Caregiver Engagement in Serious Illness Communication in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Setting.

CONTEXT: Prolonged management of critical illnesses in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACH) makes serious illness communication (SIC), a clinical imperative. SIC in LTACH is challenging as clinicians often lack training and patients are typically unable to participate-making caregivers central. OBJECTIVES: This qualitative descriptive study characterized caregiver engagement in SIC encounters, while considering influencing factors, following the implementation of Ariadne Labs' SIC training at a LTACH in the Northeastern United States. METHODS: Clinicians' documented SIC notes (2019-2020) were analyzed using directed content analysis. Codes were grouped into four categories generated from two factors that influence SIC-evidence of prognostic understanding (yes/no) and documented preferences (yes/no)-and caregiver engagement themes identified within each category. RESULTS: Across 125 patient cases, 251 SIC notes were analyzed. In the presence of prognostic understanding and documented preferences, caregivers acted as upholders of patients' wishes (29%). With prognostic understanding but undocumented preferences, caregivers were postponers of healthcare decision-making (34%). When lacking prognostic understanding but having documented preferences, caregivers tended to be searchers, intent on identifying continued treatment options (13%). With poor prognostic understanding and undocumented preferences, caregivers were strugglers, having difficulty with the clinicians or family unit over healthcare decision-making (21%). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that two factors-prognostic understanding and documented preferences-are critical factors clinicians can leverage in tailoring SIC to meet caregivers' SIC needs in the LTACH setting. Such strategies shift attention away from SIC content alone toward factors that influence caregivers' ability to meaningfully engage in SIC to advance healthcare decision-making.

Behavioural economic interventions to embed palliative care in community oncology (BE-EPIC): study protocol for the BE-EPIC randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care (PC) is a medical specialty focusing on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of serious illnesses such as cancer. Early outpatient specialty PC concurrent with cancer-directed treatment improves quality of life and symptom burden, decreases aggressive end-of-life care and is an evidence-based practice endorsed by national guidelines. However, nearly half of patients with advanced cancer do not receive specialty PC prior to dying. The objective of this study is to test the impact of an oncologist-directed default PC referral orders on rates of PC utilisation and patient quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre two-arm pragmatic randomised trial randomises four clinician-led pods, caring for approximately 250 patients who meet guideline-based criteria for PC referral, in a 1:1 fashion into a control or intervention arm. Intervention oncologists receive a nudge consisting of an electronic health record message indicating a patient has a default pended order for PC. Intervention oncologists are given an opportunity to opt out of referral to PC. Oncologists in pods randomised to the control arm will receive no intervention beyond usual practice. The primary outcome is completed PC visits within 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes are change in quality of life and absolute quality of life scores between the two arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05365997.

Use of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide to Improve Communication with Surrogates of Critically Ill Patients. A Pilot Study.

Background: International family-centered critical care guidelines recommend formal, structured communication to ensure that clinical decision making is informed by a shared understanding of diagnosis and prognosis and patient goals and preferences. Tools to facilitate these recommendations are limited. Objective: To examine the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of a standardized serious illness conversation (SIC) to guide communication between nonpalliative care trained providers and surrogates of critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. Methods: After providers received training, including simulation, we implemented SIC in October 2018. A total of 11 hospitalist providers were eligible to perform SICs over the study interval. Providers met in person with surrogates of adult, mechanically ventilated patients in the medical intensive care unit within 48 hours of intubation. To determine acceptability, surrogates were surveyed 2 months after SIC completion, and providers were surveyed between June and July 2018. To determine feasibility and utility, two independent investigators reviewed SIC documentation and coded responses into categories. Results: Of 72 eligible patients, advanced care planning documentation was completed in 50 patients, including 36 SICs, for an advance care planning completion rate of 69% and an SIC completion rate of 50%. The average SIC was completed in 30 minutes, 3 days after intubation. Of the 19 surrogates surveyed, 95% found the SIC to be mostly or extremely worthwhile. Nine of 11 hospitalist providers completed the follow-up survey. Each of the nine providers who completed the survey found the guide valuable to patient care and easy to administer. The conversation yielded valuable information in terms of goals, fears, and worries; sources of strength; abilities critical to the patient; and understanding how much the patient would be willing to go through for the possibility of gaining more time. Conclusion: We found that implementation of a structured communication tool in the intensive care unit was feasible and acceptable to surrogates and providers; yet, fidelity to the timing and completion was modest. The tool appeared to yield valuable information for understanding the goals, fears, and care preferences of mechanically ventilated patients. Steps to increase fidelity, in accordance with family-centered care guidelines, are warranted.

Preparing Older Adults with Serious Illness to Formulate Their Goals for Medical Care in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) clinicians often lack training and resources to conduct advance care planning (ACP) conversations. The use of technology for health education is increasing, yet little is known if it can be used to engage older ED patients in ACP. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of using tablets to provide ACP education ( www.prepareforyourcare.org )(PREPARE) to older ED patients. DESIGN: A feasibility study conducted in late 2014 and early 2015. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Subjects were recruited from a parent cohort of older adults enrolled in a survey about Geriatric ED care. Inclusion criteria were ≥65 years age and English speaking; exclusions were hearing or vision impairment or if clinically unstable. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was completion of ≥1 of 5 PREPARE modules. Secondary outcomes were ease of use (10-point scale; 1 = very hard, 10 = very easy) and the reasons for refusal to participate. RESULTS: Sixty-one subjects were approached; 24 (39%) were interested in viewing PREPARE after the Geriatric ED survey. Mean age was 75 years (standard deviation [SD] 9); 67% were female and 54% were nonwhite. Seventy-one percent of participants completed ≥1 module. Participants rated the website as easy to use for themselves (mean 8.4, SD 2.39) and for others (mean 7.3, SD 2.31). Of the subjects who declined, top reasons cited were fatigue (26%), already feeling prepared (13%), and technology limitations (11%). CONCLUSION: PREPARE has the potential to engage older adults who are not acutely ill in ACP during their ED visits. Further studies should explore optimal approaches for ED implementation.

Evidence for Neurotoxicity Due to Morphine or Hydromorphone Use in Renal Impairment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are the mainstay of pain control for patients with chronic pain. Often, opioids with reported active metabolites, such as morphine and hydromorphone, are thought to increase the risk of neurotoxicity in renal impairment. OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the quality of evidence for neurotoxic effects in patients with renal impairment receiving morphine or hydromorphone. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted of the following databases from inception to December 2015: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, in addition to hand-searching relevant review articles' citations. Studies were included if they reported neurotoxic effects of either morphine or hydromorphone for chronic or malignant pain in patients with renal impairment. Review articles and case reports were excluded. Narrative review was undertaken. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: Six original articles, three prospective and three retrospective studies were identified and assessed. No relevant randomized clinical trials were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Although morphine and hydromorphone use may be associated with neurotoxic effects in patients with renal impairment, current evidence consists of very low-quality studies with conflicting findings. Clinicians may consider using either morphine or hydromorphone in mild-to-moderate renal impairment, while closely monitoring for neurotoxic effects, particularly when used in high doses and for extended duration.