Development of an interprofessional rotation for pharmacy and medical students to perform telehealth outreach to vulnerable patients in the COVID-19 pandemic.

This report describes an interprofessional rotation for pharmacy and medical students focused on telehealth outreach to patients at high risk for delays in care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The curriculum was designed around core competencies of interprofessional education. Student activities included participating in interprofessional huddles, collaborating on patient interviews, and practicing interprofessional communication. Three pharmacy students and two medical students completed the rotation. Evaluation was conducted via survey and exit interview. All students successfully increased their knowledge of their own and others' professional roles and demonstrated interprofessional communication and collaboration through telehealth.

Factors Associated with Opioid Dose Increases: A Chart Review of Patients' First Year on Long-Term Opioids.

Objective: To examine encounter-level factors associated with opioid dose increases during patients' first year on opioid therapy for chronic pain. Design: Case-control study analyzing all opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic pain during their first year after opioid initiation. Cases were patients who experienced an overall dose escalation of ≥ 30 mg morphine equivalents over the 1-year period; controls did not experience overall dose escalation. Main measures were encounter type, opioid dose change, documented prescribing rationale, documentation of guideline-concordant opioid-prescribing practices. Two coders reviewed all encounters associated with opioid prescriptions. Analysis of factors associated with dose increases and provider documentation of prescribing rationale was conducted using multiple logistic regression. Results: There were 674 encounters coded for 66 patients (22 cases, 44 controls). Fifty-three percent of opioid prescriptions were associated with telephone encounters; 13% were associated with e-mail encounters. No prescribing rationale was documented for 43% of all opioid prescriptions and 25% of dose increases. Likelihood of dose increase and documentation of prescribing rationale did not significantly differ for cases versus controls. Compared with face-to-face encounters, dose increases were significantly less likely for telephone (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11-0.28) and e-mail (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.12-0.47) encounters; documentation of prescribing rationale was significantly more likely for e-mail (OR 5.06, 95% CI 1.87-13.72) and less likely for telephone (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18-0.51) encounters. Conclusion: Most opioid prescriptions were written without face-to-face encounters. One quarter of dose increases contained no documented prescribing rationale. Documented encounter-level factors were not significantly associated with overall opioid dose escalation.

An empirical study of surrogates' preferred level of control over value-laden life support decisions in intensive care units.

RATIONALE: Despite ongoing ethical debate concerning who should control decisions to discontinue life support for incapacitated, critically ill patients, the perspectives of surrogate decision makers are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) what degree of decisional authority surrogates prefer for value-sensitive life support decisions compared with more technical biomedical decisions, and (2) what predicts surrogates' preferences for more control over life support decisions. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 230 surrogate decision makers for incapacitated, mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of death. Surrogates reported their preferred degree of decisional authority using the Degner Control Preferences Scale for two types of decisions: a value-sensitive decision about whether to discontinue life support and a decision regarding which antibiotic to prescribe for an infection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The majority of surrogates (55%, 127/230; 95% confidence interval, 49-62%) preferred to have final control over the value-sensitive life support decision; 40% (91/230) wished to share control equally with the physician; 5% (12/230) of surrogates wanted the physician to make the decision. Surrogates preferred significantly more control over the value-sensitive life support decision compared with the technical decision about choice of antibiotics (P < 0.0001). Factors independently associated with surrogates' preference for more control over the life support decision were: less trust in the intensive care unit physician, male sex, and non-Catholic religious affiliation. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates vary in their desire for decisional authority for value-sensitive life support decisions, but prefer substantially more authority for this type of decision compared with technical, medical judgments. Low trust in physicians is associated with surrogates preferring more control of life support decisions.

Are physicians' recommendations to limit life support beneficial or burdensome? Bringing empirical data to the debate.

RATIONALE: Although there is a growing belief that physicians should routinely provide a recommendation to surrogates during deliberations about withdrawing life support, there is a paucity of empirical data on surrogates' perspectives on this topic. OBJECTIVES: To understand the attitudes of surrogate decision-makers toward receiving a physician's recommendation during deliberations about whether to limit life support for an incapacitated patient. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, mixed methods study among 169 surrogate decision-makers for critically ill patients. Surrogates sequentially viewed two videos of simulated physician-surrogate discussions about whether to limit life support, which varied only by whether the physician gave a recommendation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main quantitative outcome was whether surrogates preferred to receive a physicians' recommendation. Surrogates also participated in an in-depth, semistructured interview to explore the reasons for their preference. Fifty-six percent (95/169) of surrogates preferred to receive a recommendation, 42% (70/169) preferred not to receive a recommendation, and 2% (4/169) felt that both approaches were equally acceptable. We identified four main themes that explained surrogates' preferences, including surrogates' perceptions of physicians' appropriate role in life or death decisions and their perceptions of the positive or negative consequences of a recommendation on the physician-surrogate relationship, on the decision-making process, and on long-term regret for the family. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus among surrogates about whether physicians should routinely provide a recommendation regarding life support decisions for incapacitated patients. These findings suggest that physicians should ask surrogates whether they wish to receive a recommendation regarding life support decisions and should be flexible in their approach to decision-making.