Are Opioid Infusions Used Inappropriately at End of Life? Results From a Quality/Safety Project.

CONTEXT: Opioid continuous infusions are commonly used for end-of-life (EOL) symptoms in hospital settings. However, prescribing practices vary, and even the recent literature contains conflicting protocols and guidelines for best practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate opioid infusion use for EOL comfort care at an academic medical center, and determine if inappropriate use is associated with distress. METHODS: Through literature review and iterative interdisciplinary discussion, we defined three criteria for "potentially inappropriate" infusion use. We conducted a retrospective, observational study of inpatients who died over six months, abstracting demographics, opioid use patterns, survival time, palliative care (PC) involvement, and evidence of patient/caregiver/staff distress from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: We identified 193 decedents who received opioid infusions for EOL comfort care. Forty-four percent received opioid infusions that were classified as "potentially inappropriate." Insufficient use of as-needed intravenous opioid boluses and use of opioid infusions in opioid-naïve patients were the most common problems observed. Potentially inappropriate infusions were associated with more frequent patient (24% vs. 2%; P < 0.001) and staff distress (10% vs. 2%; P = 0.02) and were less common when PC provided medication recommendations (20% vs. 50%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Potentially inappropriate opioid infusions are prevalent at our hospital, an academic medical center with an active PC team and existing contracts for in-hospital hospice care. Furthermore, potentially inappropriate opioid infusions are associated with increased patient and staff distress. We are developing an interdisciplinary intervention to address this safety issue.

Visitation policies at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Family/caregiver visitation provides critical support for patients confronting cancer and is associated with positive outcomes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought historic disruptions including widespread visitation restrictions. Here, we characterize in-depth the visitor policies of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and analyze geographic/temporal patterns across CCCs. METHODS: The public-facing CCC websites, including archived webpages, were reviewed to abstract initial visitation policies and revisions, including end-of-life (EoL) exceptions and timing of visitation restrictions relative to regional lockdowns. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were employed to analyze associations between geographic region, timing, and severity of restrictions. RESULTS: Most CCCs (n=43, 86%) enacted visitation restrictions between March 15 and April 15, 2020. About half barred all visitors for COVID-negative inpatients (n=24, 48%) or outpatients (n=26, 52%). Most (n=36, 72%) prohibited visitors for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Most (n=40, 80%) published EoL exceptions but the specifics were highly variable. The median time from initial restrictions to government-mandated lockdowns was 1 day, with a wide range (25 days before to 26 days after). There was no association between timing of initial restrictions and geographic location (p=0.14) or severity of inpatient policies (p=1.0), even among centers in the same city. Outpatient policies published reactively (after lockdown) were more restrictive than those published proactively (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: CCCs enacted strict but strikingly variable COVID-19 visitation restrictions, with important implications for patients/families seeking cancer care. A unified, evidence-based approach to visitation policies is needed to balance proven infection control measures with the needs of patients and families.

Healthcare Disparities and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of Primary Language and Translations of Visitor Policies at NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.

CONTEXT: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused unprecedented disruptions to cancer care, including through strict hospital visitation policies. Since a substantial proportion of the U.S. population report a non-English language as their primary language, it is critical that information is disseminated in multiple languages. OBJECTIVES: To examine the availability of language translations of visitation restrictions on adult National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) Web sites. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of visitation policies abstracted from public-facing Web sites of CCCs in June 2020. Using U.S. Census data, CCC's city and state proportions of self-identifying Hispanic/Latinx population were categorized into three cohorts: low (<10%), moderate (10%-20%), and high (>20%). RESULTS: As of June 2020, all 50 CCCs published a COVID-19 visitation policy on their Web site. Of these, 33 (66%) posted policies only in English, whereas 17 (34%) included one or more non-English translations. A minority of CCCs published Spanish language resources, which did not differ based on state or city demographics: for example, only 42% (8 of 19), 10% (1 of 10), and 38% (8 of 21) of CCCs published Spanish language resources in cities with low, moderate, and high Hispanic/Latinx populations, respectively. CONCLUSION: `Most CCC's did not publish non-English language translations of their visitor policies. Even in cities and states with larger Hispanic/Latinx populations, most CCCs did not publish resources in Spanish. This study highlights a key opportunity to mitigate communication barriers and deliver culturally competent, patient-centered care.