Innovation pathways to preserve: Rapid healthcare innovation and dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems rapidly responded to challenges in healthcare delivery with innovation. Innovations developed during the COVID-19 pandemic have filled needed gaps in medical care and many may be sustained long term. The unique conditions and processes that facilitated such rapid, successful, and collective innovation should be explored to support future change in healthcare. Decentralized decision making, crowdsourcing, and nontraditional information sharing may be valuable for ongoing innovation in healthcare delivery. Shared, collective purpose in solving challenges in healthcare appear critical to this work. Health care systems aiming to sustain rapid healthcare delivery innovation should consider these processes and focus on facilitating shared purpose to sustain ongoing innovation.

Innovation pathways to preserve: Rapid healthcare innovation and dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems rapidly responded to challenges in healthcare delivery with innovation. Innovations developed during the COVID-19 pandemic have filled needed gaps in medical care and many may be sustained long term. The unique conditions and processes that facilitated such rapid, successful, and collective innovation should be explored to support future change in healthcare. Decentralized decision making, crowdsourcing, and nontraditional information sharing may be valuable for ongoing innovation in healthcare delivery. Shared, collective purpose in solving challenges in healthcare appear critical to this work. Health care systems aiming to sustain rapid healthcare delivery innovation should consider these processes and focus on facilitating shared purpose to sustain ongoing innovation.

What is in the palliative care 'syringe'? A systems perspective.

The diffusion of palliative care has been rapid, yet uncertainty remains regarding palliative care's "active ingredients." The National Consensus Project Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care identified eight domains of palliative care. Despite these identified domains, when pressed to describe the specific maneuvers used in clinical encounters, palliative care providers acknowledge that "it's complex." The field of systems has been used to explain complexity across many different types of systems. Specifically, engineering systems develop a representation of a system that helps manage complexity to help humans better understand the system. Our goal was to develop a system model of what palliative care providers do such that the elements of the model can be described concretely and sequentially, aggregated to describe the high-level domains currently described by palliative care, and connected to the complexity described by providers and the literature. Our study design combined methodological elements from both qualitative research and systems engineering modeling. The model drew on participant observation and debriefing semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary palliative care team members by a systems engineer. The setting was an interdisciplinary palliative care service in a US rural academic medical center. In the developed system model, we identified 59 functions provided to patients, families, non-palliative care provider(s), and palliative care provider(s). The high-level functions related to measurement, decision-making, and treatment address up to 8 states of an individual, including an overall holistic state, physical state, psychological state, spiritual state, cultural state, personal environment state, and clinical environment state. In contrast to previously described expert consensus domain-based descriptions of palliative care, this model more directly connects palliative care provider functions to emergent behaviors that may explain system-level mechanisms of action for palliative care. Thus, a systems modeling approach provides insights into the challenges surrounding the recurring question of what is in the palliative care "syringe."

Advance Care Planning and Treatment Intensity Before Death Among Black, Hispanic, and White Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Black and Hispanic people are more likely to contract COVID-19, require hospitalization, and die than White people due to differences in exposures, comorbidity risk, and healthcare access. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of race and ethnicity with treatment decisions and intensity for patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of manually abstracted electronic medical records. PATIENTS: 7,997 patients (62% non-Hispanic White, 16% non-Black Hispanic, and 23% Black) hospitalized for COVID-19 at 135 community hospitals between March and June 2020 MAIN MEASURES: Advance care planning (ACP), do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), and in-hospital mortality. Among decedents, we classified the mode of death based on treatment intensity and code status as treatment limitation (no MV/DNR), treatment withdrawal (MV/DNR), maximal life support (MV/no DNR), or other (no MV/no DNR). KEY RESULTS: Adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar between White (8%) and Black patients (9%, OR=1.1, 95% CI=0.9-1.4, p=0.254), and lower among Hispanic patients (6%, OR=0.7, 95% CI=0.6-1.0, p=0.032). Black and Hispanic patients were significantly more likely to be treated in the ICU (White 23%, Hispanic 27%, Black 28%) and to receive mechanical ventilation (White 12%, Hispanic 17%, Black 16%). The groups had similar rates of ACP (White 12%, Hispanic 12%, Black 11%), but Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to have a DNR order (White 13%, Hispanic 8%, Black 7%). Among decedents, there were significant differences in mode of death by race/ethnicity (treatment limitation: White 39%, Hispanic 17% (p=0.001), Black 18% (p<0.0001); treatment withdrawal: White 26%, Hispanic 43% (p=0.002), Black 28% (p=0.542); and maximal life support: White 21%, Hispanic 26% (p=0.308), Black 36% (p<0.0001)). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized Black and Hispanic COVID-19 patients received greater treatment intensity than White patients. This may have simultaneously mitigated disparities in in-hospital mortality while increasing burdensome treatment near death.

Treatment intensity and mortality among COVID-19 patients with dementia: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether dementia is associated with treatment intensity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This study includes review of the medical records for patients >60 years of age (n = 5394) hospitalized with COVID-19 from 132 community hospitals between March and June 2020. We examined the relationships between dementia and treatment intensity (including intensive care unit [ICU] admission and mechanical ventilation [MV] and care processes that may influence them, including advance care planning [ACP] billing and do-not-resuscitate [DNR] orders) and in-hospital mortality adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, month of hospitalization, and clustering within hospital. We further explored the effect of ACP conversations on the relationship between dementia and outcomes, both at the individual patient level (effect of having ACP) and at the hospital level (effect of being treated at a hospital with low: <10%, medium 10%-20%, or high >20% ACP rates). RESULTS: Ten percent (n = 522) of the patients had documented dementia. Dementia patients were older (>80 years: 60% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001), had a lower burden of comorbidity (3+ comorbidities: 31% vs. 38%, p = 0.003), were more likely to have ACP (28% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001) and a DNR order (52% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001), had similar rates of ICU admission (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.258), were less likely to receive MV (11% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), and more likely to die (22% vs. 14%, p < 0.0001). Differential treatment intensity among patients with dementia was concentrated in hospitals with low, dementia-biased ACP billing practices (risk-adjusted ICU use: 21% vs. 30%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, p = 0.016; risk-adjusted MV use: 6% vs. 16%, OR = 0.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dementia was associated with lower treatment intensity and higher mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Differential treatment intensity was concentrated in low ACP billing hospitals suggesting an interplay between provider bias and "preference-sensitive" care for COVID-19.

US Ventilator Allocation and Patient Triage Policies in Anticipation of the COVID-19 Surge.

Before the predicted March 2020 surge of COVID-19, US healthcare organizations were charged with developing resource allocation policies. We assessed policy preparedness and substantive triage criteria within existing policies using a cross-sectional survey distributed to public health personnel and healthcare providers between March 23 and April 23, 2020. Personnel and providers from 68 organizations from 34 US states responded. While half of the organizations did not yet have formal allocation policies, all but 4 were in the process of developing policies. Using manual abstraction and natural language processing, we summarize the origins and features of the policies. Most policies included objective triage criteria, specified inapplicable criteria, separated triage and clinical decision making, detailed reassessment plans, offered an appeals process, and addressed palliative care. All but 1 policy referenced a sequential organ failure assessment score as a triage criterion, and 10 policies categorically excluded patients. Six policies were almost identical, tracing their origins to influenza planning. This sample of policies reflects organizational strategies of exemplar-based policy development and the use of objective criteria in triage decisions, either before or instead of clinical judgment, to support ethical distribution of resources. Future guidance is warranted on how to adapt policies across disease type, choose objective criteria, and specify processes that rely on clinical judgments.