A Retrospective Observational Study Exploring 30- and 90-Day Outcomes for Patients With COVID-19 After Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Gastrostomy Placement.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the 30- and 90-day outcomes of COVID-19 patients receiving tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multisite, inpatient. PATIENTS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy and PEG at four Boston hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Tracheostomy and PEG placement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was mortality at 30 and 90 days post-procedure. Secondary outcomes included continued device presence, place of residence, complications, and rehospitalizations. Eighty-one COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy and PEG placement were included. At 90 days post-device placement, the mortality rate was 9.9%, 2.7% still had the tracheostomy, 32.9% still had the PEG, and 58.9% were at home. CONCLUSIONS: More than nine-in-10 patients in our population of COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy and PEG were alive 90 days later and most were living at home. This study provides new information regarding the outcomes of this patient population that may serve as a step in guiding clinicians, patients, and families when making decisions regarding these devices.

Association of an Advance Care Planning Video and Communication Intervention With Documentation of Advance Care Planning Among Older Adults: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: COVID-19 has disproportionately killed older adults and racial and ethnic minority individuals, raising questions about the relevance of advance care planning (ACP) in this population. Video decision aids and communication skills training offer scalable delivery models. Objective: To assess whether ACP video decision aids and a clinician communication intervention improved the rate of ACP documentation during an evolving pandemic, with a focus on African American and Hispanic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Advance Care Planning: Communicating With Outpatients for Vital Informed Decisions trial was a pre-post, open-cohort nonrandomized controlled trial that compared ACP documentation across the baseline pre-COVID-19 period (September 15, 2019, to March 14, 2020), the COVID-19 wave 1 period (March 15, 2020, to September 14, 2020), and an intervention period (December 15, 2020, to June 14, 2021) at a New York metropolitan area ambulatory network of 22 clinics. All patients 65 years or older who had at least 1 clinic or telehealth visit during any of the 3 study periods were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ACP documentation. Results: A total of 14 107 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.0 [8.4] years; 8856 [62.8%] female; and 2248 [15.9%] African American or Hispanic) interacted with clinicians during the pre-COVID-19 period; 12 806 (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [8.5] years; 8047 [62.8%] female; and 1992 [15.6%] African American or Hispanic), during wave 1; and 15 106 (mean [SD] 80.9 [8.3] years; 9543 [63.2%] female; and 2535 [16.8%] African American or Hispanic), during the intervention period. Clinicians documented ACP in 3587 patients (23.8%) during the intervention period compared with 2525 (17.9%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (rate difference [RD], 5.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-7.9%; P = .01) and 1598 (12.5%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.3%; 95% CI, 6.3%-12.1%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented in 447 African American patients (30.0%) during the intervention period compared with 233 (18.1%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 11.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-15.9%; P < .001) and 130 (11.0%) during wave 1 (RD, 19.1%; 95% CI, 11.7%-21.2%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented for 222 Hispanic patients (21.2%) during the intervention period compared with 127 (13.2%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 8.0%; 95% CI, 2.1%-10.9%; P = .004) and 82 (10.2%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.1%; 95% CI, 5.5%-14.5%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This intervention, implemented during the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, was associated with higher rates of ACP documentation, especially for African American and Hispanic patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Boston.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have been described in health systems overwhelmed with a surge of cases. However, studies examining outcomes of patients admitted to hospitals not in crisis are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristic and outcomes of all patients with COVID-19 who are admitted to hospitals not in crisis, and factors associated with mortality in this population. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis PARTICIPANTS: In total, 470 consecutive patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization in one health system in Boston from January 1, 2020 to April 15, 2020. MAIN MEASURES: We collected clinical outcomes during hospitalization including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, receipt of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors. We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to examine factors associated with mortality. KEY RESULTS: A total of 470 patients (median age 66 [range 23-98], 54.0% male) were included. The most common comorbidities were diabetes (38.5%, 181/470) and obesity (41.3%, 194/470). On admission, 41.9% (197/470) of patients were febrile and 60.6% (285/470) required supplemental oxygen. During hospitalization, 37.9% (178/470) were admitted to the ICU, 33.6% (158/470) received mechanical ventilation, 29.4% (138/470) received vasopressors, 16.4% (77/470) reported limitations on their desire for life-sustaining therapies such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 25.1% (118/470) died. Among those admitted to the ICU (N=178), the median number of days on the ventilator was 10 days (IQR 1-29), and 58.4% (104/178) were discharged alive. Older age (OR=1.04, P<0.001), male sex (OR=2.14, P=0.007), higher comorbidities (OR=1.20, P=0.001), higher lactate dehydrogenase on admission (2nd tertile: OR=4.07, P<0.001; 3rd tertile: OR=8.04, P<0.001), and the need for supplemental oxygen on admission (OR=2.17, P=0.014) were all associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and those who received mechanical ventilation survived. These data highlight the need to examine public health and system factors that contribute to improved outcomes for this population.

Communication Tools to Support Advance Care Planning and Hospital Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Design Process.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the medical and social vulnerability of an unprecedented number of people. Consequently, there has never been a more important time for clinicians to engage patients in advance care planning (ACP) discussions about their goals, values, and preferences in the event of critical illness. An evidence-based communication tool-the Serious Illness Conversation Guide-was adapted to address COVID-related ACP challenges using a user-centered design process: convening relevant experts to propose initial guide adaptations; soliciting feedback from key clinical stakeholders from multiple disciplines and geographic regions; and iteratively testing language with patient actors. With feedback focused on sharing risk about COVID-19-related critical illness, recommendations for treatment decisions, and use of person-centered language, the team also developed conversation guides for inpatient and outpatient use. These tools consist of open-ended questions to elicit perception of risk, goals, and care preferences in the event of critical illness, and language to convey prognostic uncertainty. To support use of these tools, publicly available implementation materials were also developed for clinicians to effectively engage high-risk patients and overcome challenges related to the changed communication context, including video demonstrations, telehealth communication tips, and step-by-step approaches to identifying high-risk patients and documenting conversation findings in the electronic health record. Well-designed communication tools and implementation strategies can equip clinicians to foster connection with patients and promote shared decision making. Although not an antidote to this crisis, such high-quality ACP may be one of the most powerful tools we have to prevent or ameliorate suffering due to COVID-19.

Advance Care Planning: Promoting Effective and Aligned Communication in the Elderly (ACP-PEACE): the study protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedge trial of older patients with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning (ACP) is associated with improved health outcomes for patients with cancer, and its absence is associated with unfavourable outcomes for patients and their caregivers. However, older adults do not complete ACP at expected rates due to patient and clinician barriers. We present the original design, methods and rationale for a trial aimed at improving ACP for older patients with advanced cancer and the modified protocol in response to changes brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Advance Care Planning: Promoting Effective and Aligned Communication in the Elderly study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial examining a Comprehensive ACP Program. The programme combines two complementary evidence-based interventions: clinician communication skills training (VitalTalk) and patient video decision aids (ACP Decisions). We will implement the programme at 36 oncology clinics across three unique US health systems. Our primary outcome is the proportion of eligible patients with ACP documentation completed in the electronic health record. Our secondary outcomes include resuscitation preferences, palliative care consultations, death, hospice use and final cancer-directed therapy. From a subset of our patient population, we will collect surveys and video-based declarations of goals and preferences. We estimate 11 000 patients from the three sites will be enrolled in the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Regulatory and ethical aspects of this trial include Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval via single IRB of record mechanism at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Data Use Agreements among partners and a Data Safety and Monitoring Board. We plan to present findings at national meetings and publish the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03609177; Pre-results.