in COVID-19 patients in acute care and emergency settings by training and redeploying psychiatry trainees, producing 100 consultations during a crisis period. Developers of this program wrote about their experience in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.

Research shows that psychiatrists can play an important, complementary role in palliative care, but not many models have explored this in practice. Over a 45-day period in March and April, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center saw an influx of 7,600 COVID-19 patients. Many were critically ill, and palliative care needs skyrocketed. Initial efforts to install a palliative care team at the emergency department and a proactive consultation model in the step-down units failed to meet demand for consults.

COVID-19 patients present unique challenges. Their clinical trajectory is less clear than those with cancer or other illnesses, Daniel Shalev, MD, a fellow in hospice and palliative medicine at Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and the study’s first author, said in an interview. “Ethical and systems issues around distribution of scarce resources may inflect patients’ and physicians’ responses,” Dr. Shalev said. “And families may not be able to be at the bedside with patients.”

To rapidly expand the palliative care workforce and meet patient needs, Dr. Shalev and colleagues recruited 16 psychiatry trainees from NYP, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and Weill Cornell Medicine to work at NYP/Columbia University Irving Medical Center’s section of adult palliative medicine. Senior general psychiatry residents, child and adolescent psychiatry fellows, addiction psychiatry fellows, and postresidency T32 research fellows became part of a psychiatry-palliative care liaison team, offering psychosocial support and care goal strategies to patients and families.

Already well-versed in serious illness communication and psychosocial aspects of medical illness, the residents and fellows received additional training and education about SARS-CoV-2 and goals-of-care conversations. Child and adolescent psychiatry fellows participated in a communication workshop about the virus at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Working closely with the medical center’s palliative care service, the liaison team did consults around the clock at the ED under the supervision of a consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatrist specializing in primary palliative care skills. The team managed 16 cases a day during the peak of New York’s COVID-19 outbreak, operating on a rotating schedule of one to three shifts weekly. Some shifts took place remotely to reduce exposure to the virus.

“We were fortunate that New York Presbyterian was early and aggressive in ensuring all clinical staff had personal protective equipment” in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, Dr. Shalev said.

The C-L psychiatry coordinator served as a traffic controller of sorts, overseeing daily staffing changes, maintaining a psychiatry–palliative care liaison team–shared patient list, and ensuring follow-up and continuity on patient care. The rotating schedule freed up time for trainees to meet other research and outpatient obligations.

The liaison team held a meeting each morning and accompanied the adult palliative care service on its daily virtual rounds to help streamline case management and care coordination among the various palliative care channels. Modifications in personnel took place as cases started to recede. Overall, the team participated in 100 consultations.

The findings show that there is significant overlap in psychiatry and palliative care skill sets, Dr. Shalev said. “Furthermore, many patients benefiting from palliative care services have mental health needs. But there are gaps between psychiatry and palliative care, including a lack of collaboration and cross-training. Our model showed how easily our disciplines can work together to improve the care available to all patients,” he added.

Some things could have gone more smoothly. Working under the duress of a pandemic, project leaders didn’t have enough time to train and supervise the team about advanced symptom management. Psychiatry staff members also weren’t as comfortable with nonpsychiatric symptom management as serious illness communication and psychiatric symptom management. Dr. Shalev expects these growth areas to improve over time.

The model could easily translate to other facilities, he believes. “Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have foundational communication skills that can be adapted to serious illness care and palliative care.” As of this writing, the liaison team was transitioning to a longer-term assignment involving patients on mechanical ventilation and their families.

The program increased access to care during a time of limited resources,and successfully combined psychiatric and palliative services – two specialties that, at times, can have conflicting recommendations, noted Maria I. Lapid, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a faculty member of the Mayo Clinic Center for Palliative Medicine, who was not part of the study. As urgent training for psychiatric trainees proved useful in the current crisis, long-term psychiatric programs will need to explore and consider how to integrate palliative care training into the psychiatric curriculum.

“Not only is this relevant in the current pandemic, but this will continue to be relevant in the context of the rapidly aging population” in the United States, said Dr. Lapid.

Dr. Shalev and colleagues declared no conflicts of interest in their study. Their research received no funds or grants from public, commercial, or nonprofit agencies.

SOURCE: Shalev D et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Jun 13. doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.06.009.

As SARS-CoV-2 cases surged in New York this past spring, one hospital system met the growing demand for palliative care in COVID-19 patients in acute care and emergency settings by training and redeploying psychiatry trainees, producing 100 consultations during a crisis period. Developers of this program wrote about their experience in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.

Research shows that psychiatrists can play an important, complementary role in palliative care, but not many models have explored this in practice. Over a 45-day period in March and April, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center saw an influx of 7,600 COVID-19 patients. Many were critically ill, and palliative care needs skyrocketed. Initial efforts to install a palliative care team at the emergency department and a proactive consultation model in the step-down units failed to meet demand for consults.

COVID-19 patients present unique challenges. Their clinical trajectory is less clear than those with cancer or other illnesses, Daniel Shalev, MD, a fellow in hospice and palliative medicine at Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and the study’s first author, said in an interview. “Ethical and systems issues around distribution of scarce resources may inflect patients’ and physicians’ responses,” Dr. Shalev said. “And families may not be able to be at the bedside with patients.”

To rapidly expand the palliative care workforce and meet patient needs, Dr. Shalev and colleagues recruited 16 psychiatry trainees from NYP, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and Weill Cornell Medicine to work at NYP/Columbia University Irving Medical Center’s section of adult palliative medicine. Senior general psychiatry residents, child and adolescent psychiatry fellows, addiction psychiatry fellows, and postresidency T32 research fellows became part of a psychiatry-palliative care liaison team, offering psychosocial support and care goal strategies to patients and families.

Already well-versed in serious illness communication and psychosocial aspects of medical illness, the residents and fellows received additional training and education about SARS-CoV-2 and goals-of-care conversations. Child and adolescent psychiatry fellows participated in a communication workshop about the virus at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Working closely with the medical center’s palliative care service, the liaison team did consults around the clock at the ED under the supervision of a consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatrist specializing in primary palliative care skills. The team managed 16 cases a day during the peak of New York’s COVID-19 outbreak, operating on a rotating schedule of one to three shifts weekly. Some shifts took place remotely to reduce exposure to the virus.

“We were fortunate that New York Presbyterian was early and aggressive in ensuring all clinical staff had personal protective equipment” in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, Dr. Shalev said.

The C-L psychiatry coordinator served as a traffic controller of sorts, overseeing daily staffing changes, maintaining a psychiatry–palliative care liaison team–shared patient list, and ensuring follow-up and continuity on patient care. The rotating schedule freed up time for trainees to meet other research and outpatient obligations.

The liaison team held a meeting each morning and accompanied the adult palliative care service on its daily virtual rounds to help streamline case management and care coordination among the various palliative care channels. Modifications in personnel took place as cases started to recede. Overall, the team participated in 100 consultations.

The findings show that there is significant overlap in psychiatry and palliative care skill sets, Dr. Shalev said. “Furthermore, many patients benefiting from palliative care services have mental health needs. But there are gaps between psychiatry and palliative care, including a lack of collaboration and cross-training. Our model showed how easily our disciplines can work together to improve the care available to all patients,” he added.

Some things could have gone more smoothly. Working under the duress of a pandemic, project leaders didn’t have enough time to train and supervise the team about advanced symptom management. Psychiatry staff members also weren’t as comfortable with nonpsychiatric symptom management as serious illness communication and psychiatric symptom management. Dr. Shalev expects these growth areas to improve over time.

The model could easily translate to other facilities, he believes. “Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have foundational communication skills that can be adapted to serious illness care and palliative care.” As of this writing, the liaison team was transitioning to a longer-term assignment involving patients on mechanical ventilation and their families.

The program increased access to care during a time of limited resources,and successfully combined psychiatric and palliative services – two specialties that, at times, can have conflicting recommendations, noted Maria I. Lapid, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a faculty member of the Mayo Clinic Center for Palliative Medicine, who was not part of the study. As urgent training for psychiatric trainees proved useful in the current crisis, long-term psychiatric programs will need to explore and consider how to integrate palliative care training into the psychiatric curriculum.

“Not only is this relevant in the current pandemic, but this will continue to be relevant in the context of the rapidly aging population” in the United States, said Dr. Lapid.

Dr. Shalev and colleagues declared no conflicts of interest in their study. Their research received no funds or grants from public, commercial, or nonprofit agencies.

SOURCE: Shalev D et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Jun 13. doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.06.009.

In late March of 2020, when it became clear that hospitals in the greater New York City area would face a capacity crisis in caring for seriously ill patients with COVID-19, members of the leadership team at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore (CHAM) in the Bronx, N.Y., convened to draft a response plan.

Courtesy Montefiore Health System

The recommendations put into action that day included moving the hospital’s emergency department from the lower level to the fourth floor, increasing the age limit for patients seen in the ED from 21 years of age to 30 and freeing up an entire hospital floor and a half to accommodate the anticipated surge of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Montefiore’s interconnected adult hospital, according to Sarah E. Norris, MD.

“We made multiple moves all at once,” said Dr. Norris, director of pediatric palliative care at CHAM. “It struck everyone as logical that palliative care had to be expanded, because all of the news we had received as the surge came to New York from around the world was full of death and uncertainty, and would require thoughtful conversations about end-of-life wishes at critical times and how to really respect the person and understand their values.”

When Dr. Norris left the leadership team meeting, she returned to her office, put her face in her hands, and sobbed as she began to process the gravity of what was ahead. “I cried because I knew that so many families were going to suffer a heartbreak, no matter how much we could do,” she said.
 

Stitching the QUILT

Over the next few days, Dr. Norris began recruiting colleagues from the large Montefiore Health System – most of whom she did not know – who met criteria for work deployment to expand CHAM’s palliative care program of clinician to 27 clinicians consisting of pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and psychologists, to meet the projected needs of COVID-19 patients and their families.

Some candidates for the effort, known as the Quality in Life Team (QUILT), were 65 years of age or older, considered at high risk for developing COVID-19-related complications themselves. Others were immunocompromised or had medical conditions that would not allow them to have direct contact with COVID-19 patients. “There were also clinicians in other parts of our health system whose practice hours were going to be severely reduced,” said Dr. Norris, who is board-certified in general pediatrics and in hospice and palliative care medicine.

Once she assembled QUILT, members participated in a 1-day rapid training webinar covering the basics of palliative care and grief, and readied themselves for one of three roles: physicians to provide face-to-face palliative care in CHAM; supportive callers to provide support to patients with COVID-19 and their families between 12:00-8:00 p.m. each day; and bereavement callers to reach out to families who lost loved ones to COVID-19 and provide grief counseling for 3 weeks.

“This allows families to have at least two contacts a day from the hospital: one from the medical team that’s giving them technical, medical information, and another from members of the QUILT team,” Dr. Norris said. “We provide support for the worry, anxiety, and fear that we know creeps in when you’re separated from your family member, especially during a pandemic when you watch TV and there’s a death count rising.”

During her early meetings with QUILT members via Zoom or on the phone, Dr. Norris encouraged them to stretch their skill sets and mindsets as they shifted from caring for children and adolescents to mostly adults. “Pediatricians are all about family; that’s why we get into this,” she said. “We’re used to treating your kids, but then, suddenly, the parent becomes our patient, like in COVID-19, or the grandparent becomes our patient. We treat you all the same; you’re part of our family. There has been no adult who has died ‘within our house’ that has died alone. There has either been a staff member at their bedside, or when possible, a family member. We are witnessing life until the last breath here.”
 

‘They have no loved ones with them’

One day, members of CHAM’s medical team contacted Dr. Norris about a patient with COVID-19 who’d been cared for by Montefiore clinicians all of his young life. The boy’s mother, who did not speak English, was at his bedside in the ICU, and the clinicians asked Dr. Norris to speak with her by cell phone while they prepared him for intubation.

“We were looking at each other through a glass window wall in our ICU,” Dr. Norris recalled. “I talked to her the entire time the team worked to put him on the breathing machine, through an interpreter. I asked her to tell me about her son and about her family, and she did. We developed a warm relationship. After that, every day I would see her son through the glass window wall. Every couple of days, I would have the privilege of talking to his mother by phone. At one point, she asked me, ‘Dr. Norris, do you think his lungs will heal?’ I had to tell her no. Almost selfishly, I was relieved we were on the phone, because she cried, and so did I. When he died, she was able to be by his side.”

Frederick J. Kaskel, MD, PhD, joined QUILT as a supportive caller after being asked to go home during his on-call shift on St. Patrick’s Day at CHAM, where he serves as chief emeritus of nephrology. “I was told that I was deemed to be at high risk because of my age,” the 75-year-old said. “The next day, a junior person took over for me, and 2 days later she got sick with COVID-19. She’s fine but she was home for 3 weeks sick as a dog. It was scary.”

In his role as a supportive caller, Dr. Kaskel found himself engaged in his share of detective work, trying to find phone numbers of next of kin for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. “When they come into the ER, they may not have been with a loved one or a family member; they may have been brought in by an EMT,” he said. “Some of them speak little English and others have little documentation with them. It takes a lot of work to get phone numbers.”

Once Dr. Kaskel reaches a loved one by phone, he introduces himself as a member of the QUILT team. “I tell them I’m not calling to update the medical status but just to talk to them about their loved one,” he said. “Then I usually ask, ‘So, how are you doing with this? The stress is enormous, the uncertainties.’ Then they open up and express their fears. I’ve had a lot of people say, ‘we have no money, and I don’t know how we’re going to pay rent for the apartment. We have to line up for food.’ I also ask what they do to alleviate stress. One guy said, ‘I drink a lot, but I’m careful.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel, who is also a past president of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, applies that same personable approach in daily conversations with adult patients hospitalized at CHAM with COVID-19, the majority of whom are African Americans in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. “Invariably, they ask, ‘Has my loved one been updated as to my status?’ ” he said. “The second thing they often say is, ‘I’m worried about infecting other people, but I also worry if I’m going to get through this. I’m really afraid I’m going to die.’ I say, ‘You have a wonderful team keeping track of you. They’re seeing you all the time and making changes to your medicines.’ ”

When patients express their fear of dying from the virus, Dr. Kaskel asks them how they’re coping with that fear. Most tell him that they pray.

“If they don’t answer, I ask if they have any hobbies, like ‘Are you watching TV? Are you reading? Do you have your cell phone?’ ” he said. “Then they open up and say things like, ‘I’m listening to music on the cell phone,’ or ‘I’m FaceTiming with my loved ones.’ The use of FaceTime is crucial, because they are in a hospital, critically ill, potentially dying alone with strangers. This really hit me on the first day [of this work]. They have no loved ones with them. They have strangers: the CHAM nurses, the medical residents, the social workers, and the doctors.”
 

No hospital cheeseburgers

QUILT began its work on April 6, and at one time provided palliative care services for a peak of 92 mostly adult patients with COVID-19. The supportive callers made 249 individual connections with patients and family members by phone from April 6-13, 162 connections from April 13-19, and 130 connections from April 20-26, according to Dr. Norris. As of April 28, the CHAM inpatient census of patients aged 18 years and over with COVID-19 was 42, “and we’re making 130 connections by phone to patients and family members each day,” she said.

QUILT bereavement callers are following 30 families, providing 3 weeks of acute grief counseling from the date of death. “A sad truth is that, here in New York, our entire funeral, burial, cremation system is overwhelmed in volume,” Dr. Norris said. “Only half of the patients we’re following 3 weeks out have been able to have their family member buried or cremated; many are still waiting. What strikes me here is that pediatricians are often partners in care. With time, we’re partners in care in heartbreak, and in the occasional victory. We mourn patients who have died. We’ve had colleagues who died from COVID-19 right here at our hospital. But we stand together like a family.”

Courtesy Dr. Sarah E. Norris

Dr. Norris recalled an older woman who came into CHAM’s ICU on a ventilator, critically ill from COVID-19. She called her husband at home every day with updates. “I got to know her husband, and I got to know her through him,” Dr. Norris said. “We talked every single day and she was able to graduate off of the breathing tube and out of the ICU, which was amazing.” The woman was moved to a floor in the adult hospital, but Dr. Norris continues to visit her and to provide her husband with updates, “because I’m devoted to them,” she said.

Recently, physicians in the adult hospital consulted with Dr. Norris about the woman. “They were trying to figure out what to do with her next,” she said. “Could she go home, or did she need rehab? They said, ‘We called you, Dr. Norris, because her husband thinks he can take her home.’ We know that COVID-19 really weakens people, so I went over to see her myself. I thought, ‘No single person could take care of an adult so weak at home.’ So, I called her husband and said, ‘I’m here with your wife, and I have to tell you; if she were my mother, I couldn’t take her home today. I need you to trust me.’ He said, ‘OK. We trust you and know that you have her best interest at heart.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel relayed the story of an older patient who was slowly recovering from COVID-19. During a phone call, he asked the man if there was anything he wanted at that moment.

“He said, ‘I’d love to see my wife and my children and my grandkids. I know I’m going to see them again, but right now, doc, if you could get me a cheeseburger with lettuce and tomato and ketchup and French fries from outside of the hospital, I’d be the happiest man in the world.’

I said, ‘What’s the matter with the cheeseburger made at the hospital?’

He said, ‘No! They can’t make the cheeseburger I want.’

I promised him I’d relay that message to the social worker responsible for the patient. I told her please, if you buy this for him, I’ll pay you back.”
 

Self-care and the next chapter

Twice each week, QUILT members gather in front of their computer monitors for mandatory Zoom meetings facilitated by two psychologists to share challenges, best practices, and to discuss the difficult work they’re doing. “We meet, because you cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself,” Dr. Norris said. “We have been encouraged each and every meeting to practice self-compassion, and to recognize that things happen during a pandemic – some will be the best you can do.”

She described organizing and serving on QUILT as a grounding experience with important lessons for the delivery of health care after the pandemic subsides and the team members return to their respective practices. “I think we’ve all gained a greater sense of humility, and we understand that the badge I wear every day does not protect me from becoming a patient, or from having my own family fall ill,” she said. “Here, we think about it very simply: ‘I’m going to treat you like you’re part of my own family.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel said that serving on QUILT as a supportive caller is an experience he won’t soon forget.

“The human bond is so accessible if you accept it,” he said. “If someone is an introvert that might not be able to draw out a stranger on the phone, then [he or she] shouldn’t do this [work]. But the fact that you can make a bond with someone that you’re not even seeing in person and know that both sides of this phone call are getting good vibes, that’s a remarkable feeling that I never really knew before, because I’ve never really had to do that before. It brings up feelings like I had after 9/11 – a unified approach to surviving this as people, as a community, the idea that ‘we will get through this,’ even though it’s totally different than anything before. The idea that there’s still hope. Those are things you can’t put a price on.”

An article about how CHAM transformed to provide care to adult COVID-19 patients was published online May 4, 2020, in the Journal of Pediatrics: doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

[email protected]

In late March of 2020, when it became clear that hospitals in the greater New York City area would face a capacity crisis in caring for seriously ill patients with COVID-19, members of the leadership team at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore (CHAM) in the Bronx, N.Y., convened to draft a response plan.

Courtesy Montefiore Health System

The recommendations put into action that day included moving the hospital’s emergency department from the lower level to the fourth floor, increasing the age limit for patients seen in the ED from 21 years of age to 30 and freeing up an entire hospital floor and a half to accommodate the anticipated surge of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Montefiore’s interconnected adult hospital, according to Sarah E. Norris, MD.

“We made multiple moves all at once,” said Dr. Norris, director of pediatric palliative care at CHAM. “It struck everyone as logical that palliative care had to be expanded, because all of the news we had received as the surge came to New York from around the world was full of death and uncertainty, and would require thoughtful conversations about end-of-life wishes at critical times and how to really respect the person and understand their values.”

When Dr. Norris left the leadership team meeting, she returned to her office, put her face in her hands, and sobbed as she began to process the gravity of what was ahead. “I cried because I knew that so many families were going to suffer a heartbreak, no matter how much we could do,” she said.
 

Stitching the QUILT

Over the next few days, Dr. Norris began recruiting colleagues from the large Montefiore Health System – most of whom she did not know – who met criteria for work deployment to expand CHAM’s palliative care program of clinician to 27 clinicians consisting of pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and psychologists, to meet the projected needs of COVID-19 patients and their families.

Some candidates for the effort, known as the Quality in Life Team (QUILT), were 65 years of age or older, considered at high risk for developing COVID-19-related complications themselves. Others were immunocompromised or had medical conditions that would not allow them to have direct contact with COVID-19 patients. “There were also clinicians in other parts of our health system whose practice hours were going to be severely reduced,” said Dr. Norris, who is board-certified in general pediatrics and in hospice and palliative care medicine.

Once she assembled QUILT, members participated in a 1-day rapid training webinar covering the basics of palliative care and grief, and readied themselves for one of three roles: physicians to provide face-to-face palliative care in CHAM; supportive callers to provide support to patients with COVID-19 and their families between 12:00-8:00 p.m. each day; and bereavement callers to reach out to families who lost loved ones to COVID-19 and provide grief counseling for 3 weeks.

“This allows families to have at least two contacts a day from the hospital: one from the medical team that’s giving them technical, medical information, and another from members of the QUILT team,” Dr. Norris said. “We provide support for the worry, anxiety, and fear that we know creeps in when you’re separated from your family member, especially during a pandemic when you watch TV and there’s a death count rising.”

During her early meetings with QUILT members via Zoom or on the phone, Dr. Norris encouraged them to stretch their skill sets and mindsets as they shifted from caring for children and adolescents to mostly adults. “Pediatricians are all about family; that’s why we get into this,” she said. “We’re used to treating your kids, but then, suddenly, the parent becomes our patient, like in COVID-19, or the grandparent becomes our patient. We treat you all the same; you’re part of our family. There has been no adult who has died ‘within our house’ that has died alone. There has either been a staff member at their bedside, or when possible, a family member. We are witnessing life until the last breath here.”
 

‘They have no loved ones with them’

One day, members of CHAM’s medical team contacted Dr. Norris about a patient with COVID-19 who’d been cared for by Montefiore clinicians all of his young life. The boy’s mother, who did not speak English, was at his bedside in the ICU, and the clinicians asked Dr. Norris to speak with her by cell phone while they prepared him for intubation.

“We were looking at each other through a glass window wall in our ICU,” Dr. Norris recalled. “I talked to her the entire time the team worked to put him on the breathing machine, through an interpreter. I asked her to tell me about her son and about her family, and she did. We developed a warm relationship. After that, every day I would see her son through the glass window wall. Every couple of days, I would have the privilege of talking to his mother by phone. At one point, she asked me, ‘Dr. Norris, do you think his lungs will heal?’ I had to tell her no. Almost selfishly, I was relieved we were on the phone, because she cried, and so did I. When he died, she was able to be by his side.”

Frederick J. Kaskel, MD, PhD, joined QUILT as a supportive caller after being asked to go home during his on-call shift on St. Patrick’s Day at CHAM, where he serves as chief emeritus of nephrology. “I was told that I was deemed to be at high risk because of my age,” the 75-year-old said. “The next day, a junior person took over for me, and 2 days later she got sick with COVID-19. She’s fine but she was home for 3 weeks sick as a dog. It was scary.”

In his role as a supportive caller, Dr. Kaskel found himself engaged in his share of detective work, trying to find phone numbers of next of kin for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. “When they come into the ER, they may not have been with a loved one or a family member; they may have been brought in by an EMT,” he said. “Some of them speak little English and others have little documentation with them. It takes a lot of work to get phone numbers.”

Once Dr. Kaskel reaches a loved one by phone, he introduces himself as a member of the QUILT team. “I tell them I’m not calling to update the medical status but just to talk to them about their loved one,” he said. “Then I usually ask, ‘So, how are you doing with this? The stress is enormous, the uncertainties.’ Then they open up and express their fears. I’ve had a lot of people say, ‘we have no money, and I don’t know how we’re going to pay rent for the apartment. We have to line up for food.’ I also ask what they do to alleviate stress. One guy said, ‘I drink a lot, but I’m careful.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel, who is also a past president of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, applies that same personable approach in daily conversations with adult patients hospitalized at CHAM with COVID-19, the majority of whom are African Americans in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. “Invariably, they ask, ‘Has my loved one been updated as to my status?’ ” he said. “The second thing they often say is, ‘I’m worried about infecting other people, but I also worry if I’m going to get through this. I’m really afraid I’m going to die.’ I say, ‘You have a wonderful team keeping track of you. They’re seeing you all the time and making changes to your medicines.’ ”

When patients express their fear of dying from the virus, Dr. Kaskel asks them how they’re coping with that fear. Most tell him that they pray.

“If they don’t answer, I ask if they have any hobbies, like ‘Are you watching TV? Are you reading? Do you have your cell phone?’ ” he said. “Then they open up and say things like, ‘I’m listening to music on the cell phone,’ or ‘I’m FaceTiming with my loved ones.’ The use of FaceTime is crucial, because they are in a hospital, critically ill, potentially dying alone with strangers. This really hit me on the first day [of this work]. They have no loved ones with them. They have strangers: the CHAM nurses, the medical residents, the social workers, and the doctors.”
 

No hospital cheeseburgers

QUILT began its work on April 6, and at one time provided palliative care services for a peak of 92 mostly adult patients with COVID-19. The supportive callers made 249 individual connections with patients and family members by phone from April 6-13, 162 connections from April 13-19, and 130 connections from April 20-26, according to Dr. Norris. As of April 28, the CHAM inpatient census of patients aged 18 years and over with COVID-19 was 42, “and we’re making 130 connections by phone to patients and family members each day,” she said.

QUILT bereavement callers are following 30 families, providing 3 weeks of acute grief counseling from the date of death. “A sad truth is that, here in New York, our entire funeral, burial, cremation system is overwhelmed in volume,” Dr. Norris said. “Only half of the patients we’re following 3 weeks out have been able to have their family member buried or cremated; many are still waiting. What strikes me here is that pediatricians are often partners in care. With time, we’re partners in care in heartbreak, and in the occasional victory. We mourn patients who have died. We’ve had colleagues who died from COVID-19 right here at our hospital. But we stand together like a family.”

Courtesy Dr. Sarah E. Norris

Dr. Norris recalled an older woman who came into CHAM’s ICU on a ventilator, critically ill from COVID-19. She called her husband at home every day with updates. “I got to know her husband, and I got to know her through him,” Dr. Norris said. “We talked every single day and she was able to graduate off of the breathing tube and out of the ICU, which was amazing.” The woman was moved to a floor in the adult hospital, but Dr. Norris continues to visit her and to provide her husband with updates, “because I’m devoted to them,” she said.

Recently, physicians in the adult hospital consulted with Dr. Norris about the woman. “They were trying to figure out what to do with her next,” she said. “Could she go home, or did she need rehab? They said, ‘We called you, Dr. Norris, because her husband thinks he can take her home.’ We know that COVID-19 really weakens people, so I went over to see her myself. I thought, ‘No single person could take care of an adult so weak at home.’ So, I called her husband and said, ‘I’m here with your wife, and I have to tell you; if she were my mother, I couldn’t take her home today. I need you to trust me.’ He said, ‘OK. We trust you and know that you have her best interest at heart.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel relayed the story of an older patient who was slowly recovering from COVID-19. During a phone call, he asked the man if there was anything he wanted at that moment.

“He said, ‘I’d love to see my wife and my children and my grandkids. I know I’m going to see them again, but right now, doc, if you could get me a cheeseburger with lettuce and tomato and ketchup and French fries from outside of the hospital, I’d be the happiest man in the world.’

I said, ‘What’s the matter with the cheeseburger made at the hospital?’

He said, ‘No! They can’t make the cheeseburger I want.’

I promised him I’d relay that message to the social worker responsible for the patient. I told her please, if you buy this for him, I’ll pay you back.”
 

Self-care and the next chapter

Twice each week, QUILT members gather in front of their computer monitors for mandatory Zoom meetings facilitated by two psychologists to share challenges, best practices, and to discuss the difficult work they’re doing. “We meet, because you cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself,” Dr. Norris said. “We have been encouraged each and every meeting to practice self-compassion, and to recognize that things happen during a pandemic – some will be the best you can do.”

She described organizing and serving on QUILT as a grounding experience with important lessons for the delivery of health care after the pandemic subsides and the team members return to their respective practices. “I think we’ve all gained a greater sense of humility, and we understand that the badge I wear every day does not protect me from becoming a patient, or from having my own family fall ill,” she said. “Here, we think about it very simply: ‘I’m going to treat you like you’re part of my own family.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel said that serving on QUILT as a supportive caller is an experience he won’t soon forget.

“The human bond is so accessible if you accept it,” he said. “If someone is an introvert that might not be able to draw out a stranger on the phone, then [he or she] shouldn’t do this [work]. But the fact that you can make a bond with someone that you’re not even seeing in person and know that both sides of this phone call are getting good vibes, that’s a remarkable feeling that I never really knew before, because I’ve never really had to do that before. It brings up feelings like I had after 9/11 – a unified approach to surviving this as people, as a community, the idea that ‘we will get through this,’ even though it’s totally different than anything before. The idea that there’s still hope. Those are things you can’t put a price on.”

An article about how CHAM transformed to provide care to adult COVID-19 patients was published online May 4, 2020, in the Journal of Pediatrics: doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

[email protected]

In late March of 2020, when it became clear that hospitals in the greater New York City area would face a capacity crisis in caring for seriously ill patients with COVID-19, members of the leadership team at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore (CHAM) in the Bronx, N.Y., convened to draft a response plan.

Courtesy Montefiore Health System

The recommendations put into action that day included moving the hospital’s emergency department from the lower level to the fourth floor, increasing the age limit for patients seen in the ED from 21 years of age to 30 and freeing up an entire hospital floor and a half to accommodate the anticipated surge of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Montefiore’s interconnected adult hospital, according to Sarah E. Norris, MD.

“We made multiple moves all at once,” said Dr. Norris, director of pediatric palliative care at CHAM. “It struck everyone as logical that palliative care had to be expanded, because all of the news we had received as the surge came to New York from around the world was full of death and uncertainty, and would require thoughtful conversations about end-of-life wishes at critical times and how to really respect the person and understand their values.”

When Dr. Norris left the leadership team meeting, she returned to her office, put her face in her hands, and sobbed as she began to process the gravity of what was ahead. “I cried because I knew that so many families were going to suffer a heartbreak, no matter how much we could do,” she said.
 

Stitching the QUILT

Over the next few days, Dr. Norris began recruiting colleagues from the large Montefiore Health System – most of whom she did not know – who met criteria for work deployment to expand CHAM’s palliative care program of clinician to 27 clinicians consisting of pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and psychologists, to meet the projected needs of COVID-19 patients and their families.

Some candidates for the effort, known as the Quality in Life Team (QUILT), were 65 years of age or older, considered at high risk for developing COVID-19-related complications themselves. Others were immunocompromised or had medical conditions that would not allow them to have direct contact with COVID-19 patients. “There were also clinicians in other parts of our health system whose practice hours were going to be severely reduced,” said Dr. Norris, who is board-certified in general pediatrics and in hospice and palliative care medicine.

Once she assembled QUILT, members participated in a 1-day rapid training webinar covering the basics of palliative care and grief, and readied themselves for one of three roles: physicians to provide face-to-face palliative care in CHAM; supportive callers to provide support to patients with COVID-19 and their families between 12:00-8:00 p.m. each day; and bereavement callers to reach out to families who lost loved ones to COVID-19 and provide grief counseling for 3 weeks.

“This allows families to have at least two contacts a day from the hospital: one from the medical team that’s giving them technical, medical information, and another from members of the QUILT team,” Dr. Norris said. “We provide support for the worry, anxiety, and fear that we know creeps in when you’re separated from your family member, especially during a pandemic when you watch TV and there’s a death count rising.”

During her early meetings with QUILT members via Zoom or on the phone, Dr. Norris encouraged them to stretch their skill sets and mindsets as they shifted from caring for children and adolescents to mostly adults. “Pediatricians are all about family; that’s why we get into this,” she said. “We’re used to treating your kids, but then, suddenly, the parent becomes our patient, like in COVID-19, or the grandparent becomes our patient. We treat you all the same; you’re part of our family. There has been no adult who has died ‘within our house’ that has died alone. There has either been a staff member at their bedside, or when possible, a family member. We are witnessing life until the last breath here.”
 

‘They have no loved ones with them’

One day, members of CHAM’s medical team contacted Dr. Norris about a patient with COVID-19 who’d been cared for by Montefiore clinicians all of his young life. The boy’s mother, who did not speak English, was at his bedside in the ICU, and the clinicians asked Dr. Norris to speak with her by cell phone while they prepared him for intubation.

“We were looking at each other through a glass window wall in our ICU,” Dr. Norris recalled. “I talked to her the entire time the team worked to put him on the breathing machine, through an interpreter. I asked her to tell me about her son and about her family, and she did. We developed a warm relationship. After that, every day I would see her son through the glass window wall. Every couple of days, I would have the privilege of talking to his mother by phone. At one point, she asked me, ‘Dr. Norris, do you think his lungs will heal?’ I had to tell her no. Almost selfishly, I was relieved we were on the phone, because she cried, and so did I. When he died, she was able to be by his side.”

Frederick J. Kaskel, MD, PhD, joined QUILT as a supportive caller after being asked to go home during his on-call shift on St. Patrick’s Day at CHAM, where he serves as chief emeritus of nephrology. “I was told that I was deemed to be at high risk because of my age,” the 75-year-old said. “The next day, a junior person took over for me, and 2 days later she got sick with COVID-19. She’s fine but she was home for 3 weeks sick as a dog. It was scary.”

In his role as a supportive caller, Dr. Kaskel found himself engaged in his share of detective work, trying to find phone numbers of next of kin for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. “When they come into the ER, they may not have been with a loved one or a family member; they may have been brought in by an EMT,” he said. “Some of them speak little English and others have little documentation with them. It takes a lot of work to get phone numbers.”

Once Dr. Kaskel reaches a loved one by phone, he introduces himself as a member of the QUILT team. “I tell them I’m not calling to update the medical status but just to talk to them about their loved one,” he said. “Then I usually ask, ‘So, how are you doing with this? The stress is enormous, the uncertainties.’ Then they open up and express their fears. I’ve had a lot of people say, ‘we have no money, and I don’t know how we’re going to pay rent for the apartment. We have to line up for food.’ I also ask what they do to alleviate stress. One guy said, ‘I drink a lot, but I’m careful.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel, who is also a past president of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, applies that same personable approach in daily conversations with adult patients hospitalized at CHAM with COVID-19, the majority of whom are African Americans in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. “Invariably, they ask, ‘Has my loved one been updated as to my status?’ ” he said. “The second thing they often say is, ‘I’m worried about infecting other people, but I also worry if I’m going to get through this. I’m really afraid I’m going to die.’ I say, ‘You have a wonderful team keeping track of you. They’re seeing you all the time and making changes to your medicines.’ ”

When patients express their fear of dying from the virus, Dr. Kaskel asks them how they’re coping with that fear. Most tell him that they pray.

“If they don’t answer, I ask if they have any hobbies, like ‘Are you watching TV? Are you reading? Do you have your cell phone?’ ” he said. “Then they open up and say things like, ‘I’m listening to music on the cell phone,’ or ‘I’m FaceTiming with my loved ones.’ The use of FaceTime is crucial, because they are in a hospital, critically ill, potentially dying alone with strangers. This really hit me on the first day [of this work]. They have no loved ones with them. They have strangers: the CHAM nurses, the medical residents, the social workers, and the doctors.”
 

No hospital cheeseburgers

QUILT began its work on April 6, and at one time provided palliative care services for a peak of 92 mostly adult patients with COVID-19. The supportive callers made 249 individual connections with patients and family members by phone from April 6-13, 162 connections from April 13-19, and 130 connections from April 20-26, according to Dr. Norris. As of April 28, the CHAM inpatient census of patients aged 18 years and over with COVID-19 was 42, “and we’re making 130 connections by phone to patients and family members each day,” she said.

QUILT bereavement callers are following 30 families, providing 3 weeks of acute grief counseling from the date of death. “A sad truth is that, here in New York, our entire funeral, burial, cremation system is overwhelmed in volume,” Dr. Norris said. “Only half of the patients we’re following 3 weeks out have been able to have their family member buried or cremated; many are still waiting. What strikes me here is that pediatricians are often partners in care. With time, we’re partners in care in heartbreak, and in the occasional victory. We mourn patients who have died. We’ve had colleagues who died from COVID-19 right here at our hospital. But we stand together like a family.”

Courtesy Dr. Sarah E. Norris

Dr. Norris recalled an older woman who came into CHAM’s ICU on a ventilator, critically ill from COVID-19. She called her husband at home every day with updates. “I got to know her husband, and I got to know her through him,” Dr. Norris said. “We talked every single day and she was able to graduate off of the breathing tube and out of the ICU, which was amazing.” The woman was moved to a floor in the adult hospital, but Dr. Norris continues to visit her and to provide her husband with updates, “because I’m devoted to them,” she said.

Recently, physicians in the adult hospital consulted with Dr. Norris about the woman. “They were trying to figure out what to do with her next,” she said. “Could she go home, or did she need rehab? They said, ‘We called you, Dr. Norris, because her husband thinks he can take her home.’ We know that COVID-19 really weakens people, so I went over to see her myself. I thought, ‘No single person could take care of an adult so weak at home.’ So, I called her husband and said, ‘I’m here with your wife, and I have to tell you; if she were my mother, I couldn’t take her home today. I need you to trust me.’ He said, ‘OK. We trust you and know that you have her best interest at heart.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel relayed the story of an older patient who was slowly recovering from COVID-19. During a phone call, he asked the man if there was anything he wanted at that moment.

“He said, ‘I’d love to see my wife and my children and my grandkids. I know I’m going to see them again, but right now, doc, if you could get me a cheeseburger with lettuce and tomato and ketchup and French fries from outside of the hospital, I’d be the happiest man in the world.’

I said, ‘What’s the matter with the cheeseburger made at the hospital?’

He said, ‘No! They can’t make the cheeseburger I want.’

I promised him I’d relay that message to the social worker responsible for the patient. I told her please, if you buy this for him, I’ll pay you back.”
 

Self-care and the next chapter

Twice each week, QUILT members gather in front of their computer monitors for mandatory Zoom meetings facilitated by two psychologists to share challenges, best practices, and to discuss the difficult work they’re doing. “We meet, because you cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself,” Dr. Norris said. “We have been encouraged each and every meeting to practice self-compassion, and to recognize that things happen during a pandemic – some will be the best you can do.”

She described organizing and serving on QUILT as a grounding experience with important lessons for the delivery of health care after the pandemic subsides and the team members return to their respective practices. “I think we’ve all gained a greater sense of humility, and we understand that the badge I wear every day does not protect me from becoming a patient, or from having my own family fall ill,” she said. “Here, we think about it very simply: ‘I’m going to treat you like you’re part of my own family.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel said that serving on QUILT as a supportive caller is an experience he won’t soon forget.

“The human bond is so accessible if you accept it,” he said. “If someone is an introvert that might not be able to draw out a stranger on the phone, then [he or she] shouldn’t do this [work]. But the fact that you can make a bond with someone that you’re not even seeing in person and know that both sides of this phone call are getting good vibes, that’s a remarkable feeling that I never really knew before, because I’ve never really had to do that before. It brings up feelings like I had after 9/11 – a unified approach to surviving this as people, as a community, the idea that ‘we will get through this,’ even though it’s totally different than anything before. The idea that there’s still hope. Those are things you can’t put a price on.”

An article about how CHAM transformed to provide care to adult COVID-19 patients was published online May 4, 2020, in the Journal of Pediatrics: doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

[email protected]

While working in health care has never been easy, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought on an entirely new dimension to the challenges that clinicians face. Many of the daily concerns we once had now pale in comparison with the weight of this historic pandemic. Anxiety about the survival of our patients is compounded by our own physical and emotional exhaustion, concern for our loved ones, and fear for our own safety while on the front lines. Through this seemingly insurmountable array of challenges, survival mode kicks in. We come into the hospital every day, put on our mask and gowns, and focus on providing the care we’ve been trained for. That’s what we do best – keeping on.

However, the sheer volume of patients grows by the day, including those who are critically ill and ventilated. With hundreds of deaths every day in New York City, and ICUs filled beyond three times capacity, our frontline clinicians are overstretched, exhausted, and in need of additional help. Emergency codes are called overhead at staggering frequencies. Our colleagues on the front lines are unfortunately becoming sick themselves, and those who are healthy are working extra shifts, at a pace they can only keep up for so long.

The heartbreaking reality of this pandemic is that our connection with our patients and families is fading amid the chaos. Many infection prevention policies prohibit families from physically visiting the hospitals. The scariest parts of a hospitalization – gasping for air, before intubation, and the final moments before death – are tragically occurring alone. The support we are able to give occurs behind masks and fogged goggles. There’s not a clinician I know who doesn’t want better for patients and families – and we can mobilize to do so.

At NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest public health system in the United States, and a hot zone of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve taken major steps to mitigate this tragedy. Our palliative care clinicians have stepped up to help reconnect the patients with their families. We secured hundreds of tablets to enable video calls, and improved inpatient work flows to facilitate updates to families. We bolstered support from our palliative care clinicians to our ICU teams and are expanding capacity to initiate goals of care conversations earlier, through automatic triggers and proactive discussions with our hospitalist teams. Last but certainly not least, we are calling out across the country for our willing colleagues who can volunteer their time remotely via telehealth to support our patients, families, and staff here in NYC Health + Hospitals.

We have been encouraged by the resolve and commitment of our friends and colleagues from all corners of the country. NYC Health + Hospitals is receiving many brave volunteers who are rising to the call and assisting in whatever way they can. If you are proficient in goals-of-care conversations and/or trained in palliative care and willing, please sign up here to volunteer remotely via telemedicine. We are still in the beginning of this war; this struggle will continue for months even after public eye has turned away. Our patients and frontline staff need your help.

Thank you and stay safe.
 

Dr. Cho is chief value officer at NYC Health + Hospitals, and clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University. He is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. Ms. Israilov is the inaugural Quality and Safety Student Scholar at NYC Health + Hospitals. She is an MD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

While working in health care has never been easy, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought on an entirely new dimension to the challenges that clinicians face. Many of the daily concerns we once had now pale in comparison with the weight of this historic pandemic. Anxiety about the survival of our patients is compounded by our own physical and emotional exhaustion, concern for our loved ones, and fear for our own safety while on the front lines. Through this seemingly insurmountable array of challenges, survival mode kicks in. We come into the hospital every day, put on our mask and gowns, and focus on providing the care we’ve been trained for. That’s what we do best – keeping on.

However, the sheer volume of patients grows by the day, including those who are critically ill and ventilated. With hundreds of deaths every day in New York City, and ICUs filled beyond three times capacity, our frontline clinicians are overstretched, exhausted, and in need of additional help. Emergency codes are called overhead at staggering frequencies. Our colleagues on the front lines are unfortunately becoming sick themselves, and those who are healthy are working extra shifts, at a pace they can only keep up for so long.

The heartbreaking reality of this pandemic is that our connection with our patients and families is fading amid the chaos. Many infection prevention policies prohibit families from physically visiting the hospitals. The scariest parts of a hospitalization – gasping for air, before intubation, and the final moments before death – are tragically occurring alone. The support we are able to give occurs behind masks and fogged goggles. There’s not a clinician I know who doesn’t want better for patients and families – and we can mobilize to do so.

At NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest public health system in the United States, and a hot zone of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve taken major steps to mitigate this tragedy. Our palliative care clinicians have stepped up to help reconnect the patients with their families. We secured hundreds of tablets to enable video calls, and improved inpatient work flows to facilitate updates to families. We bolstered support from our palliative care clinicians to our ICU teams and are expanding capacity to initiate goals of care conversations earlier, through automatic triggers and proactive discussions with our hospitalist teams. Last but certainly not least, we are calling out across the country for our willing colleagues who can volunteer their time remotely via telehealth to support our patients, families, and staff here in NYC Health + Hospitals.

We have been encouraged by the resolve and commitment of our friends and colleagues from all corners of the country. NYC Health + Hospitals is receiving many brave volunteers who are rising to the call and assisting in whatever way they can. If you are proficient in goals-of-care conversations and/or trained in palliative care and willing, please sign up here to volunteer remotely via telemedicine. We are still in the beginning of this war; this struggle will continue for months even after public eye has turned away. Our patients and frontline staff need your help.

Thank you and stay safe.
 

Dr. Cho is chief value officer at NYC Health + Hospitals, and clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University. He is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. Ms. Israilov is the inaugural Quality and Safety Student Scholar at NYC Health + Hospitals. She is an MD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

While working in health care has never been easy, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought on an entirely new dimension to the challenges that clinicians face. Many of the daily concerns we once had now pale in comparison with the weight of this historic pandemic. Anxiety about the survival of our patients is compounded by our own physical and emotional exhaustion, concern for our loved ones, and fear for our own safety while on the front lines. Through this seemingly insurmountable array of challenges, survival mode kicks in. We come into the hospital every day, put on our mask and gowns, and focus on providing the care we’ve been trained for. That’s what we do best – keeping on.

However, the sheer volume of patients grows by the day, including those who are critically ill and ventilated. With hundreds of deaths every day in New York City, and ICUs filled beyond three times capacity, our frontline clinicians are overstretched, exhausted, and in need of additional help. Emergency codes are called overhead at staggering frequencies. Our colleagues on the front lines are unfortunately becoming sick themselves, and those who are healthy are working extra shifts, at a pace they can only keep up for so long.

The heartbreaking reality of this pandemic is that our connection with our patients and families is fading amid the chaos. Many infection prevention policies prohibit families from physically visiting the hospitals. The scariest parts of a hospitalization – gasping for air, before intubation, and the final moments before death – are tragically occurring alone. The support we are able to give occurs behind masks and fogged goggles. There’s not a clinician I know who doesn’t want better for patients and families – and we can mobilize to do so.

At NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest public health system in the United States, and a hot zone of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve taken major steps to mitigate this tragedy. Our palliative care clinicians have stepped up to help reconnect the patients with their families. We secured hundreds of tablets to enable video calls, and improved inpatient work flows to facilitate updates to families. We bolstered support from our palliative care clinicians to our ICU teams and are expanding capacity to initiate goals of care conversations earlier, through automatic triggers and proactive discussions with our hospitalist teams. Last but certainly not least, we are calling out across the country for our willing colleagues who can volunteer their time remotely via telehealth to support our patients, families, and staff here in NYC Health + Hospitals.

We have been encouraged by the resolve and commitment of our friends and colleagues from all corners of the country. NYC Health + Hospitals is receiving many brave volunteers who are rising to the call and assisting in whatever way they can. If you are proficient in goals-of-care conversations and/or trained in palliative care and willing, please sign up here to volunteer remotely via telemedicine. We are still in the beginning of this war; this struggle will continue for months even after public eye has turned away. Our patients and frontline staff need your help.

Thank you and stay safe.
 

Dr. Cho is chief value officer at NYC Health + Hospitals, and clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University. He is a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. Ms. Israilov is the inaugural Quality and Safety Student Scholar at NYC Health + Hospitals. She is an MD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

After 12 months of receiving palliative care in an outpatient setting in addition to standard care, patients with Parkinson’s disease and related disorders (PDRD) had improved quality of life (QoL), compared with patients who received standard care alone, according to results from a randomized clinical trial in JAMA Neurology.

The benefits of palliative care even extended to patients’ caregivers, who also appeared to benefit from outpatient palliative care at the 12-month mark, according to lead author Benzi M. Kluger, MD, of the department of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

Between November 2015 and September 2017, Dr. Kluger and colleagues included 210 patients into the trial from three participating academic tertiary care centers who had “moderate to high palliative care needs” as assessed by the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Tool, which the researchers said are “common reasons for referral” and “reflect a desire to meet patient-centered needs rather than disease-centered markers.” Patients were primarily non-Hispanic white men with a mean age of about 70 years. The researchers also included 175 caregivers in the trial, most of whom were women, spouses to the patients, and in their caregiver role for over 5.5 years.

Patients with PDRD were randomized to receive standard care – usual care through their primary care physician and a neurologist – or “integrated outpatient palliative care,” from a team consisting of a palliative neurologist, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and board-certified palliative medicine physician. The goal of palliative care was addressing “nonmotor symptoms, goals of care, anticipatory guidance, difficult emotions, and caregiver support,” which patients received every 3 months through an in-person outpatient visit or telemedicine.

Quality of life for patients was measured through the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale, and caregiver burden was assessed with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12). The researchers also measured symptom burden and other QoL measures using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale–Revised for Parkinson’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Prolonged Grief Disorder questionnaire, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being.

Overall, 87 of 105 (82.1%) of patients in the palliative care group went to all their outpatient palliative care visits, and 19 of 106 (17.9%) patients received palliative care through telemedicine. Patients in the palliative care group also attended more neurology visits (4.66 visits) than those in the standard care (3.16 visits) group.

Quality of life significantly improved for patients in the palliative care group, compared with patients receiving standard care only at 6 months (0.66 vs. –0.84; between-group difference, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-3.27; P = .009) and at 12 months (0.68 vs. –0.42; between-group difference, 1.36; 95% CI, −0.01 to 2.73; P = .05). These results remained significant at 6 months and 12 months after researchers used multiple imputation to fill in missing data. While there was no significant difference in caregiver burden between groups at 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference at 12 months favoring the palliative care group (between-group difference, −2.60; 95% CI, −4.58 to −0.61; P = .01).

Patients receiving palliative care also had better nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, and were more likely to complete advance directives, compared with patients receiving standard care alone. “We hypothesize that motor improvements may have reflected an unanticipated benefit of our palliative care team’s general goal of encouraging activities that promoted joy, meaning, and connection,” Dr. Kluger and colleagues said. Researchers also noted that the intervention patients with greater need for palliative care tended to benefit more than patients with patients with lower palliative care needs.

“Because the palliative care intervention is time-intensive and resource-intensive, future studies should optimize triage tools and consider alternative models of care delivery, such as telemedicine or care navigators, to provide key aspects of the intervention at lower cost,” they said.

In a related editorial, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, from the Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, at Radboud University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, and colleagues acknowledged that the study by Kluger et al. is “timely and practical” because it introduces a system for outpatient palliative care for patients with PDRD at a time when there is “growing awareness that palliative care may also benefit persons with neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.”

The study is also important because it highlights that patients at varying stages of disease, including mild disease, may benefit from an integrated outpatient palliative model, which is not usually considered when determining candidates for palliative care in other scenarios, such as in patients with cancer. Future studies are warranted to assess how palliative care models can be implemented in different disease states and health care settings, they said.

“These new studies should continue to highlight the fact that palliative care is not about terminal diseases and dying,” Dr. Bloem and colleagues concluded. “As Kluger and colleagues indicate in their important clinical trial, palliative care is about how to live well.”

Six authors reported receiving a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was the funding source for the study. Two authors reported receiving grants from the University Hospital Foundation during the study. One author reported receiving grants from Allergan and Merz Pharma and is a consultant for GE Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals; another reported receiving grants from the Archstone Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, the Cambia Health Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the Stupski Foundation, and the UniHealth Foundation. Dr. Bloem and a colleague reported their institution received a center of excellence grant from the Parkinson’s Foundation.

SOURCE: Kluger B et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4992.

After 12 months of receiving palliative care in an outpatient setting in addition to standard care, patients with Parkinson’s disease and related disorders (PDRD) had improved quality of life (QoL), compared with patients who received standard care alone, according to results from a randomized clinical trial in JAMA Neurology.

The benefits of palliative care even extended to patients’ caregivers, who also appeared to benefit from outpatient palliative care at the 12-month mark, according to lead author Benzi M. Kluger, MD, of the department of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

Between November 2015 and September 2017, Dr. Kluger and colleagues included 210 patients into the trial from three participating academic tertiary care centers who had “moderate to high palliative care needs” as assessed by the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Tool, which the researchers said are “common reasons for referral” and “reflect a desire to meet patient-centered needs rather than disease-centered markers.” Patients were primarily non-Hispanic white men with a mean age of about 70 years. The researchers also included 175 caregivers in the trial, most of whom were women, spouses to the patients, and in their caregiver role for over 5.5 years.

Patients with PDRD were randomized to receive standard care – usual care through their primary care physician and a neurologist – or “integrated outpatient palliative care,” from a team consisting of a palliative neurologist, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and board-certified palliative medicine physician. The goal of palliative care was addressing “nonmotor symptoms, goals of care, anticipatory guidance, difficult emotions, and caregiver support,” which patients received every 3 months through an in-person outpatient visit or telemedicine.

Quality of life for patients was measured through the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale, and caregiver burden was assessed with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12). The researchers also measured symptom burden and other QoL measures using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale–Revised for Parkinson’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Prolonged Grief Disorder questionnaire, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being.

Overall, 87 of 105 (82.1%) of patients in the palliative care group went to all their outpatient palliative care visits, and 19 of 106 (17.9%) patients received palliative care through telemedicine. Patients in the palliative care group also attended more neurology visits (4.66 visits) than those in the standard care (3.16 visits) group.

Quality of life significantly improved for patients in the palliative care group, compared with patients receiving standard care only at 6 months (0.66 vs. –0.84; between-group difference, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-3.27; P = .009) and at 12 months (0.68 vs. –0.42; between-group difference, 1.36; 95% CI, −0.01 to 2.73; P = .05). These results remained significant at 6 months and 12 months after researchers used multiple imputation to fill in missing data. While there was no significant difference in caregiver burden between groups at 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference at 12 months favoring the palliative care group (between-group difference, −2.60; 95% CI, −4.58 to −0.61; P = .01).

Patients receiving palliative care also had better nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, and were more likely to complete advance directives, compared with patients receiving standard care alone. “We hypothesize that motor improvements may have reflected an unanticipated benefit of our palliative care team’s general goal of encouraging activities that promoted joy, meaning, and connection,” Dr. Kluger and colleagues said. Researchers also noted that the intervention patients with greater need for palliative care tended to benefit more than patients with patients with lower palliative care needs.

“Because the palliative care intervention is time-intensive and resource-intensive, future studies should optimize triage tools and consider alternative models of care delivery, such as telemedicine or care navigators, to provide key aspects of the intervention at lower cost,” they said.

In a related editorial, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, from the Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, at Radboud University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, and colleagues acknowledged that the study by Kluger et al. is “timely and practical” because it introduces a system for outpatient palliative care for patients with PDRD at a time when there is “growing awareness that palliative care may also benefit persons with neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.”

The study is also important because it highlights that patients at varying stages of disease, including mild disease, may benefit from an integrated outpatient palliative model, which is not usually considered when determining candidates for palliative care in other scenarios, such as in patients with cancer. Future studies are warranted to assess how palliative care models can be implemented in different disease states and health care settings, they said.

“These new studies should continue to highlight the fact that palliative care is not about terminal diseases and dying,” Dr. Bloem and colleagues concluded. “As Kluger and colleagues indicate in their important clinical trial, palliative care is about how to live well.”

Six authors reported receiving a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was the funding source for the study. Two authors reported receiving grants from the University Hospital Foundation during the study. One author reported receiving grants from Allergan and Merz Pharma and is a consultant for GE Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals; another reported receiving grants from the Archstone Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, the Cambia Health Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the Stupski Foundation, and the UniHealth Foundation. Dr. Bloem and a colleague reported their institution received a center of excellence grant from the Parkinson’s Foundation.

SOURCE: Kluger B et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4992.

After 12 months of receiving palliative care in an outpatient setting in addition to standard care, patients with Parkinson’s disease and related disorders (PDRD) had improved quality of life (QoL), compared with patients who received standard care alone, according to results from a randomized clinical trial in JAMA Neurology.

The benefits of palliative care even extended to patients’ caregivers, who also appeared to benefit from outpatient palliative care at the 12-month mark, according to lead author Benzi M. Kluger, MD, of the department of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

Between November 2015 and September 2017, Dr. Kluger and colleagues included 210 patients into the trial from three participating academic tertiary care centers who had “moderate to high palliative care needs” as assessed by the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Tool, which the researchers said are “common reasons for referral” and “reflect a desire to meet patient-centered needs rather than disease-centered markers.” Patients were primarily non-Hispanic white men with a mean age of about 70 years. The researchers also included 175 caregivers in the trial, most of whom were women, spouses to the patients, and in their caregiver role for over 5.5 years.

Patients with PDRD were randomized to receive standard care – usual care through their primary care physician and a neurologist – or “integrated outpatient palliative care,” from a team consisting of a palliative neurologist, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and board-certified palliative medicine physician. The goal of palliative care was addressing “nonmotor symptoms, goals of care, anticipatory guidance, difficult emotions, and caregiver support,” which patients received every 3 months through an in-person outpatient visit or telemedicine.

Quality of life for patients was measured through the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale, and caregiver burden was assessed with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12). The researchers also measured symptom burden and other QoL measures using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale–Revised for Parkinson’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Prolonged Grief Disorder questionnaire, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being.

Overall, 87 of 105 (82.1%) of patients in the palliative care group went to all their outpatient palliative care visits, and 19 of 106 (17.9%) patients received palliative care through telemedicine. Patients in the palliative care group also attended more neurology visits (4.66 visits) than those in the standard care (3.16 visits) group.

Quality of life significantly improved for patients in the palliative care group, compared with patients receiving standard care only at 6 months (0.66 vs. –0.84; between-group difference, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-3.27; P = .009) and at 12 months (0.68 vs. –0.42; between-group difference, 1.36; 95% CI, −0.01 to 2.73; P = .05). These results remained significant at 6 months and 12 months after researchers used multiple imputation to fill in missing data. While there was no significant difference in caregiver burden between groups at 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference at 12 months favoring the palliative care group (between-group difference, −2.60; 95% CI, −4.58 to −0.61; P = .01).

Patients receiving palliative care also had better nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, and were more likely to complete advance directives, compared with patients receiving standard care alone. “We hypothesize that motor improvements may have reflected an unanticipated benefit of our palliative care team’s general goal of encouraging activities that promoted joy, meaning, and connection,” Dr. Kluger and colleagues said. Researchers also noted that the intervention patients with greater need for palliative care tended to benefit more than patients with patients with lower palliative care needs.

“Because the palliative care intervention is time-intensive and resource-intensive, future studies should optimize triage tools and consider alternative models of care delivery, such as telemedicine or care navigators, to provide key aspects of the intervention at lower cost,” they said.

In a related editorial, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, from the Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, at Radboud University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, and colleagues acknowledged that the study by Kluger et al. is “timely and practical” because it introduces a system for outpatient palliative care for patients with PDRD at a time when there is “growing awareness that palliative care may also benefit persons with neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.”

The study is also important because it highlights that patients at varying stages of disease, including mild disease, may benefit from an integrated outpatient palliative model, which is not usually considered when determining candidates for palliative care in other scenarios, such as in patients with cancer. Future studies are warranted to assess how palliative care models can be implemented in different disease states and health care settings, they said.

“These new studies should continue to highlight the fact that palliative care is not about terminal diseases and dying,” Dr. Bloem and colleagues concluded. “As Kluger and colleagues indicate in their important clinical trial, palliative care is about how to live well.”

Six authors reported receiving a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was the funding source for the study. Two authors reported receiving grants from the University Hospital Foundation during the study. One author reported receiving grants from Allergan and Merz Pharma and is a consultant for GE Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals; another reported receiving grants from the Archstone Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, the Cambia Health Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the Stupski Foundation, and the UniHealth Foundation. Dr. Bloem and a colleague reported their institution received a center of excellence grant from the Parkinson’s Foundation.

SOURCE: Kluger B et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4992.

A Vietnam veteran steered clear of the health care system for years, then showed up at the hospital with pneumonia and respiratory failure. He was whisked to the intensive care unit, and cancerous masses were found.

The situation – as described by Jeffrey Frank, MD, director of quality and performance at Vituity, a physician group in Emeryville, Calif. – then got worse.

“No one was there for him,” Dr. Frank said. “He’s laying in the ICU, he does not have the capacity to make decisions, let alone communicate. So the care team needs guidance.”

Too often, hospitalists find themselves in confusing situations involving patients near the end of their lives, having to determine how to go about treating a patient or withholding treatment when patients are not in a position to announce their wishes. When family is present, the health care team thinks the most sensible course of treatment is at odds with what the family wants to be done.

At the Society of Hospital Medicine 2019 Annual Conference, hospitalists with palliative care training offered advice on how to go about handling these difficult situations, which can sometimes become more manageable with certain strategies.

For situations in which there is no designated representative to speak for a patient who is unresponsive – the so-called “unbefriended patient” or “unrepresented patient” – any source of information can be valuable. And health care providers should seek out this input, Dr. Frank said.

“When there is a visitor at the bedside, and as long as they know the person, and they can start giving the medical providers some information about what the patient would have wanted, most of us will talk with that person and that’s actually a good habit,” he said.

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have regulations on whom health care providers should talk to when there is no obvious representative, Dr. Frank said, noting that most of these regulations follow a classic family-tree order. But in the discouraging results of many surveys of health care providers on the subject, most clinicians say that they do not know the regulations in their state, Dr. Frank said. But he said such results betray a silver lining because clinicians say that they would be inclined to use a family tree–style hierarchy in deciding with whom they should speak about end of life decisions.

Hospitalists should at least know whether their hospital has a policy on unrepresented patients, Dr. Frank said.

“That’s your road map on how to get through consenting this patient – what am I going to do with Mr. Smith?” he said. “You may ask yourself, ‘Do I just keep treating him and treating him?’ If you have a policy at your hospital, it will protect you from liability, as well as give you a sense of process.”
 

Conflicts in communication

An even worse situation, perhaps, is one that many hospitalists have seen: A patient is teetering at the edge of life, and a spouse arrives, along with two daughters from out of state who have not seen their father in a year, said Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, director of the ethics curriculum at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“The family requests that the medical team do everything, including intubation and attempts at resuscitation if needed,” she said. “The family says he was fine prior to this admission. Another thing I hear a lot is, ‘He was even sicker than this last year, and he got better.’ ”

Meanwhile, “the medical team consensus is that he is not going to survive this illness,” Dr. Gundersen said.

The situation is so common and problematic that it has a name – the “Daughter from California Syndrome.” (According to medical literature says, it’s called the “Daughter from Chicago Syndrome” in California.)

“This is one of the most agonizing things that happens to us in medicine,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It affects us, it affects our nurses, it affects the entire medical team. It’s agonizing when we feel like treatment has somehow turned to torture.”

Dr. Gundersen said the medical staff should avoid using the word “futile,” or similar language, with families.

“Words matter,” she said. “Inappropriate language can inadvertently convey the feeling that, ‘They’re giving up on my dad – they think it’s hopeless.’ That can make families and the medical team dig in their heels further.”

Sometimes it can be hard to define the terms of decision making. Even if the family and the medical team can agree that no “nonbeneficial treatments” should be administered, Dr. Gundersen said, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean less than a 1% chance of working; less than a 5% chance?

If the medical staff thinks a mode of care won’t be effective, but the family still insists, some states have laws that could help the medical team. In Texas, for example, if the medical team thinks the care they’re giving isn’t helping the patient, and the patient is likely going to have a poor outcome, there’s a legal process that the team can go through, Dr. Gundersen said. But even these laws are seen as potentially problematic because of concerns that they put too much power in the hands of a hospital committee.

Dr. Gundersen strongly advised getting at the root causes of a family’s apprehension. They might not have been informed early enough about the dire nature of an illness to feel they can make a decision comfortably. They also may be receiving information in a piecemeal manner or information that is inconsistent. Another common fear expressed by families is a concern over abandonment by the medical team if a decision is made to forgo a certain treatment. Also, sometimes the goals of care might not be properly detailed and discussed, she said.

But better communication can help overcome these snags, Dr. Gundersen said.

She suggested that sometimes it’s helpful to clarify things with the family, for example, what do they mean by “Do everything”?

“Does it mean ‘I want you to do everything to prolong their life even if they suffer,’ or does it mean ‘I want you do to everything that’s reasonable to try to prolong their life but not at the risk of increased suffering,’ or anywhere in between. Really just having these clarifying conversations is helpful.”

She also emphasized the importance of talking about interests, such as not wanting a patient to suffer, instead of taking positions, such as flatly recommending the withdrawal of treatment.

“It’s easy for both sides to kind of dig in their heels and not communicate effectively,” Dr. Gundersen said.
 

‘Emotional torture’

There are times when, no matter how skillfully the medical team communicates, they stand at an impasse with the family.

“This is emotional torture for us,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It’s moral distress. We kind of dread these situations. In these cases, trying to support yourself and your team emotionally is the most important thing.”

Ami Doshi, MD, director of palliative care inpatient services at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, described the case of a baby girl that touched on the especially painful issues that can arise in pediatric cases. The 2-month-old girl had been born after a pregnancy affected by polyhydramnios and had an abnormal neurological exam and brain MRI, as well as congenital abnormalities. She’d been intubated for respiratory failure and was now on high-flow nasal cannula therapy. The girl was intolerant to feeding and was put on a nasojejunal feeding tube and then a gastrostomy-jejunostomy tube.

But the baby’s vomiting continued, and she had bradycardia and hypoxia so severe she needed bag mask ventilation to recover. The mother started to feel like she was “torturing” the baby.

The family decided to stop respiratory support but to continue artificial nutrition and hydration, which Dr. Doshi said, has an elevated status in the human psyche. Mentioning discontinuing feeding is fraught with complexity, she said.

“The notion of feeding is such a basic instinct, especially with a baby, that tackling the notion of discontinuing any sort of feeds, orally or tube feeds, is fraught with emotion and angst at times,” Dr. Doshi said.

The girl had respiratory events but recovered from them on her own, but the vomiting and retching continued. Eventually the artificial nutrition and hydration was stopped. But after 5 days, the medical staff began feeling uncomfortable, Dr. Doshi said. “We’re starting to hear from nurses, doctors, other people, that something just doesn’t feel right about what’s happening: ‘She seems okay,’ and, ‘Is it really okay for us to be doing this?’ and ‘Gosh, this is taking a long time.’ ”

The medical staff had, in a sense, joined the family on the emotional roller coaster.

Dr. Doshi said it’s important to remember that there is no ethical or moral distinction between withdrawing a medical intervention and withholding one.

“Stopping an intervention once it has started is no different ethically or legally than not starting it in the first place,” she said.

According to Dr. Doshi, there is a general consensus among medical societies that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical intervention just like any other and that it should be evaluated within the same framework: Is it overly burdensome? Are we doing harm? Is it consistent with the goal of care? In so doing, be sure to respect patient autonomy and obtain informed consent.

As with so much in medicine, careful communication is a must.

“Paint a picture of what the patient’s trajectory is going to look like with and without artificial nutrition and hydration. At the end of the day, having done all of that, we’re going to ultimately respect what the patient or the surrogate decision maker decides,” Dr. Doshi said.

After assessment the data and the chances of success, and still without clarity about how to proceed, a good option might be considering a “time-limited trial” in which the medical team sits with the family and agrees on a time frame for an intervention and chooses predetermined endpoints for assessing success or failure.

“This can be very powerful to help us understand whether it is beneficial, but also – from the family’s perspective – to know everything was tried,” Dr. Doshi said.

Hospitalists should emphasize what is being added to treatment so that families don’t think only of what is being taken away, she said.

“Usually we are adding a lot – symptom management, a lot of psychosocial support. So what are all the other ways that we’re going to continue to care for the patient, even when we are withdrawing or withholding a specific intervention?” Dr. Doshi noted.

Sometimes, the best healer of distress in the midst of end of life decision making is time itself, Dr. Gundersen said.

In a condolence call, she once spoke with a family member involved in an agonizing case in which the medical team and family were at odds. Yet the man told her: “I know that you all were telling us the entire time that this was going to happen, but I guess we just had to go through our own process.”

A Vietnam veteran steered clear of the health care system for years, then showed up at the hospital with pneumonia and respiratory failure. He was whisked to the intensive care unit, and cancerous masses were found.

The situation – as described by Jeffrey Frank, MD, director of quality and performance at Vituity, a physician group in Emeryville, Calif. – then got worse.

“No one was there for him,” Dr. Frank said. “He’s laying in the ICU, he does not have the capacity to make decisions, let alone communicate. So the care team needs guidance.”

Too often, hospitalists find themselves in confusing situations involving patients near the end of their lives, having to determine how to go about treating a patient or withholding treatment when patients are not in a position to announce their wishes. When family is present, the health care team thinks the most sensible course of treatment is at odds with what the family wants to be done.

At the Society of Hospital Medicine 2019 Annual Conference, hospitalists with palliative care training offered advice on how to go about handling these difficult situations, which can sometimes become more manageable with certain strategies.

For situations in which there is no designated representative to speak for a patient who is unresponsive – the so-called “unbefriended patient” or “unrepresented patient” – any source of information can be valuable. And health care providers should seek out this input, Dr. Frank said.

“When there is a visitor at the bedside, and as long as they know the person, and they can start giving the medical providers some information about what the patient would have wanted, most of us will talk with that person and that’s actually a good habit,” he said.

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have regulations on whom health care providers should talk to when there is no obvious representative, Dr. Frank said, noting that most of these regulations follow a classic family-tree order. But in the discouraging results of many surveys of health care providers on the subject, most clinicians say that they do not know the regulations in their state, Dr. Frank said. But he said such results betray a silver lining because clinicians say that they would be inclined to use a family tree–style hierarchy in deciding with whom they should speak about end of life decisions.

Hospitalists should at least know whether their hospital has a policy on unrepresented patients, Dr. Frank said.

“That’s your road map on how to get through consenting this patient – what am I going to do with Mr. Smith?” he said. “You may ask yourself, ‘Do I just keep treating him and treating him?’ If you have a policy at your hospital, it will protect you from liability, as well as give you a sense of process.”
 

Conflicts in communication

An even worse situation, perhaps, is one that many hospitalists have seen: A patient is teetering at the edge of life, and a spouse arrives, along with two daughters from out of state who have not seen their father in a year, said Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, director of the ethics curriculum at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“The family requests that the medical team do everything, including intubation and attempts at resuscitation if needed,” she said. “The family says he was fine prior to this admission. Another thing I hear a lot is, ‘He was even sicker than this last year, and he got better.’ ”

Meanwhile, “the medical team consensus is that he is not going to survive this illness,” Dr. Gundersen said.

The situation is so common and problematic that it has a name – the “Daughter from California Syndrome.” (According to medical literature says, it’s called the “Daughter from Chicago Syndrome” in California.)

“This is one of the most agonizing things that happens to us in medicine,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It affects us, it affects our nurses, it affects the entire medical team. It’s agonizing when we feel like treatment has somehow turned to torture.”

Dr. Gundersen said the medical staff should avoid using the word “futile,” or similar language, with families.

“Words matter,” she said. “Inappropriate language can inadvertently convey the feeling that, ‘They’re giving up on my dad – they think it’s hopeless.’ That can make families and the medical team dig in their heels further.”

Sometimes it can be hard to define the terms of decision making. Even if the family and the medical team can agree that no “nonbeneficial treatments” should be administered, Dr. Gundersen said, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean less than a 1% chance of working; less than a 5% chance?

If the medical staff thinks a mode of care won’t be effective, but the family still insists, some states have laws that could help the medical team. In Texas, for example, if the medical team thinks the care they’re giving isn’t helping the patient, and the patient is likely going to have a poor outcome, there’s a legal process that the team can go through, Dr. Gundersen said. But even these laws are seen as potentially problematic because of concerns that they put too much power in the hands of a hospital committee.

Dr. Gundersen strongly advised getting at the root causes of a family’s apprehension. They might not have been informed early enough about the dire nature of an illness to feel they can make a decision comfortably. They also may be receiving information in a piecemeal manner or information that is inconsistent. Another common fear expressed by families is a concern over abandonment by the medical team if a decision is made to forgo a certain treatment. Also, sometimes the goals of care might not be properly detailed and discussed, she said.

But better communication can help overcome these snags, Dr. Gundersen said.

She suggested that sometimes it’s helpful to clarify things with the family, for example, what do they mean by “Do everything”?

“Does it mean ‘I want you to do everything to prolong their life even if they suffer,’ or does it mean ‘I want you do to everything that’s reasonable to try to prolong their life but not at the risk of increased suffering,’ or anywhere in between. Really just having these clarifying conversations is helpful.”

She also emphasized the importance of talking about interests, such as not wanting a patient to suffer, instead of taking positions, such as flatly recommending the withdrawal of treatment.

“It’s easy for both sides to kind of dig in their heels and not communicate effectively,” Dr. Gundersen said.
 

‘Emotional torture’

There are times when, no matter how skillfully the medical team communicates, they stand at an impasse with the family.

“This is emotional torture for us,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It’s moral distress. We kind of dread these situations. In these cases, trying to support yourself and your team emotionally is the most important thing.”

Ami Doshi, MD, director of palliative care inpatient services at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, described the case of a baby girl that touched on the especially painful issues that can arise in pediatric cases. The 2-month-old girl had been born after a pregnancy affected by polyhydramnios and had an abnormal neurological exam and brain MRI, as well as congenital abnormalities. She’d been intubated for respiratory failure and was now on high-flow nasal cannula therapy. The girl was intolerant to feeding and was put on a nasojejunal feeding tube and then a gastrostomy-jejunostomy tube.

But the baby’s vomiting continued, and she had bradycardia and hypoxia so severe she needed bag mask ventilation to recover. The mother started to feel like she was “torturing” the baby.

The family decided to stop respiratory support but to continue artificial nutrition and hydration, which Dr. Doshi said, has an elevated status in the human psyche. Mentioning discontinuing feeding is fraught with complexity, she said.

“The notion of feeding is such a basic instinct, especially with a baby, that tackling the notion of discontinuing any sort of feeds, orally or tube feeds, is fraught with emotion and angst at times,” Dr. Doshi said.

The girl had respiratory events but recovered from them on her own, but the vomiting and retching continued. Eventually the artificial nutrition and hydration was stopped. But after 5 days, the medical staff began feeling uncomfortable, Dr. Doshi said. “We’re starting to hear from nurses, doctors, other people, that something just doesn’t feel right about what’s happening: ‘She seems okay,’ and, ‘Is it really okay for us to be doing this?’ and ‘Gosh, this is taking a long time.’ ”

The medical staff had, in a sense, joined the family on the emotional roller coaster.

Dr. Doshi said it’s important to remember that there is no ethical or moral distinction between withdrawing a medical intervention and withholding one.

“Stopping an intervention once it has started is no different ethically or legally than not starting it in the first place,” she said.

According to Dr. Doshi, there is a general consensus among medical societies that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical intervention just like any other and that it should be evaluated within the same framework: Is it overly burdensome? Are we doing harm? Is it consistent with the goal of care? In so doing, be sure to respect patient autonomy and obtain informed consent.

As with so much in medicine, careful communication is a must.

“Paint a picture of what the patient’s trajectory is going to look like with and without artificial nutrition and hydration. At the end of the day, having done all of that, we’re going to ultimately respect what the patient or the surrogate decision maker decides,” Dr. Doshi said.

After assessment the data and the chances of success, and still without clarity about how to proceed, a good option might be considering a “time-limited trial” in which the medical team sits with the family and agrees on a time frame for an intervention and chooses predetermined endpoints for assessing success or failure.

“This can be very powerful to help us understand whether it is beneficial, but also – from the family’s perspective – to know everything was tried,” Dr. Doshi said.

Hospitalists should emphasize what is being added to treatment so that families don’t think only of what is being taken away, she said.

“Usually we are adding a lot – symptom management, a lot of psychosocial support. So what are all the other ways that we’re going to continue to care for the patient, even when we are withdrawing or withholding a specific intervention?” Dr. Doshi noted.

Sometimes, the best healer of distress in the midst of end of life decision making is time itself, Dr. Gundersen said.

In a condolence call, she once spoke with a family member involved in an agonizing case in which the medical team and family were at odds. Yet the man told her: “I know that you all were telling us the entire time that this was going to happen, but I guess we just had to go through our own process.”

A Vietnam veteran steered clear of the health care system for years, then showed up at the hospital with pneumonia and respiratory failure. He was whisked to the intensive care unit, and cancerous masses were found.

The situation – as described by Jeffrey Frank, MD, director of quality and performance at Vituity, a physician group in Emeryville, Calif. – then got worse.

“No one was there for him,” Dr. Frank said. “He’s laying in the ICU, he does not have the capacity to make decisions, let alone communicate. So the care team needs guidance.”

Too often, hospitalists find themselves in confusing situations involving patients near the end of their lives, having to determine how to go about treating a patient or withholding treatment when patients are not in a position to announce their wishes. When family is present, the health care team thinks the most sensible course of treatment is at odds with what the family wants to be done.

At the Society of Hospital Medicine 2019 Annual Conference, hospitalists with palliative care training offered advice on how to go about handling these difficult situations, which can sometimes become more manageable with certain strategies.

For situations in which there is no designated representative to speak for a patient who is unresponsive – the so-called “unbefriended patient” or “unrepresented patient” – any source of information can be valuable. And health care providers should seek out this input, Dr. Frank said.

“When there is a visitor at the bedside, and as long as they know the person, and they can start giving the medical providers some information about what the patient would have wanted, most of us will talk with that person and that’s actually a good habit,” he said.

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have regulations on whom health care providers should talk to when there is no obvious representative, Dr. Frank said, noting that most of these regulations follow a classic family-tree order. But in the discouraging results of many surveys of health care providers on the subject, most clinicians say that they do not know the regulations in their state, Dr. Frank said. But he said such results betray a silver lining because clinicians say that they would be inclined to use a family tree–style hierarchy in deciding with whom they should speak about end of life decisions.

Hospitalists should at least know whether their hospital has a policy on unrepresented patients, Dr. Frank said.

“That’s your road map on how to get through consenting this patient – what am I going to do with Mr. Smith?” he said. “You may ask yourself, ‘Do I just keep treating him and treating him?’ If you have a policy at your hospital, it will protect you from liability, as well as give you a sense of process.”
 

Conflicts in communication

An even worse situation, perhaps, is one that many hospitalists have seen: A patient is teetering at the edge of life, and a spouse arrives, along with two daughters from out of state who have not seen their father in a year, said Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, director of the ethics curriculum at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“The family requests that the medical team do everything, including intubation and attempts at resuscitation if needed,” she said. “The family says he was fine prior to this admission. Another thing I hear a lot is, ‘He was even sicker than this last year, and he got better.’ ”

Meanwhile, “the medical team consensus is that he is not going to survive this illness,” Dr. Gundersen said.

The situation is so common and problematic that it has a name – the “Daughter from California Syndrome.” (According to medical literature says, it’s called the “Daughter from Chicago Syndrome” in California.)

“This is one of the most agonizing things that happens to us in medicine,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It affects us, it affects our nurses, it affects the entire medical team. It’s agonizing when we feel like treatment has somehow turned to torture.”

Dr. Gundersen said the medical staff should avoid using the word “futile,” or similar language, with families.

“Words matter,” she said. “Inappropriate language can inadvertently convey the feeling that, ‘They’re giving up on my dad – they think it’s hopeless.’ That can make families and the medical team dig in their heels further.”

Sometimes it can be hard to define the terms of decision making. Even if the family and the medical team can agree that no “nonbeneficial treatments” should be administered, Dr. Gundersen said, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean less than a 1% chance of working; less than a 5% chance?

If the medical staff thinks a mode of care won’t be effective, but the family still insists, some states have laws that could help the medical team. In Texas, for example, if the medical team thinks the care they’re giving isn’t helping the patient, and the patient is likely going to have a poor outcome, there’s a legal process that the team can go through, Dr. Gundersen said. But even these laws are seen as potentially problematic because of concerns that they put too much power in the hands of a hospital committee.

Dr. Gundersen strongly advised getting at the root causes of a family’s apprehension. They might not have been informed early enough about the dire nature of an illness to feel they can make a decision comfortably. They also may be receiving information in a piecemeal manner or information that is inconsistent. Another common fear expressed by families is a concern over abandonment by the medical team if a decision is made to forgo a certain treatment. Also, sometimes the goals of care might not be properly detailed and discussed, she said.

But better communication can help overcome these snags, Dr. Gundersen said.

She suggested that sometimes it’s helpful to clarify things with the family, for example, what do they mean by “Do everything”?

“Does it mean ‘I want you to do everything to prolong their life even if they suffer,’ or does it mean ‘I want you do to everything that’s reasonable to try to prolong their life but not at the risk of increased suffering,’ or anywhere in between. Really just having these clarifying conversations is helpful.”

She also emphasized the importance of talking about interests, such as not wanting a patient to suffer, instead of taking positions, such as flatly recommending the withdrawal of treatment.

“It’s easy for both sides to kind of dig in their heels and not communicate effectively,” Dr. Gundersen said.
 

‘Emotional torture’

There are times when, no matter how skillfully the medical team communicates, they stand at an impasse with the family.

“This is emotional torture for us,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It’s moral distress. We kind of dread these situations. In these cases, trying to support yourself and your team emotionally is the most important thing.”

Ami Doshi, MD, director of palliative care inpatient services at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, described the case of a baby girl that touched on the especially painful issues that can arise in pediatric cases. The 2-month-old girl had been born after a pregnancy affected by polyhydramnios and had an abnormal neurological exam and brain MRI, as well as congenital abnormalities. She’d been intubated for respiratory failure and was now on high-flow nasal cannula therapy. The girl was intolerant to feeding and was put on a nasojejunal feeding tube and then a gastrostomy-jejunostomy tube.

But the baby’s vomiting continued, and she had bradycardia and hypoxia so severe she needed bag mask ventilation to recover. The mother started to feel like she was “torturing” the baby.

The family decided to stop respiratory support but to continue artificial nutrition and hydration, which Dr. Doshi said, has an elevated status in the human psyche. Mentioning discontinuing feeding is fraught with complexity, she said.

“The notion of feeding is such a basic instinct, especially with a baby, that tackling the notion of discontinuing any sort of feeds, orally or tube feeds, is fraught with emotion and angst at times,” Dr. Doshi said.

The girl had respiratory events but recovered from them on her own, but the vomiting and retching continued. Eventually the artificial nutrition and hydration was stopped. But after 5 days, the medical staff began feeling uncomfortable, Dr. Doshi said. “We’re starting to hear from nurses, doctors, other people, that something just doesn’t feel right about what’s happening: ‘She seems okay,’ and, ‘Is it really okay for us to be doing this?’ and ‘Gosh, this is taking a long time.’ ”

The medical staff had, in a sense, joined the family on the emotional roller coaster.

Dr. Doshi said it’s important to remember that there is no ethical or moral distinction between withdrawing a medical intervention and withholding one.

“Stopping an intervention once it has started is no different ethically or legally than not starting it in the first place,” she said.

According to Dr. Doshi, there is a general consensus among medical societies that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical intervention just like any other and that it should be evaluated within the same framework: Is it overly burdensome? Are we doing harm? Is it consistent with the goal of care? In so doing, be sure to respect patient autonomy and obtain informed consent.

As with so much in medicine, careful communication is a must.

“Paint a picture of what the patient’s trajectory is going to look like with and without artificial nutrition and hydration. At the end of the day, having done all of that, we’re going to ultimately respect what the patient or the surrogate decision maker decides,” Dr. Doshi said.

After assessment the data and the chances of success, and still without clarity about how to proceed, a good option might be considering a “time-limited trial” in which the medical team sits with the family and agrees on a time frame for an intervention and chooses predetermined endpoints for assessing success or failure.

“This can be very powerful to help us understand whether it is beneficial, but also – from the family’s perspective – to know everything was tried,” Dr. Doshi said.

Hospitalists should emphasize what is being added to treatment so that families don’t think only of what is being taken away, she said.

“Usually we are adding a lot – symptom management, a lot of psychosocial support. So what are all the other ways that we’re going to continue to care for the patient, even when we are withdrawing or withholding a specific intervention?” Dr. Doshi noted.

Sometimes, the best healer of distress in the midst of end of life decision making is time itself, Dr. Gundersen said.

In a condolence call, she once spoke with a family member involved in an agonizing case in which the medical team and family were at odds. Yet the man told her: “I know that you all were telling us the entire time that this was going to happen, but I guess we just had to go through our own process.”

SAN FRANCISCO – A “Best Case/Worst Case” (BCWC) framework tool has been adapted for use with geriatric trauma patients in the ICU, where it can help track a patient’s progress and enable better communication with patients and loved ones. The tool relies on a combination of graphics and text that surgeons update daily during rounds, and creates a longitudinal view of a patient’s trajectory during their stay in the ICU.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

The aim is to have surgeons incorporate story telling into care, by updating the best-case scenario in light of new clinical developments – for example, after a complication has arisen.

“Each day during rounds, the ICU team records important events on the graphic aid that change the patient’s course. The team draws a star to represent the best case, and a line to represent prognostic uncertainty. The attending trauma surgeon then uses the geriatric trauma outcome score, their knowledge of the health state of the patient, and their own clinical experience to tell a story about treatments, recovery, and outcomes if everything goes as well as we might hope. This story is written down in the best-case scenario box,” Christopher Zimmerman, MD, a general surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during a presentation about the BCWC tool at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons

“We often like to talk to patients and their families [about best- and worst-case scenarios] anyway, but [the research team] have tried to formalize it,” said Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, in an interview. Dr. Pham comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“When we’re able to communicate where the uncertainty is and where the boundaries are around the course of care and possible outcomes, we can build an alliance with patients and families that will be helpful when there is a big decision to make, say about a laparotomy for a perforated viscus,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Dr. Zimmerman gave an example of a patient who came into the ICU after suffering multiple fractures from falling down a set of stairs. The team created an initial BCWC with a hoped-for best-case scenario. Later, the patient developed hypoxemic respiratory failure and had to be intubated overnight. “This event is recorded on the graphic, and her star representing the best case has changed position, the line representing uncertainty has shortened, and the contents of her best-case scenario has changed. Each day in rounds, this process is repeated,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Palliative care physicians, education experts, and surgeons at the University of Wisconsin–Madison developed the tool in an effort to reduce unwanted care at the end of life, in the context of high-risk surgeries. The researchers adapted the tool to the trauma setting by gathering six focus groups of trauma practitioners at the University of Wisconsin; University of Texas, Dallas; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. They modified the tool after incorporating comments, and then iteratively modified it through tasks carried out in the ICU as part of a qualitative improvement initiative at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. They generated a change to the tool, implemented it in the ICU during subsequent rounds, then collected observations and field notes, then revised and repeated the process, streamlining it to fit into the ICU environment, according to Dr. Zimmerman.

The back side of the tool is available for family members to write important details about their loved ones, leading insight into the patient’s personality and desires, such as favorite music or affection for a family pet.

The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Pham have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zimmerman C et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – A “Best Case/Worst Case” (BCWC) framework tool has been adapted for use with geriatric trauma patients in the ICU, where it can help track a patient’s progress and enable better communication with patients and loved ones. The tool relies on a combination of graphics and text that surgeons update daily during rounds, and creates a longitudinal view of a patient’s trajectory during their stay in the ICU.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

The aim is to have surgeons incorporate story telling into care, by updating the best-case scenario in light of new clinical developments – for example, after a complication has arisen.

“Each day during rounds, the ICU team records important events on the graphic aid that change the patient’s course. The team draws a star to represent the best case, and a line to represent prognostic uncertainty. The attending trauma surgeon then uses the geriatric trauma outcome score, their knowledge of the health state of the patient, and their own clinical experience to tell a story about treatments, recovery, and outcomes if everything goes as well as we might hope. This story is written down in the best-case scenario box,” Christopher Zimmerman, MD, a general surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during a presentation about the BCWC tool at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons

“We often like to talk to patients and their families [about best- and worst-case scenarios] anyway, but [the research team] have tried to formalize it,” said Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, in an interview. Dr. Pham comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“When we’re able to communicate where the uncertainty is and where the boundaries are around the course of care and possible outcomes, we can build an alliance with patients and families that will be helpful when there is a big decision to make, say about a laparotomy for a perforated viscus,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Dr. Zimmerman gave an example of a patient who came into the ICU after suffering multiple fractures from falling down a set of stairs. The team created an initial BCWC with a hoped-for best-case scenario. Later, the patient developed hypoxemic respiratory failure and had to be intubated overnight. “This event is recorded on the graphic, and her star representing the best case has changed position, the line representing uncertainty has shortened, and the contents of her best-case scenario has changed. Each day in rounds, this process is repeated,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Palliative care physicians, education experts, and surgeons at the University of Wisconsin–Madison developed the tool in an effort to reduce unwanted care at the end of life, in the context of high-risk surgeries. The researchers adapted the tool to the trauma setting by gathering six focus groups of trauma practitioners at the University of Wisconsin; University of Texas, Dallas; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. They modified the tool after incorporating comments, and then iteratively modified it through tasks carried out in the ICU as part of a qualitative improvement initiative at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. They generated a change to the tool, implemented it in the ICU during subsequent rounds, then collected observations and field notes, then revised and repeated the process, streamlining it to fit into the ICU environment, according to Dr. Zimmerman.

The back side of the tool is available for family members to write important details about their loved ones, leading insight into the patient’s personality and desires, such as favorite music or affection for a family pet.

The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Pham have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zimmerman C et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – A “Best Case/Worst Case” (BCWC) framework tool has been adapted for use with geriatric trauma patients in the ICU, where it can help track a patient’s progress and enable better communication with patients and loved ones. The tool relies on a combination of graphics and text that surgeons update daily during rounds, and creates a longitudinal view of a patient’s trajectory during their stay in the ICU.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

The aim is to have surgeons incorporate story telling into care, by updating the best-case scenario in light of new clinical developments – for example, after a complication has arisen.

“Each day during rounds, the ICU team records important events on the graphic aid that change the patient’s course. The team draws a star to represent the best case, and a line to represent prognostic uncertainty. The attending trauma surgeon then uses the geriatric trauma outcome score, their knowledge of the health state of the patient, and their own clinical experience to tell a story about treatments, recovery, and outcomes if everything goes as well as we might hope. This story is written down in the best-case scenario box,” Christopher Zimmerman, MD, a general surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during a presentation about the BCWC tool at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons

“We often like to talk to patients and their families [about best- and worst-case scenarios] anyway, but [the research team] have tried to formalize it,” said Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, in an interview. Dr. Pham comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“When we’re able to communicate where the uncertainty is and where the boundaries are around the course of care and possible outcomes, we can build an alliance with patients and families that will be helpful when there is a big decision to make, say about a laparotomy for a perforated viscus,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Dr. Zimmerman gave an example of a patient who came into the ICU after suffering multiple fractures from falling down a set of stairs. The team created an initial BCWC with a hoped-for best-case scenario. Later, the patient developed hypoxemic respiratory failure and had to be intubated overnight. “This event is recorded on the graphic, and her star representing the best case has changed position, the line representing uncertainty has shortened, and the contents of her best-case scenario has changed. Each day in rounds, this process is repeated,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Palliative care physicians, education experts, and surgeons at the University of Wisconsin–Madison developed the tool in an effort to reduce unwanted care at the end of life, in the context of high-risk surgeries. The researchers adapted the tool to the trauma setting by gathering six focus groups of trauma practitioners at the University of Wisconsin; University of Texas, Dallas; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. They modified the tool after incorporating comments, and then iteratively modified it through tasks carried out in the ICU as part of a qualitative improvement initiative at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. They generated a change to the tool, implemented it in the ICU during subsequent rounds, then collected observations and field notes, then revised and repeated the process, streamlining it to fit into the ICU environment, according to Dr. Zimmerman.

The back side of the tool is available for family members to write important details about their loved ones, leading insight into the patient’s personality and desires, such as favorite music or affection for a family pet.

The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Pham have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zimmerman C et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

Growth continues among palliative care programs in the United States, although access often depends “more upon accidents of geography than it does upon the needs of patients,” according to the Center to Advance Palliative Care and the National Palliative Care Research Center.

“As is true for many aspects of health care, geography is destiny. Where you live determines your access to the best quality of life and highest quality of care during a serious illness,” said Diane E. Meier, MD, director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care, in a written statement.

In 2019, more than 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team, compared with 67% of hospitals in 2015 and 53% in 2008, the two organizations said in their 2019 report card on palliative care access. What hasn’t changed since 2015, however, is the country’s overall grade, which remains a B.

Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont have a palliative care program in all of their hospitals with 50 or more beds and each earned a grade of A (palliative care rate of greater than 80%), along with 17 other states. The lowest-performing states – Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming – all received Ds for having a rate below 40%, the CAPC said.

The urban/rural divide also is prominent in palliative care: “90% of hospitals with palliative care are in urban areas. Only 17% of rural hospitals with fifty or more beds report palliative care programs,” the report said.

Hospital type is another source of disparity. Small, nonprofit hospitals are much more likely to offer access to palliative care than either for-profit or public facilities of the same size, but the gap closes as size increases, at least between nonprofit and public hospitals. For the largest institutions, the public hospitals pull into the lead, 98% versus 97%, over the nonprofits, with the for-profit facilities well behind at 63%.

“High quality palliative care has been shown to improve patient and family quality of life, improve patients’ and families’ health care experiences, and in certain diseases, prolong life. Palliative care has also been shown to improve hospital efficiency and reduce unnecessary spending,” said R. Sean Morrison, MD, director of the National Palliative Care Research Center.

The report card is based on data from the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey Database, with additional data from the National Palliative Care Registry and Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Mapping Community Palliative Care initiative. The final sample included 2,409 hospitals with 50 or more beds.

[email protected]

Growth continues among palliative care programs in the United States, although access often depends “more upon accidents of geography than it does upon the needs of patients,” according to the Center to Advance Palliative Care and the National Palliative Care Research Center.

“As is true for many aspects of health care, geography is destiny. Where you live determines your access to the best quality of life and highest quality of care during a serious illness,” said Diane E. Meier, MD, director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care, in a written statement.

In 2019, more than 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team, compared with 67% of hospitals in 2015 and 53% in 2008, the two organizations said in their 2019 report card on palliative care access. What hasn’t changed since 2015, however, is the country’s overall grade, which remains a B.

Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont have a palliative care program in all of their hospitals with 50 or more beds and each earned a grade of A (palliative care rate of greater than 80%), along with 17 other states. The lowest-performing states – Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming – all received Ds for having a rate below 40%, the CAPC said.

The urban/rural divide also is prominent in palliative care: “90% of hospitals with palliative care are in urban areas. Only 17% of rural hospitals with fifty or more beds report palliative care programs,” the report said.

Hospital type is another source of disparity. Small, nonprofit hospitals are much more likely to offer access to palliative care than either for-profit or public facilities of the same size, but the gap closes as size increases, at least between nonprofit and public hospitals. For the largest institutions, the public hospitals pull into the lead, 98% versus 97%, over the nonprofits, with the for-profit facilities well behind at 63%.

“High quality palliative care has been shown to improve patient and family quality of life, improve patients’ and families’ health care experiences, and in certain diseases, prolong life. Palliative care has also been shown to improve hospital efficiency and reduce unnecessary spending,” said R. Sean Morrison, MD, director of the National Palliative Care Research Center.

The report card is based on data from the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey Database, with additional data from the National Palliative Care Registry and Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Mapping Community Palliative Care initiative. The final sample included 2,409 hospitals with 50 or more beds.

[email protected]

Growth continues among palliative care programs in the United States, although access often depends “more upon accidents of geography than it does upon the needs of patients,” according to the Center to Advance Palliative Care and the National Palliative Care Research Center.

“As is true for many aspects of health care, geography is destiny. Where you live determines your access to the best quality of life and highest quality of care during a serious illness,” said Diane E. Meier, MD, director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care, in a written statement.

In 2019, more than 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team, compared with 67% of hospitals in 2015 and 53% in 2008, the two organizations said in their 2019 report card on palliative care access. What hasn’t changed since 2015, however, is the country’s overall grade, which remains a B.

Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont have a palliative care program in all of their hospitals with 50 or more beds and each earned a grade of A (palliative care rate of greater than 80%), along with 17 other states. The lowest-performing states – Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming – all received Ds for having a rate below 40%, the CAPC said.

The urban/rural divide also is prominent in palliative care: “90% of hospitals with palliative care are in urban areas. Only 17% of rural hospitals with fifty or more beds report palliative care programs,” the report said.

Hospital type is another source of disparity. Small, nonprofit hospitals are much more likely to offer access to palliative care than either for-profit or public facilities of the same size, but the gap closes as size increases, at least between nonprofit and public hospitals. For the largest institutions, the public hospitals pull into the lead, 98% versus 97%, over the nonprofits, with the for-profit facilities well behind at 63%.

“High quality palliative care has been shown to improve patient and family quality of life, improve patients’ and families’ health care experiences, and in certain diseases, prolong life. Palliative care has also been shown to improve hospital efficiency and reduce unnecessary spending,” said R. Sean Morrison, MD, director of the National Palliative Care Research Center.

The report card is based on data from the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey Database, with additional data from the National Palliative Care Registry and Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Mapping Community Palliative Care initiative. The final sample included 2,409 hospitals with 50 or more beds.

[email protected]