Palliative Care in a Pandemic: A Multicenter Cohort of Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Trends in mortality, palliative care, and end-of-life care among critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain underreported. We hypothesized that use of palliative care and end-of-life care would increase over time, because improved understanding of the disease course and prognosis would potentially lead to more frequent use of these services. Patients and Methods: Adult patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (SARS-CoV-2) during pandemic wave one (W1: March 2020 to September 2020) or wave two (W2: October 2020 to June 2021) admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in one of six northeastern U.S. hospitals were identified and clinical characteristics obtained. Vaccination data were unavailable. Outcomes of interest included mortality, palliative care consultation, and any end-of-life care (including hospice and comfort care). Results: There were 1,904 critically ill patients with COVID-19: 817 (42.9%) in W1 and 1,087 (57.1%) in W2. Patients received mechanical ventilation more often during W1 than W2 (52.9% vs. 46.3%; p = 0.004), with no difference in ICU or hospital length of stay between waves. Mortality between W1 and W2 was similar (31.2% vs. 30.9%; p = 0.888). There was no difference in use of palliative care or any end-of-life care between waves. Patients who died during W2 versus W1 were more likely to have received both mechanical ventilation (77.1% vs. 67.1%; p = 0.007) and palliative care services (52.1% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.009). However, logistic regression adjusted for demographics, baseline comorbid disease, and clinical characteristics showed no difference in mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.48), palliative care (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84-1.40), or any end-of-life care (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82-1.34) in W2 versus W1. Conclusions: Mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 has remained constant across two pandemic waves with no change in use of palliative or end-of-life care.

Appropriateness and Completion of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing in Primary and Subspecialty Care

While more clinicians have begun ordering multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, adherence to guidelines on mt-sDNA and rates of subsequent follow-up testing has not been well studied. Of the 56 patients who underwent colonoscopy at our institution, most had documentation of a high-quality colonoscopy, defined as adequate prep (84%), cecal intubation (93%), visualization of the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve (94%), and right colon retroflexion (83%). Appropriateness, shared decision making, and screening results in patients undergoing mt-sDNA testing Appropriateness of Order Order was appropriate (%) 685 (86) Inappropriate due to patient age < 45 (%) 2 (0) Inappropriate due to patient age > 85 (%) 10 (1) Inappropriate because CRC screening was repeated too quickly (%) 29 (4) Inappropriate as patient is at higher than normal risk for CRC (%) 79 (12) Other condition (eg. abnormal surgical anatomy) (%) 7 (1) Shared Decision Making Documentation of shared decision making (%) 488 (62) mt-sDNA was ordered because patient declined colonoscopy (%) 302 (62) Screening Results Completed mt-sDNA screening (%) 483 (61) Median time to mt-sDNA completion, days (IQR) 25 (17-43)  Positive (%) 74 (15)  Diagnostic colonoscopy was ordered (%) 73 (99)  Completed colonoscopy (%) 59 (80)  Completed colonoscopy at our institution 56 (76)  Median time to colonoscopy, days (IQR) 53 (27-95)  Adequate bowel preparation (%) 47 (84)  Documentation of cecal intubation (%) 55 (98)  Documentation of appendiceal orifice and IC valve visualization (%) 48 (94)  Documentation of right colon retroflexion (%) 44 (83)  Advanced adenoma found on colonoscopy (%) 16 (29)  Other adenoma or sessile polyp found on colonoscopy (%) 19 (34)  Negative (%) 409 (85)  Documentation of a 3-year follow-up screening recommendation (%) 369 (80)

Loneliness, sadness, and feelings of social disconnection in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Public health measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic have led to feelings of loneliness among older adults, which, prior to COVID, has been associated with subsequent morbidity and mortality. We sought to identify differences in feelings of loneliness, sadness, and social disconnection early in the pandemic across racial groups, and possible mitigating factors. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the weighted nationally-representative Medicare Current Beneficiaries Survey COVID-19 supplement, collected summer 2020. We included all Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older who did not respond by proxy. We examined changes in loneliness, sadness, or feelings of social disconnection. Multivariable logistic regression models accounted for sociodemographic variables, access to primary care and the internet, and history of depression or dementia. RESULTS: Among 8125 beneficiaries, representative of 43.7 million Medicare beneficiaries, 22.6% reported loneliness or sadness, and 37.1% feeling socially disconnected. In fully-adjusted models, Hispanic/Latinx beneficiaries were most likely to report loneliness or sadness (OR = 1.3, CI: 1.02-1.65; p = 0.02) and Black beneficiaries were least likely to report feeling socially disconnected (OR = 0.55; CI: 0.42-0.73; p < 0.001). Internet access was associated with increased odds of both (OR = 1.29, 95 CI: 1.07-1.56; p = 0.009; and OR = 1.42, 95 CI: 1.24-1.63; p < 0.001, respectively). Access to primary care was associated with lower odds of both (OR = 0.77, 95 CI: 0.61-0.96; p = 0.02; and OR = 0.72, 95 CI: 0.61-0.87; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness, sadness, and feelings of social disconnection were common among older Medicare beneficiaries early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences by race/ethnicity may be driven by different living structures and social networks, and warrant further study. Policy makers and clinicians should consider facilitating connection by phone or in person, as internet access did not diminish feelings of loneliness, particularly for those living alone. Access to primary care, and tools for clinicians to address loneliness should be prioritized.