Palliative Care Clinician Overestimation of Survival in Advanced Cancer: Disparities and Association With End-of-Life Care.

CONTEXT: Clinicians frequently overestimate survival time in serious illness. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand the frequency of overestimation in palliative care (PC) and the relation with end-of-life (EOL) treatment. METHODS: This is a multisite cohort study of 230 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer who consulted with PC between 2013 and 2016. We asked the consulting PC clinician to make their "best guess" about the patients' "most likely survival time, assuming that their illnesses are allowed to take their natural course" (<24 hours; 24 hours to less than two weeks; two weeks to less than three months; three months to less than six months; six months or longer). We followed patients for up to six month for mortality and EOL treatment utilization. Patients completed a brief interviewer-facilitated questionnaire at study enrollment. RESULTS: Median survival was 37 days (interquartile range: 12 days, 97 days) and 186/230 (81%) died during the follow-up period. Forty-one percent of clinicians' predictions were accurate. Among inaccurate prognoses, 85% were overestimates. Among those who died, overestimates were substantially associated with less hospice use (ORadj: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99) and later hospice enrollment (within 72 hours of death ORadj: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15-0.74). PC clinicians were substantially more likely to overestimate survival for patients who identified as Black or Latino compared to others (ORadj: 3.89; 95% CI: 1.64-9.22). EOL treatment preferences did not explain either of these findings. CONCLUSION: Overestimation is common in PC, associated with lower hospice use and a potentially mutable source of racial/ethnic disparity in EOL care.

Feeling Heard and Understood: A Patient-Reported Quality Measure for the Inpatient Palliative Care Setting.

CONTEXT: As endorsed by the palliative care "Measuring What Matters" initiative, capturing patients' direct assessment of their care is essential for ongoing quality reporting and improvement. Fostering an environment where seriously ill patients feel heard and understood is of crucial importance to modern health care. OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and performance of a self-report field measure for seriously ill patients to report how well they feel heard and understood in the hospital environment. METHODS: As part of a larger ongoing cohort study of inpatient palliative care, we developed and administered the following point-of-care item: "Over the past two days, how much have you felt heard and understood by the doctors, nurses and hospital staff?" (completely, quite a bit, moderately, slightly, not at all). Participants completed the measure before and the day after palliative care consultation. For the postconsultation version, we changed the time frame from "past two days" to "today." RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients with advanced cancer completed the preconsultation assessment, and 87% of them completed the postconsultation version. Responses encompassed full use of the ordinal scale, did not exhibit ceiling or floor effects, and showed improvement from preassessment to postassessment. The item was quick to administer and easy for patients to complete. CONCLUSION: The "Heard & Understood" item is a promising self-report quality measure for the inpatient palliative care setting.

Design of, and enrollment in, the palliative care communication research initiative: a direct-observation cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the characteristics of communication that foster patient-centered outcomes amid serious illness are essential for the science of palliative care. However, epidemiological cohort studies that directly observe clinical conversations can be challenging to conduct in the natural setting. We describe the successful enrollment, observation and data collection methods of the ongoing Palliative Care Communication Research Initiative (PCCRI). METHODS: The PCCRI is a multi-site cohort study of naturally occurring inpatient palliative care consultations. The 6-month cohort data includes directly observed and audio-recorded palliative care consultations (up to first 3 visits); patient/proxy/clinician self-report questionnaires both before and the day after consultation; post-consultation in-depth interviews; and medical/administrative records. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients or their proxies enrolled in PCCRI during Enrollment Year One (of Three). Seventy percent of eligible patients/proxies were invited to hear about a communication research study (188/269); 60% of them ultimately enrolled in the PCCRI (114/188), resulting in a 42% sampling proportion (114/269 eligible). All PC clinicians at study sites were invited to participate; all 45 participated. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiologic study of patient-family-clinician communication in palliative care settings is feasible and acceptable to patients, proxies and clinicians. We detail the successful PCCRI methods for enrollment, direct observation and data collection for this complex "field" environment.