A Hospice Transitions Program for Patients in the Emergency Department.

Importance: Patients often visit the emergency department (ED) near the end of life. Their common disposition is inpatient hospital admission, which can result in a delayed transition to hospice care and, ultimately, an inpatient hospital death that may be misaligned with their goals of care. Objective: To assess the association of hospice use with a novel multidisciplinary hospice program to rapidly identify and enroll eligible patients presenting to the ED near end of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pre-post quality improvement study of a novel, multifaceted care transitions program involving a formalized pathway with email alerts, clinician training, hospice vendor expansion, metric creation, and data tracking was conducted at a large, urban tertiary care academic medical center affiliated with a comprehensive cancer center among adult patients presenting to the ED near the end of life. The control period before program launch was from September 1, 2018, to January 31, 2020, and the intervention period after program launch was from August 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was a transition to hospice without hospital admission and/or hospice admission within 96 hours of the ED visit. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and in-hospital mortality. Results: This study included 270 patients (median age, 74.0 years [IQR, 62.0-85.0 years]; 133 of 270 women [49.3%]) in the control period, and 388 patients (median age, 73.0 years [IQR, 60.0-84.0 years]; 208 of 388 women [53.6%]) in the intervention period, identified as eligible for hospice transition within 96 hours of ED arrival. In the control period, 61 patients (22.6%) achieved the primary outcome compared with 210 patients (54.1%) in the intervention period (P < .001). The intervention was associated with the primary outcome after adjustment for age, race and ethnicity, primary payer, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and presence of a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) (adjusted odds ratio, 5.02; 95% CI, 3.17-7.94). In addition, the presence of a MOLST was independently associated with hospice transition across all groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.18-2.99). There was no significant difference between the control and intervention periods in inpatient length of stay (median, 2.0 days [IQR, 1.1-3.0 days] vs 1.9 days [IQR, 1.1-3.0 days]; P = .84), but in-hospital mortality was lower in the intervention period (48.5% [188 of 388] vs 64.4% [174 of 270]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, a multidisciplinary program to facilitate ED patient transitions was associated with hospice use. Further investigation is needed to examine the generalizability and sustainability of the program.

Caring for People We Know: An Unrecognized Risk for Burnout?

Background: As the field of palliative care continues to grow, many clinicians will care for patients with whom they have personal connections. Breaching the boundary between a clinician's personal and professional life is potentially an unrecognized risk for burnout. Objective: We explored the challenges of caring for patients personally known to clinicians and the types of support needed, with a view to developing preliminary practice guidelines. Design: Focus groups. Setting/Subjects: Thirteen psychosocial oncology and palliative care clinicians who care for adult patients participated in one of two focus groups. Six participants were physicians, four were nurse practitioner/registered nurse/physician assistant (NP/RN/PAs), and three were psychosocial clinicians. Measurement: Using NVivo 12, we analyzed focus group transcripts from clinicians about their experiences caring for patients they know personally, the impact of such experiences, and the type of support and guidelines that could benefit clinicians in these unique situations. Results: Navigating boundaries and managing the psychological impact on the clinician, including fear of negative evaluation, increased anxiety and emotional exhaustion were the most challenging aspects of providing such care. Suggested guidelines include an early team meeting, a buddy system, a conversation guide to address the dual relationship, and embedded psychological support and mentorship. Conclusions: Feedback from clinicians identified preliminary guidelines that incorporate tools palliative care teams can use to improve support for clinicians caring for patients with whom they have a personal connection. These tools address the psychosocial aspects of care and have the potential to help clinicians feel a greater sense of control in these often, challenging and emotionally taxing situations.

Caring for Bereaved Family Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Before and After the Death of a Patient.

Bereavement care is considered an integral component of quality end-of-life care endorsed by the palliative care movement. However, few hospitals and health care institutions offer universal bereavement care to all families of patients who die. The current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted this gap and created a sense of urgency, from a public health perspective, for institutions to provide support to bereaved family members. In this article, drawing on the palliative care and bereavement literature, we offer suggestions about how to incorporate palliative care tools and psychological strategies into bereavement care for families during this pandemic.

Misunderstandings about prognosis: an approach for palliative care consultants when the patient does not seem to understand what was said.

Called in after discussions about prognosis between referring clinicians and patients, palliative care consultants sometimes find that the patient does not seem to understand what the referring clinician believes he or she explained. However, holding a more explicit discussion about prognosis may compromise the palliative care clinician's rapport with both the patient and the referring clinician. We therefore propose a two-part approach to explore apparent prognostic misunderstandings: first, generate a differential diagnosis for why the patient and referring clinician have different reports of what was said, and second, cultivate a partnership with the referring clinician to provide a unified patient care plan.

Giving feedback.

BACKGROUND: Giving feedback is a core element of medical education, one that is gaining attention but with a thin evidence base to guide medical educators. This review provides a definition of feedback and its purpose, selectively reviews the literature regarding educators' and learners' attitudes toward feedback, and provides an algorithm for giving feedback. DISCUSSION: The authors discuss the parallels between giving feedback and breaking bad news, emphasizing the importance of titrating the amount of information given, attending to affect, and making a plan for next steps. Special considerations for giving feedback in palliative care are highlighted, including the effect of heightened emotion in the clinical encounter and the difficulties of giving feedback about communication skills.