Evaluating the pragmatic characteristics of advance care planning outcome measures in dementia clinical trials: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that involves discussing a person's goals, values, and preferences; it is particularly important for persons living with dementia (PLWD) given that dementia is incurable and progressive. To ensure results that will impact real-world practices, ACP outcome measures must be psychometrically strong, meaningful to key partners, and pragmatic to collect. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of outcome measures utilized in ACP randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling PLWD or their care partners and evaluated their pragmatic characteristics. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed ACP RCTs enrolling PLWD or their care partners from 2011 to 2021. We abstracted characteristics of primary and secondary outcome measures, including pragmatic characteristics using an adapted Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale and ACP outcome domains using the standardized ACP Outcome Framework (i.e., process, action, healthcare, or quality of care). RESULTS: We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. Twenty-four (23%) outcome measures were highly pragmatic, the majority of which (67%) reflected healthcare outcome measures. Sixty-one (59%) outcomes were assessed as highly relevant to PLWD or their care partners. Only 20% (n = 21) of outcome measures were embedded into clinical practice. Most (62%) RCTs were conducted in nursing homes, and 33% were focused PLWD with advanced stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: In RCTs testing ACP interventions to support PLWD, only 23% of outcome measures were highly pragmatic, and most of these measured healthcare utilizations. Outcome assessments were rarely integrated into the EHR during routine clinical care. New outcome measures that address the lived experience of PLWD and their care partners plus have high pragmatic characteristics are needed for embedded pragmatic clinical trials.

Timing is everything: Early versus late palliative care consults in trauma.

BACKGROUND: The incorporation of dedicated palliative care (PC) services in the care of the critically injured trauma patient is not yet universal. Preexisting data demonstrate both economic and clinical value of PC consults, yet patient selection and optimal timing of these consults are poorly defined, possibly leading to underutilization of PC services. Prior studies in geriatric patients have shown benefits of PC when PC clinicians are engaged earlier during hospitalization. We aim to compare hospitalization metrics of early versus late PC consultation in trauma patients. METHODS: All patients 18 years or older admitted to the trauma service between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2021, who received a PC consult were included. Patients were assigned to EARLY (PC consult ≤3 days after admission) and LATE (PC consult >3 days after admission) cohorts. Demographics, injury and underlying disease characteristics, outcomes, and financial data were compared. Length of stay (LOS) in the EARLY group is compared with LOS-3 in the LATE group. RESULTS: A total of 154 patient records met the inclusion criteria (60 EARLY and 94 LATE). Injury Severity Score, head Abbreviated Injury Scale score, and medical comorbidities (congestive heart failure, dementia, previous stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malignancy) were similar between the groups. The LATE group was younger (69.9 vs. 75.3, p = 0.04). Patients in the LATE group had significantly longer LOS (17.5 vs. 7.0 days, p < 0.01) and higher median hospital costs ($53,165 vs. $17,654, p < 0.01). Patients in the EARLY group had reduced ventilator days (2.4 vs. 7.0, p < 0.01) and reduced rates of tracheostomies and surgical feeding tubes (1.7% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Trauma patients with early PC consultation had shorter LOS, reduced ventilator days, reduced rates of invasive procedures, and lower costs even after correcting for delay to consult in the late group. These findings suggest the need for mechanisms leading to earlier PC consult in critically injured patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.