Do Hispanics prefer to be full code at the end of life? The impact of palliative care consults on clarifying code status preferences and hospice referrals in Spanish-speaking patients.

BACKGROUND: Hispanics often have disparities at the end of life. They are more likely to die full code and less likely to have discussions regarding prognosis and do not resuscitate (DNR)/do not intubate (DNI), despite studies showing Hispanic values comfort over the extension of life. Barriers to patient-centered care include language,socioeconomic status and health literacy. CONTEXT: We evaluated the impact of palliative care (PC) consults on the change of code status and hospice referrals, comparing seriously ill Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study of all white and Hispanic patients referred to the PC service of a county hospital from 2006 to 2012. We evaluated ethnicity, language, code status at admission and after PC consult, and hospice discharge. Chi-squared tests were used to analyze characteristics among three groups: non-Hispanic white, English-speaking Hispanic, and Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients. RESULTS: Of 925 patients, 511 (55%) were non-Hispanic white, 208 (23%) were English-speaking Hispanic, and 206 (22%) were Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients. On admission, there was no statistically significant difference in code status among the three groups (57%, 64%, and 59% were full code, respectively, p = 0.5). After PC consults, Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients were more likely to change their code status to DNR/DNI when compared with non-Hispanic white and English-speaking Hispanic patients (44% vs. 32% vs. 28%, p = 0.05). Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients were more likely to be discharged to hospice when compared with English-speaking Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites (33%, 29%, and 23%, respectively, p = 0.04). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients were more likely to change from full code to DNR/DNI compared with non-Hispanic white and English-speaking Hispanic patients, despite similar code status preferences on admission. They were also more likely to be discharged to hospice. PC consults may play an important role in helping patients to align their care with their values and may prevent unwanted aggressive interventions at the end of life.

Can Orthodox Jewish Patients Undergo Palliative Extubation? A Challenging Ethics Case Study.

According to Jewish law/ethics, continuous life-sustaining therapy may not be withdrawn after its introduction, unless the patient has improved and no longer has a medical indication for the treatment. We report the case of an 88-year-old Orthodox Jewish patient, on invasive mechanical ventilation, with severe anoxic brain injury after multiple cardiac arrests. Although the patient's son informed the palliative care team that his father did not want to be in pain or to linger in a vegetative state when terminally ill, the mechanical ventilation was keeping him alive with a poor neurological prognosis. Additionally, the patient had previously stated his wish to observe Orthodox Jewish principles regarding end-of-life care. After extensive discussion, the family Rabbi clarified that it would be acceptable to withdraw mechanical ventilation if there were a "reasonable expectation" he would breathe on his own for a "reasonable amount of time." Thus, if the patient's death were to occur, it would not be an immediate consequence the normal ventilator weaning process. Following intermediation by the hospital Rabbi, the definition of what would be a "reasonable expectation" and "reasonable amount of time" was established by the family Rabbi as "over 50%" and "on the order of hours," respectively. Following pulmonary consultation, the patient underwent palliative extubation and, 12 hours after the procedure, died comfortably surrounded by the family. In conclusion, the collaborative and interdisciplinary work among the family Rabbi, hospital Rabbi, and the various medical teams allowed the development of a plan that met all of the patient's personal and religious wishes and beliefs.

To Code or Not To Code: Teaching Multidisciplinary Clinicians to Conduct Code Status Discussions.

Background: Code status discussions (CSDs) can be challenging for many clinicians. Barriers associated with them include lack of education, comfort level, and experience. Objective: To conduct an educational intervention to improve knowledge and communication approaches related to CSDs. Design: A cross-sectional multidisciplinary educational intervention was conducted over one year consisting of an interactive presentation, live role-play, and pre- and post-intervention tests to measure impact of the formal training. Evaluations and comments were also collected. Setting/Subjects: Attending physicians, nurses, residents, fellows, and physician assistants (PAs) at an urban community teaching hospital of 500 beds serving an ethnically diverse population. Measurements: Data from pre- and post-intervention tests evaluating knowledge and communication approach regarding CSDs were collected. Participants completed a qualitative evaluation of the program. Results: There were 165 participants: 29 attending physicians, 26 residents, 17 fellows, 18 PAs, and 75 nurses. All (100%) completed the pre-intervention test and 154 (93.3%) completed the post-intervention test. There was an overall improvement in scores, 43.8% pre-intervention to 75.6% post-intervention (p-values <0.005). Attending physicians and fellows had the highest pre-intervention scores, while nurses and PAs had the lowest. Most participants (97%) reported they learned new information and 91% stated they would change patient management. Conclusions: Our study found that a brief educational intervention with multipronged teaching tools improved knowledge concerning CSDs. Participants felt it provided new insights and would change their practice. This study contributes to the literature by examining CSD training across different disciplines, allowing for cross-group comparisons. Future studies should try to correlate educational interventions and clinician knowledge with clinical practice outcomes.

A bioethical framework to guide the decision-making process in the care of seriously ill patients.

BACKGROUND: One of the biggest challenges of practicing medicine in the age of informational technology is how to conciliate the overwhelming amount of medical-scientific information with the multiple patients' values of modern pluralistic societies. To organize and optimize the the Decision-Making Process (DMP) of seriously ill patient care, we present a framework to be used by Healthcare Providers. The objective is to align Bioethics, Evidence-based Practice and Person-centered Care. MAIN BODY: The framework divides the DMP into four steps, each with a different but complementary focus, goal and ethical principle. Step 1 focuses exclusively on the disease, having accuracy is its ethical principle. It aims at an accurate and probabilistic estimation of prognosis, absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction and treatments' burdens. Step 2 focuses on the person, using empathic communication to learn about patient values and what suffering means for the patient. Emphasis is given to learning and active listening, not taking action. Thus, instead beneficence, we trust comprehension and understanding with the suffering of others and respect for others as autonomous moral agents as the ethical principles of Step 2. Step 3 focuses on the healthcare team, having the ethics of situational awareness guiding this step. The goal is, through effective teamwork, to contextualize and link rates and probabilities related to the disease to the learned patient's values, presenting a summary of which treatments the team considers as acceptable, recommended, potentially inappropriate and futile. Finally, Step 4 focuses on provider-patient relationship, seeking shared Goals of Care (GOC), for the best and worst scenario. Through an ethics of deliberation, it aims for a consensus that could ensure that the patient's values will be respected as well as a scientifically acceptable medical practice will be provided. In summary: accuracy, comprehension, understanding, situational awareness and deliberation would be the ethical principles guiding each step. CONCLUSION: Hopefully, by highlighting and naming the different perspectives of knowledge needed in clinical practice, this framework will be valuable as a practical and educational tool, guiding modern medical professionals through the many challenges of providing high quality person-centered care that is both ethical and evidence based.

Palliative Care in New York State Nursing Homes: A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current landscape of palliative care (PC) in nursing homes (NHs) in New York State (NYS). MEASUREMENTS: A statewide survey was completed by 149 respondents who named 61 different NHs as their workplace. Questions were related to presence, type, and composition of PC programs; perceptions of PC; barriers to implementing PC; and qualifying medical conditions. RESULTS: Hospice is less available than palliative or comfort care programs, with three-fourths of NYS NH responded providing a PC program. In general, medical directors and physicians were more similar in perspective about the role/impact of PC compared to nursing and others. There was general agreement about the positive impact and role of PC in the NH. Funding and staffing were recognized as barriers to implementing PC. CONCLUSION: There is growing penetration of PC programs in NH facilities in NYS, with good perception of the appropriate utilization of PC programs. Financial reimbursement and staffing are barriers to providing PC in the NH and need to be addressed by the health-care system.

How Long Does (S)He Have? Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes After Palliative Extubation in Elderly, Chronically Critically Ill Patients.

OBJECTIVE: For chronically critically ill elderly patients on mechanical ventilation, prognosis for significant recovery may be minimal. These individuals, or their surrogates, may decide for "palliative extubation." A common prognostic question arises: "How long does she/he have?" This study describes demographics, mortality, time to death, and factors associated with death after palliative extubation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective 3-year study in community hospital with ethnically diverse elderly population. Chronically critically ill patients followed from palliative extubation to death or survival to discharge. MEASURES: Mortality/survival following palliative extubation, time to death or discharge, factors associated with death. RESULTS: Hundred and forty-eight subjects underwent palliative extubation. Mean age: 78 years, 60% female, ethnically diverse with 46% white, and 54% others. Top diagnostic categories: sepsis (47%) and respiratory failure (22%). After extubation, 114 patients (77%) died in hospital and 34 (23%) were discharged. Of those who died, median time to death 8.9 hours (range, 4 min to 7 d). Mortality proportion was 56% at 24 hours and increased with time. Factors associated with early death: Systolic blood pressure less than 90 (p = 0.002) and Charlson Comorbidity Index that is above 6 or 0 (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Palliative extubation at end of life was an option selected by an ethnically diverse elderly population. Approximately three-fourths of subjects died in hospital, and one-fourth was discharged alive. Over 50% who died did so within 24 hours, making this useful information for counseling and anticipatory planning. Subjects with systolic blood pressure less than 90 and Charlson Comorbidity Index that is very low or very high had higher mortality.

Your postop patient is confused and agitated--next steps?

Your older patient exhibits signs and symptoms that suggest delirium. Here's how to best handle this complication.

Cognitive changes after surgery in the elderly: does minimally invasive surgery influence the incidence of postoperative cognitive changes compared to open colon surgery?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium in the elderly is a growing concern. Data regarding significant differences in postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in elderly persons undergoing laparoscopic versus open colon resection are not well established. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the incidence of POCD in laparoscopic versus open colon surgery in an elderly population. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective nonrandomized pilot study was conducted at an urban tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study included patients aged 65 years and above, without documented dementia who underwent elective colon surgery. MEASUREMENTS: We collected demographic and clinical data, including age, sex, polypharmacy, and comorbidities. The subjects underwent pre- and postoperative Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) testing. Worsening individual scores from the Paired Associated Learning (PAL) and Spatial Working Memory (SWM) portions of CANTAB determined the presence of POCD. Inflammatory cytokine (i.e., IL-6) levels were measured pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: We enrolled 44 subjects (26 laparoscopic and 18 open surgery). The two groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, polypharmacy, and comorbidities. The average incidence of POCD was 47%. PAL scores worsened in 12/23 (52%) in the laparoscopic group and in 7/15 (47%) in the open group. These group differences lacked statistical significance (p = 0.75). SWM scores worsened in 14/25 (56%) in the laparoscopic group and in 6/18 (33%) in the open group, which was also not statistically significant (p = 0.12). No age difference occurred between the 'worsened scores' group and 'stable scores' group, and older age was not associated with POCD. IL-6 levels were higher in the open versus the laparoscopic group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, the average incidence of POCD was not statistically different between elderly subjects undergoing open versus laparoscopic surgery. Age did not influence the occurrence of POCD. Although inflammatory markers were significantly higher in the open group, consistent with a higher degree of stress response, this group did not have higher rates of delirium. This association is worth to be investigated in a larger sample.