Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Culturally Inclusive Diets into Hospitals and Long-Term Care Facilities.

OBJECTIVES: To identify perceived facilitators and barriers to implementing culturally inclusive foods into hospitals and long-term care (LTC) from the perspectives of registered dietitians and food service directors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Online nationwide survey of registered dietitians and food service directors working in hospitals or LTC. METHODS: We analyzed and compared participants' perceived barriers to implementing culturally inclusive foods in hospitals and LTC, assessed through a question in which we provided respondents with 13 different barriers and asked them to report the top 3. Then, we conducted a qualitative analysis of perceived facilitators, which respondents described in open-ended comments. RESULTS: The most common perceived barriers to implementing culturally inclusive foods were cost of ingredients (44%) and staff cultural knowledge and competence (44%). LTC respondents perceived barriers including (1) willingness of staff to adopt new practices, (2) time, (3) staff burnout, and (4) local/facility-level regulatory barriers more frequently than hospital respondents. Administrative buy-in, staff diversity, and patient considerations (eg, feedback and demand) were perceived facilitators to implementing culturally inclusive foods. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Implementing culturally inclusive foods into hospitals and LTC requires administrative buy-in, willingness to change, and resources including staff diversity and cultural knowledge and awareness. Incorporating patient feedback and preferences into decisions related to dietary offerings could further motivate menu modifications. Further examination of organizational and state policies regulating diet, particularly in LTC settings, is necessary to understand both how to implement culturally inclusive foods and further, to inform investigation of health outcomes (physical and mental) associated with increasing culturally inclusive food offerings in these facilities.

Goals of care discussions: perceptions of radiation and medical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions (GOCD) are essential when counseling patients with cancer. Respective roles of radiation oncologists (RO) and medical oncologists (MO) in GOCD can be unclear. This study aims to clarify the dynamics and barriers to GOCD. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-four ROs and 1604 MOs at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers were sent an anonymous electronic survey regarding demographics, opinions, training in GOCD, GOCD frequency, and three vignettes. Response formats were Yes/No, Likert-type, and free response. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Likert-type scores were reported as median [interquartile range]. RESULTS: There were 76 (13.7%) RO and 153 (9.5%) MO who completed surveys. Sixty-three percent of RO and 66% of MO reported GOCD with > 50% of patients (p = 0.90). GOCD were initiated for declining performance status (74%) and poor life expectancy (69%). More MO (42%) received formal GOCD training compared to RO (18%) (p < 0.01). MO were more comfortable conducting GOCD than RO (p < 0.01). RO-conducted GOCD were rated to be less important by MO compared to RO (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of MO reported being "not at all" or "somewhat" comfortable with RO-conducted GOCD. RO-initiated GOCD with new patients were rated less appropriate by RO compared to MO perceptions of RO-initiated GOCD (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While MO and RO conduct GOCD with similar frequency, MO are more comfortable conducting GOCD and are more likely to have formal training. MO rate importance of RO involvement lower than RO. Further research is needed to understand interdisciplinary dynamics that may impact GOCD and subsequent patient care outcomes.

Development of Curricular Milestones for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship Training in the U.S.

CONTEXT: A physician workgroup of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine sought to define curricular milestones (CMs) for hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) Fellowship Programs. The developed list of CMs would serve as components upon which to organize curriculum and standardize what to teach during training. These would complement entrustable professional activities previously developed by this group and new specialty-specific reporting milestones (RMs) for HPM developed through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop and vet CMs for HPM fellowships in the U.S. METHODS: A draft of CMs was developed through an iterative consensus group process with repeated cycles of drafting, analyzing, and revising by a broadly representative expert workgroup who then gained input from HPM educators at a national meeting workshop. The CM draft was subsequently revised and then vetted through a national survey to 203 fellowship educators. Respondents were asked to "keep," "revise," or "exclude" each proposed CM with space for comments. An agreement of 75% among respondents was set as the criteria a priori for keeping a CM. Eighty-four of the 203 potential respondents participated in the survey. All items met the minimum agreement level of 75% or greater recommending keeping the CM. Greater than 85% of the respondents agreed to keep 19 of the 22 CMs with no revisions. Comments for revisions on other CMs were primarily related to changes in language and formatting, not conceptual underpinnings. CONCLUSION: A group consensus method strengthened by inclusion of a national survey to HPM fellowship educators resulted in a CM document that is both carefully developed and broadly vetted. Along with entrustable professional activities and new specialty-specific RMs, these CMs offer educators and trainees tools to create more comprehensive curricula and behaviorally based assessment tools for HPM fellowships and their stakeholders.

Palliative Care Competencies and Readiness for Independent Practice: A Report on the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Review of the U.S. Medical Licensing Step Examinations.

CONTEXT: It is unknown whether the palliative care (PC) content tested in the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step examinations reflects the consensus-developed PC competencies. OBJECTIVES: To review the USMLE step examinations to determine whether they test the PC knowledge necessary for graduating medical students and residents applying for licensure. METHODS: Eight PC physicians reviewed three complete examination forms and a focused 509-item bundle of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) identified by the USMLE content outline as potentially assessing PC content. Reviewers determined MCQs to be PC items if the patient was seriously ill and PC knowledge was required to answer correctly. PC items' competency domains were determined using reference domains from PC subspecialty consensus competencies. RESULTS: Reviewers analyzed 1090 MCQs and identified 242 (22%) as PC items. PC items were identified in each step examination. Patients in PC items were mostly males (62.8%), older than 65 years (62%), and diagnosed with cancer (43.6%). Only 6.6% and 6.2%, respectively, had end-stage heart disease or multimorbid illness. Fifty-one percent of PC items addressed ethics (31%) or communication (19.8%), focusing on patient autonomy, surrogate decision makers, or conflict between decision makers. Pain and symptom management was assessed in 28.5% of PC items, and one-third of those addressed addiction or substance use disorder. CONCLUSION: We identified PC content in each step examination. However, heart disease and multimorbidity were under-represented in PC items relative to their prevalence. In addition, there was heavy overlap with ethics, a focus on conflict in assessing communication skills, and emphasis on addiction when testing pain management. Our findings highlight opportunities to enhance testing of clinical PC skills essential for all licensed physicians practicing medicine.

Development of Entrustable Professional Activities for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship Training in the United States.

CONTEXT: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) represent the key physician tasks of a specialty. Once a trainee demonstrates competence in an activity, they can then be "entrusted" to practice without supervision. A physician workgroup of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine sought to define Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) EPAs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the development of a set of consensus EPAs for HPM fellowship training in the United States. METHODS: A set of HPM EPAs was developed through an iterative consensus process involving an expert workgroup, vetting at a national meeting with HPM educators, and an electronic survey from a national registry of 3550 HPM physicians. Vetting feedback was reviewed, and survey data were statistically analyzed. Final EPA revisions followed from the multisource feedback. RESULTS: Through the iterative consensus process, a set of 17 HPM EPAs was created, detailed, and revised. In the national survey, 362 HPM specialists responded (10%), including 58 of 126 fellowship program directors (46%). Respondents indicated that the set of 17 EPAs well represented the core activities of HPM physician practice (mean 4.72 on a five-point Likert scale) and considered all EPAs to either be "essential" or "important" with none of the EPAs ranking "neither essential, nor important." CONCLUSIONS: A set of 17 EPAs was developed using national input of practicing physicians and program directors and an iterative expert workgroup consensus process. The workgroup anticipates that EPAs can assist fellowship directors with strengthening competency-based training curricula.

Perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of hematology/oncology fellows toward incorporating geriatrics in their training.

The aging of the U.S. population continues to highlight emerging issues in providing care generally for older adults and specifically for older adults with cancer. The majority of patients with cancer in the U.S. are currently 65 years of age or older; therefore, training and research in geriatrics and geriatric oncology are viewed to be integral in meeting the needs of this vulnerable population. Yet, the ways to develop and integrate best geriatrics training within the context of hematology/oncology fellowship remain unclear. Toward this end, the current study seeks to evaluate the prior and current geriatric experiences and perspectives of hematology/oncology fellows. To gain insight into these experiences, focus groups of hematology/oncology fellows were conducted. Emergent themes included: 1) perceived lack of formal geriatric oncology didactics among fellows; 2) a considerable amount of variability exists in pre-fellowship geriatric experiences; 3) shared desire to participate in a geriatric oncology-based clinic; 4) differences across training levels in confidence in managing older adults with cancer; and 5) identification of specific criteria on how best to approach older adults with cancer in a particular clinical scenario. The present findings will help guide future studies in evaluating geriatrics among hematology/oncology fellows across institutions. They will also have implications in the development of geriatrics curricula and competencies specific to hematology/oncology training.

A prognostic model for 1-year mortality in older adults after hospital discharge.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a prognostic index for 1-year mortality of hospitalized older adults using standard administrative data readily available after discharge. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The prognostic index was developed and validated retrospectively in 6382 older adults discharged from general medicine services at an urban teaching hospital over a 4-year period. Potential risk factors for 1-year mortality were obtained from administrative data and examined using logistic regression models. Each risk factor associated independently with mortality was assigned a weight based on the odds ratios, and risk scores were calculated for each patient by adding the points of each independent risk factor present. Patients in the development cohort were divided into quartiles of risk based on their final risk score. A similar analysis was performed on the validation cohort to confirm the original results. RESULTS: Risk factors independently associated with 1-year mortality included: aged 70 to 74 years (1 point); aged 75 years and greater (2 points); length of stay at least 5 days (1 point); discharge to nursing home (1 point); metastatic cancer (2 points); and other comorbidities (congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, hematologic or solid, nonmetastatic malignancy, and dementia, each 1 point). In the derivation cohort, 1-year mortality was 11% in the lowest-risk group (0 or 1 point) and 48% in the highest-risk group (4 or greater points). Similarly, in the validation cohort, 1-year mortality was 11% in the lowest risk group and 45% in the highest-risk group. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.70 for the derivation cohort and 0.68 for the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Reasonable prognostic information for 1-year mortality in older patients discharged from general medicine services can be derived from administrative data to identify high-risk groups of persons.