Palliative Extubation: A Discussion of Practices and Considerations.

Palliative extubation (PE), also known as compassionate extubation, is a common event in the critical care setting and an important aspect of end-of-life care.1 In a PE, mechanical ventilation is discontinued. Its goal is to honor the patient's preferences, optimize comfort, and allow a natural death when medical interventions, including maintenance of ventilatory support, are not achieving desired outcomes. If not done effectively, PE can cause unintended physical, emotional, psychosocial, or other stress for patients, families, and healthcare staff. Studies show that PE is done with much variability across the globe, and there is limited evidence of best practice. Nevertheless, the practice of PE increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic due to the surge of dying mechanically ventilated patients. Thus, the importance of effectively conducting a PE has never been more crucial. Some studies have provided guidelines for the process of PE. However, our goal is to provide a comprehensive review of issues to consider before, during, and after a PE. This paper highlights the core palliative skills of communication, planning, symptom assessment and management, and debriefing. Our aim is to better prepare healthcare workers to provide quality palliative care during PEs, most especially when facing future pandemics.

Evolving Advance Care Planning in a Health Ecosystem: The Kaiser Permanente Experience.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is an integral part of supporting patients through serious illness and end-of-life care. PROBLEM: Several components of advance care planning may be too inflexible to account for patients' changing disease and evolving goals as serious illness progresses. Health systems are starting to implement processes to address these barriers, though implementation has varied. PROPOSED SOLUTION: In 2017, Kaiser Permanente introduced Life Care Planning (LCP), incorporating advance care planning dynamically into concurrent disease management. LCP provides a framework for identifying surrogates, documenting goals, and eliciting patient values across disease progression. LCP provides standardized training to facilitate communication and utilizes a centralized section within the electronic health record for longitudinal documentation of goals. OUTCOMES: More than 6000 physicians, nurses, and social workers have been trained in LCP. Over one million patients have engaged in LCP since its inception, with over 52% of patients age 55+ having a surrogate designated. There is evidence of high treatment concordance with patients' desired wishes (88.9%), with high rates of advance directive completion as well (84.1%).

Hospital utilisation in home palliative care: caregiver health, preparedness and burden associations.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies show that family caregiver factors influence patient outcomes. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association between family caregiver self-rated health, perception of preparedness and burden at the time of patient admission to home palliative care (HomePal) with downstream patient hospital utilisation and time to hospice enrolment and death. METHODS: Data for this cohort study (n=441) were drawn from a trial testing two models of HomePal. Caregiver self-rated health, preparedness (Preparedness for Caregiving Scale, CPS) and burden (Zarit-12) were measured at admission to HomePal. Caregivers were categorised as having good/very good/excellent or fair/poor health, scoring above or below the CPS median score (23), or having no/mild (0-10), moderate (11-20) or high (>20) burden. Proportional hazard competing risk models assessed the association between caregiver factors with hospital utilisation (emergency department visits, observation and inpatient stays). RESULTS: Patients whose caregivers reported poor health and low preparedness received more visits by home health aides and social workers, respectively (both, p<0.05). Adjusted models showed that worse caregiver health (HR: 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.92), p=0.01), low preparedness (HR: 0.73 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.94), p=0.01) and high burden (HR: 0.77 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.06), p=0.10) were associated with lower risk for hospital utilisation. There were no significant associations between caregiver factors with time to patient enrolment in hospice or death in adjusted models (both, p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Prospective studies are needed to understand how greater in-home supports for family caregivers with poor health could help achieve quality palliative care that aligns with families' priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03694431; ClinicalTrials.gov.