Finding New Meaning in the Practice of Medicine: A Quality Improvement Project Evaluating the Remote Communication Liaison Program During the Initial COVID Pandemic Surge.

Background: In spring 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed intensive care teams with severely ill patients. Even at the end of life, families were barred from hospitals, relying solely on remote communication. A Remote Communication Liaison Program (RCLP) was established to ensure daily communication for families, while supporting overstretched intensivists. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the RCLP on participating liaisons and intensivists. Design: Two quality improvement surveys were developed and administered electronically. Setting/Subjects: Based in the United States, all liaisons and intensivists who participated in this program were invited to take the surveys. Measurements: Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative Likert-scale data, and qualitative analysis was used to assess themes. Results: Among respondents, all (100%) liaisons and more than 90% of intensivists agreed or strongly agreed that the RCLP provided a valuable service to families. More than 70% of intensivists agreed or strongly agreed that the program lessened their workload. More than 90% of liaisons agreed or strongly agreed that participation in the program improved their confidence and skills in end-of-life decision making, difficult conversations, and comprehension of critical care charts. Themes elicited from the liaisons revealed that participation fostered a renewed sense of purpose as physicians, meaningful connection, and opportunities for growth. Conclusions: RCLP successfully trained and deployed liaisons to rapidly develop skills in communication with beleaguered families during COVID-19 surge. Participation in the program had a profound effect on liaisons, who experienced a renewed sense of meaning and connection to the practice of medicine.

An International Comparison of Presentation, Outcomes and CORONET Predictive Score Performance in Patients with Cancer Presenting with COVID-19 across Different Pandemic Waves.

Patients with cancer have been shown to have increased risk of COVID-19 severity. We previously built and validated the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) to predict the likely severity of COVID-19 in patients with active cancer who present to hospital. We assessed the differences in presentation and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, depending on the wave of the pandemic. We examined differences in features at presentation and outcomes in patients worldwide, depending on the waves of the pandemic: wave 1 D614G (n = 1430), wave 2 Alpha (n = 475), and wave 4 Omicron variant (n = 63, UK and Spain only). The performance of CORONET was evaluated on 258, 48, and 54 patients for each wave, respectively. We found that mortality rates were reduced in subsequent waves. The majority of patients were vaccinated in wave 4, and 94% were treated with steroids if they required oxygen. The stages of cancer and the median ages of patients significantly differed, but features associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes remained predictive and did not differ between waves. The CORONET tool performed well in all waves, with scores in an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.72. We concluded that patients with cancer who present to hospital with COVID-19 have similar features of severity, which remain discriminatory despite differences in variants and vaccination status. Survival improved following the first wave of the pandemic, which may be associated with vaccination and the increased steroid use in those patients requiring oxygen. The CORONET model demonstrated good performance, independent of the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Development of a Novel Communication Liaison Program to Support COVID-19 Patients and Their Families.

In the spring of 2020, our hospital faced a surge of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, with intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy peaking at 204% of the baseline maximum capacity. In anticipation of this surge, we developed a remote communication liaison program to help the ICU and palliative care teams support families of critically ill patients. In just nine days from inception until implementation, we recruited and prepared ambulatory specialty providers to serve in this role effectively, despite minimal prior critical care experience. We report here the primary elements needed to reproduce and scale this program in other hospitals facing similar ICU surges, including a checklist for replication (Appendix I). Keys to success include strong logistical support, clinical reference material designed for rapid evolution, and a liaison team structure with peer coaching.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in Patients With a History of Cancer and Comorbid Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are independently associated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with both cancer and comorbid CVD are unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2,476 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at 4 Massachusetts hospitals between March 11 and May 21, 2020. Patients were stratified by a history of either cancer (n=195) or CVD (n=414) and subsequently by the presence of both cancer and CVD (n=82). We compared outcomes between patients with and without cancer and patients with both cancer and CVD compared with patients with either condition alone. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-associated severe disease, defined as a composite of the need for mechanical ventilation, shock, or death. Secondary endpoints included death, shock, need for mechanical ventilation, need for supplemental oxygen, arrhythmia, venous thromboembolism, encephalopathy, abnormal troponin level, and length of stay. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis identified cancer as an independent predictor of COVID-19-associated severe disease among all infected patients. Patients with cancer were more likely to develop COVID-19-associated severe disease than were those without cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.53-2.68; P<.001). Furthermore, patients with both cancer and CVD had a higher likelihood of COVID-19-associated severe disease compared with those with either cancer (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.11-3.10; P=.02) or CVD (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.21-2.66; P=.004) alone. Patients died more frequently if they had both cancer and CVD compared with either cancer (35% vs 17%; P=.004) or CVD (35% vs 21%; P=.009) alone. Arrhythmias and encephalopathy were also more frequent in patients with both cancer and CVD compared with those with cancer alone. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of both cancer and CVD are at significantly higher risk of experiencing COVID-19-associated adverse outcomes. Aggressive public health measures are needed to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 infection in this vulnerable patient population.

The Palliative Performance Scale predicts mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a substantial mortality risk with increased rates in the elderly. We hypothesized that age is not sufficient, and that frailty measured by preadmission Palliative Performance Scale would be a predictor of outcomes. Improved ability to identify high-risk patients will improve clinicians' ability to provide appropriate palliative care, including engaging in shared decision-making about life-sustaining therapies. AIM: To evaluate whether preadmission Palliative Performance Scale predicts mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study of patients admitted with COVID-19. Palliative Performance Scale was calculated from the chart. Using logistic regression, Palliative Performance Scale was assessed as a predictor of mortality controlling for demographics, comorbidities, palliative care measures and socioeconomic status. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 18 years of age admitted with COVID-19 to a single urban public hospital in New Jersey, USA. RESULTS: Of 443 admitted patients, we determined the Palliative Performance Scale score for 374. Overall mortality was 31% and 81% in intubated patients. In all, 36% (134) of patients had a low Palliative Performance Scale score. Compared with patients with a high score, patients with a low score were more likely to die, have do not intubate orders and be discharged to a facility. Palliative Performance Scale independently predicts mortality (odds ratio 2.89; 95% confidence interval 1.42-5.85). CONCLUSIONS: Preadmission Palliative Performance Scale independently predicts mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Improved predictors of mortality can help clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 to discuss prognosis and provide appropriate palliative care including decisions about life-sustaining therapy.