Outcomes of a Multisite Mentored Implementation Approach to Promoting Goals of Care Conversations.

CONTEXT: The Preference-Aligned Communication and Treatment (PACT) Project is a multisite quality improvement effort that has been shown to increase the frequency of goals of care (GOC) conversations in hospitalized patients with serious illness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of PACT on goal-discordant care and resource utilization. METHODS: Hospitals enrolled in a multiyear mentored implementation quality improvement initiative to facilitate GOC conversations for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with care discordant with stated preferences, assessed by comparing documented wishes to Medicare claims data for patients who were admitted to intervention units and died over the study period. Secondary outcomes evaluated end-of-life resource utilization by comparing Medicare claims data for intervention patients with propensity score-matched controls. RESULTS: In the 9 hospitals included in the study, 1347 intervention group patients were compared to 4019 in the control group. Rates of discordance between wishes and care were generally low in the intervention group. Compared to the control group, patients in the intervention group had lower costs (-976.05 dollars, P = 0.010), were less likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR 0.9, P = 0.005), less likely to be on a ventilator or undergo CPR or cardioversion, more likely to enroll in hospice (OR 1.81, P < 0.001) and had a longer hospice stay (3.35 more days, P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: A multisite mentored implementation quality improvement intervention for seriously ill hospitalized patients resulted in care aligned with goals and decreased resource utilization at the end of life.

The value equation for specialist palliative care: design and delivery principles.

The value of specialist palliative care (SPC) is multi-faceted. Patients, families, healthcare providers, health systems and payors all benefit in different ways when SPC is included in the care of those with serious illness; they all have a shared interest in the availability and success of SPC. We propose a new value equation for SPC: SPC services must employ optimal design and standardized delivery of SPC to ensure that the payment model, care model, and needs of the patients are all aligned; and suitable payment models are necessary to provide stable, sustainable resources for the interdisciplinary palliative care teams; when these conditions are met, the cascade of beneficial outcomes of SPC can be produced reliably. We propose a set of 10 design and delivery principles describing these inputs and outcomes, applicable to SPC in all settings-hospital, clinic, and home. Amidst shifts in health policy and financing, the SPC field in the US continues to evolve with new innovations, additional evidence, and a clearer vision of what is valuable. An enduring component of the value equation of SPC continues to be the moderation of the total cost of care for payors. This articulation of the value equation for SPC is based on evidence and experience of palliative care providers and payors in the US, but the framework and principles are likely useful to guide and evaluate SPC in other countries as well.

Use of Palliative Care Among Commercially Insured Patients With Metastatic Cancer Between 2001 and 2016.

PURPOSE: Early palliative care, concomitant with disease-directed treatments, is recommended for all patients with advanced cancer. This study assesses population-level trends in palliative care use among a large cohort of commercially insured patients with metastatic cancer, applying an expanded definition of palliative care services based on claims data. METHODS: Using nationally representative commercial insurance claims data, we identified patients with metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, bronchus, trachea, ovarian, esophageal, pancreatic, and liver cancers and melanoma between 2001 and 2016. We assessed the annual proportions of these patients who received services specified as, or indicative of, palliative care. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we assessed whether the time from diagnosis of metastatic cancer to first encounter of palliative care differed by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, or region. RESULTS: In 2016, 36% of patients with very poor prognosis cancers received a service specified as, or indicative of, palliative care versus 18% of those with poor prognosis cancers. Being diagnosed in more recent years (2009-2016 v 2001-2008: hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; P < .001); a diagnosis of metastatic esophagus, liver, lung, or pancreatic cancer, or melanoma (v breast cancer, eg, esophagus HR, 1.89; P < .001); a greater number of comorbidities (American Hospital Formulary Service classes > 10 v 0: HR, 1.71; P < .001); and living in the Northeast (HR, 1.43; P < .001) or Midwest (v South: HR, 1.39; P < .001) were the strongest predictors of shorter time from diagnosis to palliative care. CONCLUSION: Use of palliative care among commercially insured patients with advanced cancers has increased since 2001. However, even with an expanded definition of services specified as, or indicative of, palliative care, < 40% of patients with advanced cancers received palliative care in 2016.

National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care Guidelines, 4th Edition.

Background: The goal of the 4th edition of the National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care (NCP Guidelines) is to improve access to quality palliative care for all people with serious illness regardless of setting, diagnosis, prognosis, or age. Objective: The NCP Guidelines are intended to encourage and guide healthcare organizations and clinicians (including nonpalliative care specialists) across the care continuum to integrate palliative care principles and best practices into their routine assessment and care of all seriously ill patients and their family caregivers. Methods: The NCP Guidelines formalize and delineate evidence-based processes and practices for the provision of safe and reliable high-quality palliative care for adults, children, and families with serious illness in all care settings. Results: This article presents the key domains and guidelines of the 4th edition.

Exploring the scope of post-intensive care syndrome therapy and care: engagement of non-critical care providers and survivors in a second stakeholders meeting.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of survivors of critical illness are at risk for physical, cognitive, and/or mental health impairments that may persist for months or years after hospital discharge. The post-intensive care syndrome framework encompassing these multidimensional morbidities was developed at the 2010 Society of Critical Care Medicine conference on improving long-term outcomes after critical illness for survivors and their families. OBJECTIVES: To report on engagement with non-critical care providers and survivors during the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine post-intensive care syndrome stakeholder conference. Task groups developed strategies and resources required for raising awareness and education, understanding and addressing barriers to clinical practice, and identifying research gaps and resources, aimed at improving patient and family outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from 21 professional associations or health systems involved in the provision of both critical care and rehabilitation of ICU survivors in the United States and ICU survivors and family members. DESIGN: Stakeholder consensus meeting. Researchers presented summaries on morbidities for survivors and their families, whereas survivors presented their own experiences. MEETING OUTCOMES: Future steps were planned regarding 1) recognizing, preventing, and treating post-intensive care syndrome, 2) building strategies for institutional capacity to support and partner with survivors and families, and 3) understanding and addressing barriers to practice. There was recognition of the need for systematic and frequent assessment for post-intensive care syndrome across the continuum of care, including explicit "functional reconciliation" (assessing gaps between a patient's pre-ICU and current functional ability at all intra- and interinstitutional transitions of care). Future post-intensive care syndrome research topic areas were identified across the continuum of recovery: characterization of at-risk patients (including recognizing risk factors, mechanisms of injury, and optimal screening instruments), prevention and treatment interventions, and outcomes research for patients and families. CONCLUSIONS: Raising awareness of post-intensive care syndrome for the public and both critical care and non-critical care clinicians will inform a more coordinated approach to treatment and support during recovery after critical illness. Continued conceptual development and engagement with additional stakeholders is required.

The next generation of palliative care.

Creating a true continuum of care includes incorporating palliative care. For the first time, payment structures are aligning to support palliative care beyond the hospital

Quality of palliative care at US hospices: results of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: The National Quality Forum (NQF) identified hospice services as a national priority area for health care quality improvement and endorsed a set of preferred practices for quality palliative and hospice care. This study reports the first national data regarding hospices' self-reported implementation of the NQF preferred practices and identifies hospice characteristics associated with more comprehensive implementation. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of a random sample of hospices (n=591; response rate, 84%) from September 2008 to November 2009. We evaluated the reported implementation of NQF preferred practices in the care of both patients and families. RESULTS: The range of reported implementation of individual NQF preferred practices among hospices was 45% to 97%. Twenty-one percent of hospices reported having implemented all patient-centered preferred practices, 26% all family-centered preferred practices, and 10% all patient and family-centered preferred practices. In adjusted analyses, large hospices (100 or more patients per day) were significantly more likely than small hospices (<20 patients per day) to report having implemented all patient-centered preferred practices [odds ratio (OR)=2.46; 95% CI, 1.24, 4.90] and all family-centered preferred practices (OR=1.88; 95% CI, 1.02, 3.45). Similarly, chain-affiliated hospices were significantly more likely than free-standing hospices to report having implemented all patient-centered preferred practices (OR=2.45; 95% CI, 1.23, 4.87) and all family-centered preferred practices (OR=1.85; 95% CI, 1.01, 3.41). CONCLUSIONS: Hospices' reported implementation of individual preferred practices for palliative and hospice care quality was high; however, reported comprehensive implementation of preferred practices was rare and may be difficult to achieve for small, free-standing hospices.

Palliative care benchmarks from academic medical centers.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care is growing in the United States but little is known about the quality of care delivered. OBJECTIVE: To benchmark the quality of palliative care in academic hospitals. DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional, retrospective chart review conducted between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2003. SETTING: Thirty-five University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) academic hospitals across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1596 patient records. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) adults, (2) high-mortality diagnoses: selected cancers, heart failure, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and respiratory conditions requiring ventilator support, (3) length of stay (LOS) more than 4 days, and (4) two prior admissions in the preceding 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Compliance with 11 key performance measures (KPM) derived from practice standards, literature evidence, and input from a multidisciplinary expert committee. Analyses examined relationships between provision of the KPM and specific outcomes. RESULTS: Wide variability exists among academic hospitals in the provision of the KPM (0%-100%). The greater the compliance with KPM, the greater the improvement in quality outcomes, cost and LOS. Assessment of pain (96.1%) and dyspnea (90.2%) was high, but reduction of these symptoms was lower (73.3% and 77.2%). Documentation of prognosis (33.4%), psychosocial assessment (26.2%), communication with family/patient (46%), and timely planning for discharge disposition (53.4%) were low for this severely ill population (16.8% hospital mortality). Only 12.9% received a palliative care consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals significant opportunities for improvement in the effective delivery of palliative care. Care that met KPM was associated with improved quality, reduced costs and LOS. Institutions that benchmarked above 90% did so by integrating KPM into daily care processes and utilizing systematized triggers, forms and default pathways. The presence of a formalized palliative care program within a hospital system had a positive effect on the achievement of KPM, whether or not formal consultation occurred. Hospitals need to develop systematic methods to improve access to palliative care.