Differences in Healthcare and Palliative Care Utilization at the End of Life: a Comparison Study Between Lung Cancer, COPD, and IPF.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lung cancer, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have high symptom burden, poor quality of life, and high healthcare utilization at the end of life. While proactive integration of palliative care in lung cancer can improve outcomes, it is unclear whether similar practices have been adopted in COPD and IPF care. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do patients with COPD and IPF have different patterns of healthcare and palliative care use at the end of life compared to lung cancer? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified deceased patients with lung cancer, COPD, or IPF with ≥1 outpatient visit at [removed] in the last six months of life. We compared outpatient palliative care and opioid prescriptions, inpatient palliative care, hospitalizations, intensive care use, and in-hospital death in the last 6 months of life between each group. We used multivariable logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios of each outcome, with lung cancer as the reference group. RESULTS: Among 1,819 patients, patients with COPD and IPF were more likely to be male and older at the time of death, compared to patients with lung cancer. Compared to lung cancer, patients with COPD and IPF had a lower adjusted odds (p<0.001) of receiving outpatient palliative care (aOR COPD: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19-0.36; aOR IPF: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.32-0.70), outpatient opioids (aOR COPD: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.40-0.63; aOR IPF: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.29-0.54), and a higher odds of end-of-life ICU use (COPD aOR: 2.88, 95% CI: 2.11-3.93; IPF aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.66-6.49). Patients with IPF had higher odds of receiving inpatient palliative care (aOR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.30-3.13, p=0.002). INTERPRETATION: Patients with COPD and IPF are less likely to receive outpatient palliative care and opioid prescriptions and more likely to use end-of-life intensive care than patients with lung cancer. Further research should explore health system barriers contributing to differences in care patterns to optimize quality of life and align with patient goals of care.

National Prevalence of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Social isolation and loneliness are gaining recognition for their role in health outcomes, yet they have not been defined in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objective: To determine the national prevalence of and characteristics associated with social isolation and loneliness in people with COPD. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of community-dwelling adults aged ⩾50 years in the nationally representative HRS (Health and Retirement Study) (2016-2018). Participants self-reported COPD and supplemental oxygen use and were categorized into three groups: 1) no COPD; 2) COPD; and 3) COPD on oxygen. Social isolation was defined using a nine-item scale indicating minimal household contacts, social network interaction, and community engagement. Loneliness was measured using the 3-Item UCLA Loneliness Scale. Multivariable logistic regression defined prevalence and associated characteristics for both. Results: Participants (n = 10,384) were on average 68 years old (standard deviation, ±10.5), 54% female, 10% Black, 11% self-reported COPD, and 2% self-reported supplemental oxygen. Overall, 12% were socially isolated, 12% lonely, and 3% both socially isolated and lonely. People with COPD had a higher adjusted prevalence of social isolation (no COPD: 11%; COPD: 16%; COPD on oxygen: 20%; P < 0.05) and loneliness (no COPD: 11%; COPD: 18%; COPD on oxygen: 22%; P < 0.001). In those with COPD, characteristics associated with social isolation (P < 0.05) included sex (men: 22%; women: 13%), non-Hispanic White ethnicity (White: 19%; Black: 7%), low net worth (<$6,000: 32%; $81,001-$239,000: 10%), depression (depression: 24%; no depression: 14%), having difficulty with one or more activities of daily living (one or more difficulty: 22%; no difficulty: 14%), and current cigarette use (current: 24%; never: 13%). Characteristics associated with loneliness (P < 0.05) included younger age (50-64 yr: 22%; 75-84 yr: 12%), being single (single: 32%; married: 12%), depression (depression: 36%; no depression: 13%), having difficulty with one or more activities of daily living (one or more difficulty: 29%; no difficulty: 15%), diabetes (diabetes: 26%; no diabetes: 17%), and heart disease (heart disease 23%; no heart disease: 17%). Conclusions: Nearly one in six adults with COPD experience social isolation, and one in five experience loneliness, with almost twice the prevalence among those on supplemental oxygen compared with the general population. Demographic and clinical characteristics identify those at highest risk to guide clinical and policy interventions.

A Pilot Randomized Trial of an Interactive Web-based Tool to Support Surrogate Decision Makers in the Intensive Care Unit.

Rationale: Breakdowns in clinician-family communication in intensive care units (ICUs) are common, yet there are no easily scaled interventions to prevent this problem.Objectives: To assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of a communication intervention that pairs proactive family meetings with an interactive, web-based tool to help surrogates prepare for clinician-family meetings.Methods: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, patient-level randomized trial comparing the Family Support Tool with enhanced usual care in two ICUs in a tertiary-care hospital. Eligible participants included surrogates of incapacitated patients judged by their physicians to have ≥40% risk of death or severe long-term functional impairment. The intervention group received unlimited tool access, with prompts to complete specific content upon enrollment and before two scheduled family meetings. Before family meetings, research staff shared with clinicians a one-page summary of surrogates' main questions, prognostic expectations, beliefs about the patient's values, and attitudes about goals of care. The comparator group received usual care enhanced with scheduled family meetings. Feasibility outcomes included the proportion of participants who accessed the tool before the first family meeting, mean number of logins, and average tool engagement time. We assessed tool usability with the System Usability Scale, assessed tool acceptability and perceived effectiveness with internally developed questionnaires, and assessed quality of communication and shared decision-making using the Quality of Communication questionnaire.Results: Of 182 screened patients, 77 were eligible. We enrolled 52 (67.5%) patients and their primary surrogate. Ninety-six percent of intervention surrogates (24/25) accessed the tool before the first family meeting (mean engagement time, 62 min ± 27.7) and logged in 4.2 times (±2.1) on average throughout the hospitalization. Surrogates reported that the tool was highly usable (mean, 82.4/100), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5 ± 0.9), and effective (mean, 4.4/5 ± 0.2). Compared with the control group, surrogates who used the tool reported higher overall quality of communication (mean, 8.9/10 ± 1.6 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4) and higher quality in shared decision-making (mean, 8.7/10 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4), but the difference did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions: It is feasible to deploy an interactive web-based tool to support communication and shared decision-making for surrogates in ICUs. Surrogates and clinicians rated the tool as highly usable, acceptable, and effective.

Developing the family support tool: An interactive, web-based tool to help families navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs.

INTRODUCTION: Although family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker, there are no low-cost, easily-scaled interventions to address this problem. AIM OF THE STUDY: To develop and pilot-test the Family Support Tool, an interactive, web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a mixed methods, user-centered process to create the Family Support Tool, including: 1) creation of a preliminary design by an expert panel; 2) engagement of a key stakeholder panel to iteratively refine the preliminary design; 3) user testing of a low-fidelity prototype of the tool by 6 former ICU surrogates; 4) creation of a web-based prototype; and 5) user testing of the web-based prototype with 14 surrogates and ICU physicians, including semi-structured interviews and quantitative measurement of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness. RESULTS: The initial design contained a collection of videos and exercises designed to help individuals understand the surrogate's role and think through the patient's values and preferences. Based on family stakeholders' feedback about the emotional overwhelm they experience early in an ICU stay, we redesigned the tool to be viewed in sections, with the first section focused on decreasing surrogates' emotional distress, and later sections focused on helping surrogates prepare for family meetings. Surrogates actively making decisions in the ICU judged the final tool to be highly usable (mean summary score 83.5, correlating to 95th percentile when normalized to devices of its type), acceptable (mean 4.2 +/- 0.5 out of 5), and effective (mean 4.3 +/- 0.6 out of 5). All surrogates reported the tool helped them consider goals of care and all indicated they would recommend the tool to a friend. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed a web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs that has high potential for scalability. Surrogates judged the tool to be usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding to test the tool in a pilot randomized clinical trial.