Advance care planning for patients with COVID-19: a communication guide

Impact of the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis and a Structured COVID Unit on Physician Behaviors in Code Status Ordering

Purpose: Code status orders are standard practice impacting end-of-life care for individuals. This study reviews the impact of a COVID unit on physician behaviors towards goal-concordant end-of-life care at an urban academic tertiary-care hospital. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of code status ordering on adult inpatients comparing the pre-pandemic period to patients who tested positive, negative and were not tested during the pandemic from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Results: We analyzed 59,471 unique patient encounters (n = 35,317 pre-pandemic and n = 24,154 during). 1,631 cases of COVID-19 were seen. The rate of code status orders among all inpatients increased from 22% pre-pandemic to 29% during the pandemic (P < .001). Code status orders increased for both patients who were COVID-negative (32% P < .001) and COVID-positive (65% P < .001). Being in a cohorted COVID unit increased code status ordering by an odds of 4.79 (P < .001). Compared to the pre-pandemic cohort, the COVID-positive cohort is less female (50% to 56% P < .001), more Black (66% to 61% P < .001), more Hispanic (6.5% to 5%) and less white (26% to 30% P < .001). Compared to Black patients, white patients had lower odds (.86) of code status ordering (P < .001). Other race/ethnicity categories were not significant. Conclusions: Code status ordering remains low. Compared to pre-pandemic rates, the frequency of orders placed significantly increased for all patients during the pandemic. The largest increase occurred in patients with COVID-19. This increase likely occurred due to protocols in the COVID unit and disease uncertainty.

Conducting Goals of Care Conversations: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: Internal medicine (IM) residents discuss a patient's goals of care (GOC) as part of their initial consultation. Residents have described inexperience, general discomfort, limited formal teaching, and prognostic uncertainty as barriers to effective GOC conversations. The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid changes to the healthcare system on the individual, patient, and systemic level that might exacerbate and/or introduce new barriers to IM residents' GOC conversations. This qualitative study examines how the early COVID-19 pandemic challenged IM residents' ability to have effective GOC conversations. Methods: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, participants (n=11) completed a semi-structured interview. Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously using an open coding, constant comparison process. Interviews were completed until no new themes were identified. Results: Residents self-described their GOC conversations in 5 steps: normalization of the conversation, introduction of expected clinical course, discussion of possible care plans, exploration of the patient's values, and occasionally providing a recommendation. Residents described limited structured teaching around GOC conversations and instead relied on observed role-modelling and self-practice to hone their skillset. Residents described an increased sense of urgency to have GOC conversations due to the uncertainty of clinical course and potential for rapid deterioration of patients with COVID-19. Residents identified restrictive visitor policies as a significant barrier that contributed to feelings of dehumanization. Residents felt that these limitations affected their GOC conversations and potentially resulted in discordant care plans which contributed to moral distress. Conclusion: The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in several barriers that challenged residents' ability to conduct effective GOC conversations. This is on the background of previously reported discomfort and limited formal training in conducting GOC conversations. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model involving teaching validated GOC frameworks, positive role-modelling, and experiential learning to support GOC conversation education in post-graduate medical education.

Who to escalate during a pandemic? A retrospective observational study about decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK

BACKGROUND

Optimal decision-making regarding who to admit to critical care in pandemic situations remains unclear. We compared age, Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality in two separate COVID-19 surges based on the escalation decision made by the treating physician.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all referrals to critical care during the first COVID-19 surge (cohort 1, March/April 2020) and a late surge (cohort 2, October/November 2021) was undertaken. Patients with confirmed or high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection were included. A senior critical care physician assessed all patients regarding their suitability for potential intensive care unit admission. Demographics, CFS, 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality were compared depending on the escalation decision made by the attending physician.

RESULTS

203 patients were included in the study, 139 in cohort 1 and 64 in cohort 2. There were no significant differences in age, CFS and 4C scores between the two cohorts. Patients deemed suitable for escalation by clinicians were significantly younger with significantly lower CFS and 4C scores compared with patients who were not deemed to benefit from escalation. This pattern was observed in both cohorts. Mortality in patients not deemed suitable for escalation was 61.8% in cohort 1 and 47.4% in cohort 2 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions who to escalate to critical care in settings with limited resources pose moral distress on clinicians. 4C score, age and CFS did not change significantly between the two surges but differed significantly between patients deemed suitable for escalation and those deemed unsuitable by clinicians. Risk prediction tools may be useful in a pandemic to supplement clinical decision-making, even though escalation thresholds require adjustments to reflect changes in risk profile and outcomes between different pandemic surges.

Occurrence of Advance Care Planning and Hospital Course in Patients Admitted for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) During the Pandemic

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the importance of understanding patients’ goals, values, and medical care preferences given the high morbidity and mortality. We aimed to examine rates of advance care planning (ACP) documentation along with hospital course differences in the absence or presence of ACP among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single tertiary academic medical center. All adults admitted between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, for COVID-19 were included. Demographics, ACP documentation rates, presence of ACP forms, palliative care consultation (PCC) rates, code status, and hospital outcome data were collected. Data were analyzed with multivariable analysis to identify predictors of ACP documentation.

Results

Among 356 patients (mean age 60.0, 153 (43%) female), 97 (27.2%) had documented ACP and 20 (5.6%) had completed ACP forms. In patients with documented ACP, 52.4% (n = 55) de-escalated care to do-not-resuscitate (DNR)-limited or comfort measures. PCC occurred rarely (<8%), but 78% (n = 21) of those consulted de-escalated care. Being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (OR = 11.1, 95% CI = 5.9-21.1), mechanical intubation (OR = 15.8, 95% CI = 7.4-32.1), and discharge location other than home (OR = 11.3, 95% CI = 5.7-22.7) were associated with ACP documentation.

Conclusions

This study found low ACP documentation and PCC rates in patients admitted for COVID-19. PCC and completion of ACP were associated with higher rates of care de-escalation. These results support the need for pro-active ACP and PCC for patients admitted for serious illnesses, like COVID-19, to improve goal-informed care.