A randomized controlled trial of a novel home-based palliative care program: A report of a trial that could not be completed.

BACKGROUND: In response to a growing need for accessible, efficient, and effective palliative care services, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a novel palliative care at home (PC@H) model for people with serious illness that is centered around a community health worker, a registered nurse, and a social worker, with an advanced practice nurse and a physician for support. Our objectives were to measure the impact of receipt of PC@H on patient symptoms, quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs. METHODS: We enrolled 136 patients with serious illness in this parallel, randomized controlled trial. Our primary outcome was change in symptom burden at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in symptom burden at 3 months, change in quality of life at 6 weeks and 3 months, estimated using a group t-test. In an exploratory aim, we examined the impact of PC@H on healthcare utilization and cost using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: PC@H resulted in a greater improvement in patient symptoms at 6 weeks (1.30 score improvement, n = 37) and 3 months (3.14 score improvement, n = 21) compared with controls. There were no differences in healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a loss of funding, the trial was not able to be completed as originally intended. CONCLUSIONS: A palliative care at home model that leverages community health workers, registered nurses, and social workers as the primary deliverers of care may result in improved patient symptoms and quality of life compared with standard care. We did not demonstrate significant differences in healthcare utilization and cost associated with receipt of PC@H, likely due to inability to reach the intended sample size and insufficient statistical power, due to elements beyond the investigators' control such as the COVID-19 public health emergency and changes in grant funding.

Variation in Hospice Aide Care by Residential Setting.

Background: Hospice care frequently includes hands-on care from hospice aides, but the need for hospice aide care may vary in residential settings (e.g., assisted livings and nursing homes). Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare hospice aide use and factors associated with use across residential settings. Design: This longitudinal cohort study used data from Medicare beneficiaries in the United States enrolled in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) who died between 2010 and 2019 and had hospice claims and available residential setting data in MCBS (n = 1,915). Analysis: Decedent hospice aide use was compared by residential settings; multivariable models controlling for sociodemographic, clinical/functional, and hospice characteristics examined factors associated with hospice aide care in different residential settings. Results: Hospice aide visits were least common in the community setting (64.4% vs. 76.6% vs. 72.6% with any hospice aide visits in community, assisted living, and nursing home, respectively, p = 0.001). In adjusted models, factors associated with hospice aide visits did not significantly differ by residential settings. Conclusions: Despite staff providing hands-on support in assisted livings and nursing homes, hospice aide visits were more common in residential as opposed to community settings, and factors associated with hospice aide visits were similar among settings. To maximize the potentially positive impact of hospice aides on overall care, additional work is needed to understand when hospice aides are used and how hospice aides collaborate with families and care teams. This will help to ensure that hospice care is appropriately tailored to individual care needs in all residential settings.

Place of Death for Adults Receiving Specialist Palliative Care in Their Last 3 Months of Life: Factors Associated With Preferred Place, Actual Place, and Place of Death Congruence.

Objectives: Congruence between the preferred and actual place of death is recognised as an important quality indicator in end-of-life care. However, there may be complexities about preferences that are ignored in summary congruence measures. This article examined factors associated with preferred place of death, actual place of death, and congruence for a sample of patients who had received specialist palliative care in the last three months of life in Ireland. Methods: This article analysed merged data from two previously published mortality follow-back surveys: Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care in Ireland (EEPCI); Irish component of International Access, Rights and Empowerment (IARE I). Logistic regression models examined factors associated with (a) preferences for home death versus institutional setting, (b) home death versus hospital death, and (c) congruent versus non-congruent death. Setting: Four regions with differing levels of specialist palliative care development in Ireland. Participants: Mean age 77, 50% female/male, 19% living alone, 64% main diagnosis cancer. Data collected 2011-2015, regression model sample sizes: n = 342-351. Results: Congruence between preferred and actual place of death in the raw merged dataset was 51%. Patients living alone were significantly less likely to prefer home versus institution death (OR 0.389, 95%CI 0.157-0.961), less likely to die at home (OR 0.383, 95%CI 0.274-0.536), but had no significant association with congruence. Conclusions: The findings highlight the value in examining place of death preferences as well as congruence, because preferences may be influenced by what is feasible rather than what patients would like. The analyses also underline the importance of well-resourced community-based supports, including homecare, facilitating hospital discharge, and management of complex (eg, non-cancer) conditions, to facilitate patients to die in their preferred place.

Specialist Palliative Care Use and End-of-Life Care in Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

CONTEXT: For patients with advanced cancer, high intensity treatment at the end of life is measured as a reflection of the quality of care. Use of specialist palliative care has been promoted to improve care quality, but whether its use is associated with decreased treatment intensity on a population-level is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether receipt of specialist palliative care use is associated with differences in end-of-life quality metrics in patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: Retrospective propensity-matched cohort of patients age ≥ 65 who died with metastatic cancer in U.S. hospitals with palliative care programs that participated in the National Palliative Care Registry in 2018-2019. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the impact of specialist palliative care on use of chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life, use of intensive care unit (ICU) in the last 30 days of life, use of hospice, and hospice enrollment ≥ three days. RESULTS: After 1:2 matching, our cohort consisted of 15,878 exposed and 31,756 unexposed patients. Receipt of specialist palliative care was associated with a decrease in use of chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.59 [0.50-0.70]) and ICU at the end of life (aHR 0.86 [0.80-0.92]), and an increase in hospice use (aHR 1.92 [1.85-1.99]) and hospice enrollment for ≥three days (aHR 2.00 [1.93-2.07]). CONCLUSION: On a population-level, use of specialist palliative care was associated with improved metrics for quality end-of-life care for patients dying with metastatic cancer, underscoring the importance of its integration into cancer care.

Spatiotemporal Patterns of Hospitalizations Among Older Adults With Co-Presence of Cancer and Dementia in US Counties: 2013-2018.

We assessed the spatiotemporal patterns of hospitalization with comorbid cancer and dementia. Using the 2013-2018 inpatient claims data for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, we calculated hospitalization rates by dividing the total admissions from individuals with the co-presence of a major cancer (breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal) and dementia diagnoses with the total counts of FFS beneficiaries aged 65 or older. We identified 22 hotspots with high hospitalization rates that showed heterogeneous spatial and temporal utilization patterns. The odds of a county being a hotspot increased significantly with the county-level percentage of dual Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries (aOR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.04-1.07) and the prevalence of cancer (aOR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.59-1.89), while decreased significantly with increasing degree of rurality (aOR .82; 95% CI: .79-.85) and decreased yearly over time (aOR .72; 95% CI: .68-.75). The identified hotspots and factors at the county-level may help understand healthcare utilization patterns and assess resource allocation for this unique patient group.

Health Care Costs Associated With Hospice Use For People With Dementia In The US.

Policy makers in the US are increasingly concerned that greater use of the Medicare hospice benefit by people with dementia is driving up costs. Yet this perspective fails to incorporate potential cost savings associated with hospice. We estimated the association between hospice use by people with dementia and health care costs, using Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data from the period 2002-19. For community-dwelling people with dementia, Medicare costs were lower for those who used hospice than for those who did not, whether hospice enrollment was in the last three days ($2,200) or last three months ($7,200) of life, primarily through lower inpatient care costs in the last days of life. In nursing homes, total and Medicare costs were lower for hospice users with dementia who enrolled within a month of death than for those who did not use hospice. Total costs for the entire last year of life for those who used any days of hospice in the last year compared with no hospice did not differ, although Medicare costs were higher and Medicaid costs lower for those in nursing homes. Medicare policies that reduce hospice access and incentivize hospice disenrollment may actually increase Medicare costs, given that hospice cost savings generally derive from a person's last days or weeks of life.

Using Functional Status at the Time of Palliative Care Consult to Identify Opportunities for Earlier Referral.

Background: In order to improve early access to palliative care, strategies for monitoring referral practices in real-time are needed. Objective: To evaluate how Australia-Modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) at the time of initial palliative care consult differs between serious illnesses and could be used to identify opportunities for earlier referral. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated data from an inpatient palliative care consult registry. Serious illnesses were classified using ICD-10 codes. AKPS was assessed by palliative care clinicians during consult. Results: The AKPS distribution varied substantially between the different serious illnesses (p < 0.001). While patients with cancer and heart disease often had preserved functional status, the majority of patients with dementia, neurological, lung, liver, and renal disease were already completely bedbound at the time of initial palliative care consult. Conclusion: Measuring functional status at the time of palliative care referral could be helpful for monitoring referral practices and identifying opportunities for earlier referral.

Paid Care for People with Functional Impairment and Serious Illness: Results from the Health and Retirement Study.

BACKGROUND: Paid caregivers (e.g., home health aides) care for individuals living at home with functional impairment and serious illnesses (health conditions with high risk of mortality that impact function and quality of life). OBJECTIVE: To characterize those who receive paid care and identify factors associated with receipt of paid care in the context of serious illness and socioeconomic status. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling participants ≥ 65 years enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) between 1998 and 2018 with new-onset functional impairment (e.g., bathing, dressing) and linked fee-for-service Medicare claims (n = 2521). MAIN MEASURES: Dementia was identified using HRS responses and non-dementia serious illness (e.g., advanced cancer, end-stage renal disease) was identified using Medicare claims. Paid care support was identified using HRS survey report of paid help with functional tasks. KEY RESULTS: While about 27% of the sample received paid care, those with both dementia and non-dementia serious illnesses in addition to functional impairment received the most paid care (41.7% received ≥ 40 h of paid care per week). In multivariable models, those with Medicaid were more likely to receive any paid care (p < 0.001), but those in the highest income quartile received more hours of paid care (p = 0.05) when paid care was present. Those with non-dementia serious illness were more likely to receive any paid care (p < 0.001), but those with dementia received more hours of care (p < 0.001) when paid care was present. CONCLUSIONS: Paid caregivers play a significant role in meeting the care needs of those with functional impairment and serious illness and high paid care hours are common among those with dementia in particular. Future work should explore how paid caregivers can collaborate with families and healthcare teams to improve the health and well-being of the seriously ill throughout the income spectrum.

Improving the Approach to Defining, Classifying, Reporting and Monitoring Adverse Events in Seriously Ill Older Adults: Recommendations from a Multi-stakeholder Convening.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are needed to study topics relevant to older adults with serious illness. Investigators conducting clinical trials with this population are challenged by how to appropriately define, classify, report, and monitor serious and non-serious adverse events (SAEs/AEs), given that some traditionally reported AEs (pressure ulcers, delirium) and SAEs (death, hospitalization) are common in persons with serious illness, and may be consistent with their goals of care. OBJECTIVES: A multi-stakeholder group convened to establish greater clarity on and new approaches to address this critical issue. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two study investigators, members of regulatory and sponsor agencies, and patient stakeholders took part. APPROACH: The group met virtually four times and, using a collaborative approach, conducted a survey, select interviews, and reviewed regulatory guidance to collectively define the problem and identify a new approach. RESULTS: SAE/AE challenges fell into two areas: (1) definitions and classifications, including (a) implausible relationships, (b) misalignment with patient-centered care goals, and (c) well-known associations, and (2) reporting and monitoring, including (a) limited guidance, (b) inconsistent standards across regulators, and (c) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member knowledge gaps. Problems largely reflected practice norms rather than regulatory requirements that already support context-specific and aggregate reporting. Approaches can be improved by adopting principles that better align strategies for addressing adverse events with the type of intervention being tested, favoring routine and aggregate over expedited reporting, and prioritizing how SAE/AEs relate to patient-centered care goals. Reporting plans and decisions should follow an algorithm underpinned by these principles. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the proposed approach-and supporting it with education and better alignment with regulatory guidance and procedures-could improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials' safety involving older adults with serious illness and other vulnerable populations.

An Update: National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Palliative Medicine 2016-2020.

Background: The evidence base to support palliative care clinical practice is inadequate and opportunities to improve the evidence base remain despite the field's rapid growth. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine current National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of palliative medicine research and trends over time. Design: We sought to identify NIH funding of palliative medicine (2016-2020) in two stages: (1) we searched the NIH grant database, RePORTER, for grants with the keywords, "palliative care," "end-of-life care," "hospice," and "end of life," and (2) identified palliative care researchers likely to have secured NIH funding using three strategies. Methods: We abstracted (1) the first and last authors' names from original investigations published in major palliative medicine journals from 2016 to 2018; (2) names from a PubMed-generated list of original articles published in major medicine, nursing, and subspecialty journals using the above keywords; and (3) palliative medicine journal editorial board members and members of key palliative medicine initiatives. We cross-matched the pooled names against NIH grants funded from 2016 to 2021. Results: A crosswalk analysis of the author search and NIH RePORTER search identified 1658 grants. Of those, 541 were categorized as relevant to palliative medicine, which represented 419 unique principal investigators (mean of 1.34 grants per investigator). Compared with 2011-2015, the number of NIH-funded grants increased by 25%, NIH dollars increased by 35%, and the distribution of grant types remained stable. Conclusions: Despite the challenging NIH funding climate, the number of NIH grants and funding to palliative care have increased. Given the increased funding allocation toward Alzheimer's dementia and related dementia research at the congressional level, this increase in funding reflects this funding allocation and does not represent overall growth. Dedicated federal funding for palliative care research remains critical to grow the evidence base for persons living with serious illnesses and their families.

Incidence of potentially disruptive medical and social events in older adults with and without dementia.

BACKGROUND: Potentially disruptive medical, surgical, and social events-such as pneumonia, hip fracture, and widowhood-may accelerate the trajectory of decline and impact caregiving needs in older adults, especially among people with dementia (PWD). Prior research has focused primarily on nursing home residents with dementia. We sought to assess the incidence of potentially disruptive events in community-dwelling people with and without dementia. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of participants aged 65+ enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study between 2010 and 2018 (n = 9346), including a subset who were married-partnered at baseline (n = 5105). Dementia was defined with a previously validated algorithm. We calculated age-adjusted and gender-stratified incidence per 1000 person-years and incidence rate ratios of: 1) hospitalization for pneumonia, 2) hip fracture, and 3) widowhood in people with and without dementia. RESULTS: PWD (n = 596) were older (mean age 84 vs. 75) and a higher proportion were female (67% vs. 57%) than people without dementia (PWoD) (n = 8750). Age-adjusted incidence rates (per 1000 person-years) of pneumonia were higher in PWD (113.1; 95% CI 94.3, 131.9) compared to PWoD (62.1; 95% CI 54.7, 69.5), as were hip fractures (12.3; 95% CI 9.1, 15.6 for PWD compared to 8.1; 95% CI 6.9, 9.2 in PWoD). Point estimates of widowhood incidence were slightly higher for PWD (25.3; 95% CI 20.1, 30.5) compared to PWoD (21.9; 95% CI 20.3, 23.5), but differences were not statistically significant. The association of dementia with hip fracture-but not pneumonia or widowhood-was modified by gender (male incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.24, 95% CI 1.34, 3.75 versus female IRR 1.31 95% CI 0.92,1.86); interaction term p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PWoD, community-dwelling PWD had higher rates of pneumonia and hip fracture, but not widowhood. Knowing how often PWD experience these events can aid in anticipatory guidance and care planning for this growing population.

Access to Palliative Care Consultation for Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in an Urban Health System: Were There Disparities at the Peak of the Pandemic?

Background: Palliative care (PC) services expanded rapidly to meet the needs of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, yet little is known about which patients were referred for PC consultation during the pandemic. Objective: Examine factors predictive of PC consultation for COVID-19 patients. Design: Retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients discharged from four hospitals (March 1-June 30, 2020). Exposures: Patient demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors and hospital-level characteristics. Outcome Measurement: Inpatient PC consultation. Results: Of 4319 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 581 (14%) received PC consultation. Increasing age, serious illness (cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia), greater illness severity, and admission to the quaternary hospital were associated with receipt of PC consultation. There was no association between PC consultation and race/ethnicity, household crowding, insurance status, or hospital-factors, including inpatient, emergency department, and intensive care unit census. Conclusions: Although site variation existed, the highest acuity patients were most likely to receive PC consultation without racial/ethnic or socioeconomic disparities.

Receipt of Hospice Aide Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries Receiving Home Hospice Care.

CONTEXT: Hospice aides provide essential direct care to hospice patients, yet there is minimal research examining hospice aide visits. OBJECTIVES: describe the prevalence and frequency of hospice aide visits, and 2) evaluate patient, community, and hospice characteristics associated with these visits. METHODS: Longitudinal cohort study of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) participants who died between 2010-2018 and received routine hospice care in the 6 months prior to death (n = 674). We characterized prevalence and frequency of hospice aide visits over time and used generalized linear modelling to identify factors associated with visits. RESULTS: 64% of hospice enrollees received hospice aide visits and average visit frequency (1.3 per week) remained stable throughout enrollment. The only patient characteristic associated with receipt of hospice aide visits was primary hospice diagnosis (respiratory diagnosis vs. dementia: OR 0.372, P = 0.040). Those living in community-based residential housing and those cared for by hospices with aides employed as staff were more likely to receive any hospice aide visits (OR 2.331, P = 0.047 and OR 4.612, P = 0.002, respectively.) CONCLUSION: Hospice aide visits are a common component of hospice care, but visit frequency does not increase as death approaches. Receipt of hospice aide visits was primarily associated with community and hospice agency (rather than patient) characteristics. Future work is needed to ensure that hospice aides are integrated in the hospice interdisciplinary team and that access to hospice aide visits is meaningfully driven by patient and family needs, rather than the practice norms and business models of individual hospice agencies.

Non-Concordance between Patient and Clinician Estimates of Prognosis in Advanced Heart Failure.

IMPORTANCE: Despite efforts to enhance serious illness communication, patients with advanced heart failure (HF) lack prognostic understanding. OBJECTIVES: To determine rate of concordance between HF patients' estimation of their prognosis and their physician's estimate of the patient's prognosis, and to compare patient characteristics associated with concordance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with 24-month follow-up and analysis completed on 09/01/2020. Patients were enrolled in inpatient and outpatient settings between September 2011 to February 2016 and data collection continued until the last quarter of 2017. SETTING: Six teaching hospitals in the U.S. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced HF and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) at high risk of death. Of 537 patients in the parent study, 407 had complete data for this analysis. INTERVENTION: A multi-component communication intervention on conversations between HF clinicians and their patients regarding ICD deactivation and advance care planning. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Patient self-report of prognosis and physician response to the "surprise question" of 12-month prognosis. Patient-physician prognostic concordance (PPPC) measured in percentage agreement and kappa. Bivariate analyses of characteristics of patients with and without PPPC. RESULTS: Among 407 patients (mean age 62.1 years, 29.5% female, 42.4% non-white), 300 (73.7%) dyads had non-PPPC; of which 252 (84.0%) reported a prognosis >1 year when their physician estimated <1 year. Only 107 (26.3%) had PPPC with prognosis of ≤ 1 year (n=20 patients) or > 1 year (n=87 patients); (Κ = -0.20, p = 1.0). Of those with physician estimated prognosis of < 1 year, non-PPPC was more likely among patients with lower symptom burden- number and severity (both p ≤.001), without completed advance directive (p=.001). Among those with physician prognosis estimate > 1 year, no patient characteristic was associated with PPPC or non-PPPC. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Non-PPPC between HF patients and their physicians is high. HF patients are more optimistic than clinicians in estimating life expectancy. These data demonstrate there are opportunities to improve the quality of prognosis disclosure between patients with advanced HF and their physicians. Interventions to improve PPPC might include serious illness communication training.

Expanding the Palliative Care Workforce during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Evaluation of Core Palliative Care Skills in Health Social Workers.

Background: Meeting the needs of seriously ill SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) patients requires novel models of deploying health social workers (SWs) to expand the palliative care workforce. To inform such expansion, understanding the current state of health SWs' core palliative care skills is necessary. Methods: Following minimal training, health SWs in one New York City hospital were surveyed about their frequency, competence, and confidence in using core palliative care skills. Results: Of the 170 health SWs surveyed, 46 (27%) responded, of whom 21 (46%) and 24 (52%) had palliative care training before and during the COVID-19 surge, respectively. Health SWs reported a "moderate improvement" in the use of three skills: "identify a medical decision maker," "assess prognostic understanding," and "coordinate care." There was "minimal decrease" to "no improvement" to "minimal improvement" in competence and confidence of skill use. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that educational initiatives can improve health SWs' use of core palliative care skills.