Rationale and Design of the Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) Trial

Criteria for Enrollment of Patients With COPD in Palliative Care Trials: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Use of palliative care interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has increased in recent years and inclusion criteria used to identify patients with COPD appropriate for palliative care vary widely. We evaluated the inclusion criteria to identify ways to improve enrollment opportunities for patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine inclusion criteria used to select patients with COPD for palliative care trials.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to determine criteria used to select patients with COPD for palliative care randomized controlled trials. A narrative synthesis was conducted for all trials.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were highly heterogeneous. Most studies (n = 11, 79%) used a combination of criteria to identify patients with COPD. Commonly used criteria included hospitalization for an acute exacerbation of COPD (n = 8, 57%), home supplemental oxygen use (n = 8, 57%), and spirometry values confirming COPD (n = 6, 43%). Three studies (21.4%) used Modified Medical Research Council score and two studies (21%) used physician prognosis or a performance scale.

CONCLUSION

The most common criteria, a hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD or supplemental oxygen use at home, both have the benefit of selecting patients who have a higher symptom burden or higher healthcare utilization who might therefore benefit more from palliative care. By describing the landscape and variability of previously used inclusion criteria, this article serves as a resource for clinicians and researchers. Developing a consistent set of inclusion criteria in the future would help generate generalizable results that can be translated into clinical practice to improve the lives of patients with COPD.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022306752.

Palliative Care Interventions for Persons With Neurodegenerative Disease: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trial Study Design Features

Background: Within palliative care research, best practice guidelines to conduct scientifically rigorous clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases are underexplored. This patient population experiences unique challenges, including fluctuations in cognitive capacity, care partner (CP) and proxy involvement, and high adverse events (AEs), that necessitate special consideration when designing clinical trials. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe and identify clinical trial design features that have been documented in studies involving a neuropalliative intervention for persons with neurodegenerative diseases, highlighting features that have been adapted for this unique patient population. Design: We conducted a scoping review of clinical trials with a neuropalliative intervention for persons with neurodegenerative disease. We searched Cochrane, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed (MEDLINE) databases for articles published in English between 1950 and 2023. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and synthesized data from the included articles. A third reviewer adjudicated instances of conflict. The data were analyzed using a thematic framework approach. Results: Of 1025 texts, 44 articles were included. Seven study design features were analyzed: (1) consent, (2) proxies and CPs, (3) recruitment strategies, (4) retention strategies, (5) choice of comparator, (6) AEs, and (7) internal validity. This scoping review found disparities in study design features around structured consent, proxies and CPs, comparators, and AEs. Conclusions: To date, neuropalliative care clinical trials have had varied study designs and the majority of research has focused on dementia. Research guideline development for high-quality neuropalliative care clinical trials is greatly needed across the range of neurodegenerative diseases. To increase the scientific rigor of clinical trials and neuropalliative care, we recommend a standardized capacity assessment for consent, defining conditions for the CP, proxy, and AEs, systematizing appropriate comparators, and outlining preemptive recruitment and retention strategies to address the broader unpredictable challenges of palliative care research.

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Importance

Increasing inpatient palliative care delivery is prioritized, but large-scale, experimental evidence of its effectiveness is lacking.

Objective

To determine whether ordering palliative care consultation by default for seriously ill hospitalized patients without requiring greater palliative care staffing increased consultations and improved outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial was conducted among patients 65 years or older with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or kidney failure admitted from March 21, 2016, through November 14, 2018, to 11 US hospitals. Outcome data collection ended on January 31, 2019.

Intervention

Ordering palliative care consultation by default for eligible patients, while allowing clinicians to opt-out, was compared with usual care, in which clinicians could choose to order palliative care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was hospital length of stay, with deaths coded as the longest length of stay, and secondary end points included palliative care consult rate, discharge to hospice, do-not-resuscitate orders, and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). A higher percentage of patients in the default order group received palliative care consultation than in the standard care group (43.9% vs 16.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.17 [95% CI, 4.59-5.81]) and received consultation earlier (mean [SD] of 3.4 [2.6] days after admission vs 4.6 [4.8] days; P < .001). Length of stay did not differ between the default order and usual care groups (percent difference in median length of stay, -0.53% [95% CI, -3.51% to 2.53%]). Patients in the default order group had higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders at discharge (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.21-1.63]) and discharge to hospice (aOR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.07-1.57]) than the usual care group, and similar in-hospital mortality (4.7% vs 4.2%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.08]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Default palliative care consult orders did not reduce length of stay for older, hospitalized patients with advanced chronic illnesses, but did improve the rate and timing of consultation and some end-of-life care processes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505035.

Referral Criteria to Specialist Palliative Care for People with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

People with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have significant morbidity, yet for many, access to palliative care occurs late, if at all.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine criteria for referral to specialist palliative care for adults with advanced CKD with a view to improving use of these essential services.

METHODS

Systematic review of studies detailing referral criteria to palliative care in advanced CKD conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and registered (PROSPERO: CRD42021230751).

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Ovid, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed) were used to identify potential studies, which were subjected to double review, data extraction, thematic coding, and descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Searches yielded 650 unique titles ultimately resulting in 56 studies addressing referral criteria to specialist palliative care in advanced CKD. Of 10 categories of referral criteria, most commonly discussed were: Critical times of treatment decision making (n = 23, 41%); physical or emotional symptoms (n = 22, 39%); limited prognosis (n = 18, 32%); patient age and comorbidities (n = 18, 32%); category of CKD/ biochemical criteria (n = 13, 23%); functional decline (n = 13, 23); psychosocial needs (n = 9, 16%); future care planning (n = 9, 16%); anticipated decline in illness course (n = 8, 14%); and hospital use (n = 8, 14%).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians consider referral to specialist palliative care for a wide range of reasons, with many related to care needs. As palliative care continues to integrate with nephrology, our findings represent a key step towards developing consensus criteria to standardize referral for patients with chronic kidney diseases.

Structured Mobilization for Critically Ill Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster-randomized Trial

Rationale: Small trials and professional recommendations support mobilization interventions to improve recovery among critically ill patients, but their real-world effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To evaluate a low-cost, multifaceted mobilization intervention. Methods: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial across 12 ICUs with diverse case mixes. The primary and secondary samples included patients mechanically ventilated for ⩾48 hours who were ambulatory before admission, and all patients with ICU stays ⩾48 hours, respectively. The mobilization intervention included 1) designation and posting of daily mobilization goals; 2) interprofessional closed-loop communication coordinated by each ICU's facilitator; and 3) performance feedback. Measurements and Main Results: From March 4, 2019 through March 15, 2020, 848 and 1,069 patients were enrolled in the usual care and intervention phases in the primary sample, respectively. The intervention did not increase the primary outcome, patient's maximal Intensive Care Mobility Scale (range, 0-10) score within 48 hours before ICU discharge (estimated mean difference, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, -0.31 to 0.63; P = 0.51). More patients in the intervention (37.2%) than usual care (30.7%) groups achieved the prespecified secondary outcome of ability to stand before ICU discharge (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 2.15; P = 0.04). Similar results were observed among the 7,115 patients in the secondary sample. The percentage of days on which patients received physical therapy mediated 90.1% of the intervention effect on standing. ICU mortality (31.5% vs. 29.0%), falls (0.7% vs. 0.4%), and unplanned extubations (2.0% vs. 1.8%) were similar between groups (all P > 0.3). Conclusions: A low-cost, multifaceted mobilization intervention did not improve overall mobility but improved patients' odds of standing and was safe. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03863470).

How Important is Spirometry for Identifying Patients with COPD Appropriate for Palliative Care?

BACKGROUND

Providing palliative care to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a priority. Spirometry demonstrating airflow limitation is a diagnostic test for COPD and a common inclusion criterion for palliative care research. However, requiring spirometry with airflow limitation may exclude appropriate patients unable to complete spirometry, or patients with preserved-ratio impaired spirometry and symptoms or imaging consistent with COPD.

MEASURES

To determine differences in quality of life (QOL) and symptoms between patients with COPD identified based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes and spirometry with airflow limitation compared to ICD codes only.

INTERVENTION

Patients with COPD enrolled in a palliative care trial were included. Patients were at high risk of hospitalization and death and reported poor QOL. Baseline measures of QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, and Quality of Life at the End of Life), and symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, fatigue, Insomnia Severity Index) were compared.

OUTCOMES

Two hundred eight patients with COPD were predominantly male, White, and average age was 68.4. Between patients with ICD codes and spirometry with airflow limitation compared to patients with ICD codes only, there were no significant differences in FACT-G (59.0 vs. 55.0, P = 0.33), other measures of QOL, or symptoms between groups.

CONCLUSION

These results imply that spirometry may not need to be a requirement for inclusion into palliative care research or clinical care for patients with poor quality of life and at high risk for adverse outcomes.

An application of PRECIS-2 to evaluate trial design in a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a community-based smoking cessation intervention for women living in disadvantaged areas of Ireland

BACKGROUND

"We Can Quit2" (WCQ2) was a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation assessing the feasibility and acceptability of 'We Can Quit' (WCQ, a peer-delivered community-based stop-smoking programme for women in disadvantaged communities. The control group comprised 'enhanced usual care' offered by the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE). The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) is a tool to assess whether a trial design is more explanatory (working under ideal conditions) or pragmatic (working under 'real-world' conditions). The aim of this paper was to retrospectively evaluate the WCQ2 pilot trial using PRECIS-2 to inform the decision-making process on progression to a future definitive trial (DT).

METHODS

The WCQ2 trial protocol and HSE standard stop-smoking service were described across the nine PRECIS-2 domains: eligibility, recruitment, setting, organisation, flexibility-delivery, flexibility-adherence, follow-up and primary outcome. Team members scored the domains as pragmatic or explanatory for each arm in a half-day workshop.

RESULTS

Seven team members (practitioners and researchers) assessed the overall trial design as more explanatory than pragmatic. Important differences emerged between the two arms. WCQ targeted adult women from disadvantaged communities whereas HSE run a limited enhanced service for all quitters. Trial recruitment was challenging, intense efforts were needed as the trial proceeded. WCQ was delivered in a non-clinical community setting, HSE services in a clinical setting. WCQ organisation was co-designed with community partners and comprises peer-to-peer group support delivered by trained lay community facilitators, whereas HSE one-to-one support is delivered by Smoking Cessation Officers with a clinical background. Only WCQ allowed flexibility in delivery and adherence. Follow-up was more intensive in WCQ. Greater efforts to improve participant retention will be required in a future DT.

CONCLUSIONS

PRECIS-2 allowed the reflection of practitioners and researchers on similarities and differences between intervention and control arms. Results will inform the decision on progression to an effectiveness DT, which will require more a pragmatic and less explanatory design. This novel use of PRECIS-2 to retrospectively evaluate a complex community-based pilot trial in advance of a full DT will also support learning for those undertaking hybrid trials of implementation and effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry ( No. 74721694 ).

Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer, but for more than a decade, there have been calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia. This review is an updated version of a review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 7 October 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), four other databases and two trial registries on 7 October 2020 to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with advanced dementia of any type. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies based on outcomes measured.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors (SW, EM, PC) independently assessed all potential studies identified in the search against the review inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. Where appropriate, we estimated pooled treatment effects in a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria. Two studies were individually-randomised RCTs, six were cluster-randomised RCTs and one was a controlled before-and-after study. We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants). Two studies were carried out in acute hospitals and seven in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses. Changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may increase comfort in dying (MD 1.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.64; 5 studies, 335 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant. These changes may also increase the likelihood of having a palliative care plan in place (RR 5.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 25.02; 1 study, 99 participants; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Such interventions probably have little effect on the use of non-palliative interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.72; 2 studies, 292 participants; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). They may also have little or no effect on documentation of advance directives (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.25; 2 studies, 112 participants; I² = 52%; very low certainty evidence), or whether discussions take place about advance care planning (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 1 study, 193 participants; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence) and goals of care (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.54; 1 study, 13 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). No included studies assessed adverse effects. Advance care planning interventions for people with advanced dementia probably increase the documentation of advance directives (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41; 2 studies, 384; moderate certainty evidence) and the number of discussions about goals of care (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.59; 2 studies, 384 participants; moderate certainty evidence). They may also slightly increase concordance with goals of care (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.79; 1 study, 63 participants; low certainty evidence). On the other hand, they may have little or no effect on perceived symptom management (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.49 to 2.89; 1 study, 67 participants; very low certainty evidence) or whether advance care planning discussions occur (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 1 study, 67 participants; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on palliative care interventions in advanced dementia is limited in quantity and certainty. When compared to usual care, changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may lead to improvements in comfort in dying, but the evidence for this was of very low certainty. Advance care planning interventions, compared to usual care, probably increase the documentation of advance directives and the occurrence of discussions about goals of care, and may also increase concordance with goals of care. We did not detect other effects. The uncertainty in the evidence across all outcomes in both comparisons is mainly driven by imprecision of effect estimates and risk of bias in the included studies.

Creating Effective Models for Delivering Palliative Care in Advanced Liver Disease

Purpose of Review

The current healthcare system is not fully equipped to provide comprehensive support for patients with advanced liver disease (ALD) and their caregivers resulting in concomitant suffering and reduced quality of life (QoL). Integration of palliative care (PC) within routine care has demonstrated benefits in improving symptoms and QoL and reducing healthcare utilization for other serious illnesses but has been underutilized or delayed for ALD care. The purpose of this article is to outline the domains and benefits of PC and discuss the misconceptions and barriers for PC integration, and healthcare delivery models supporting PC integration within ALD care.

Recent Findings

PC has eight key domains related to physical and mental health, goals for future care, and care of the caregivers. PC offers benefits to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction and reduce healthcare utilization. To date there have been successful models of PC that are primarily hospital- or community-based; successful models have been PC specialist- or primary/generalist-led.

Summary

Concurrent PC within oncology has formed the basis for most evidence-based guidelines. PC integration within ALD care is still in its infancy. While amassing evidence in ALD, hepatology organizations can promote consensus-based integrated PC models that can guide research and practice efforts to increase supportive care for these patients in need and their family caregivers.

Referral criteria to palliative care for patients with respiratory disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Advanced non-malignant respiratory diseases are associated with significant patient morbidity, yet access to palliative care occurs late, if at all.

AIM

To examine referral criteria for palliative care among patients with advanced non-malignant respiratory disease, with a view to developing a standardised set of referral criteria.

DESIGN

Systematic review of all studies reporting on referral criteria to palliative care in advanced non-malignant respiratory disease, with a focus on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guideline was undertaken using electronic databases (Ovid, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed).

RESULTS

Searches yielded 2052 unique titles, which were screened for eligibility resulting in 62 studies addressing referral criteria to palliative care in advanced non-malignant respiratory disease. Of 18 categories put forward for referral to palliative care, the most commonly discussed factors were hospital use (69% of papers), indicators of poor respiratory status (47%), physical and emotional symptoms (37%), functional decline (29%), need for advanced respiratory therapies (27%), and disease progression (26%).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians consider referral to specialist palliative care for a wide range of disease- and needs-based criteria. Our findings highlight the need to standardise palliative care access by developing consensus referral criteria for patients with advanced non-malignant respiratory illnesses.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I² = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I² = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Operationalizing needs-focused palliative care for older adults in intensive care units: Design of and rationale for the PCplanner randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The number of older adults who receive life support in an intensive care unit (ICU), now 2 million per year, is increasing while survival remains unchanged. Because the quality of ICU-based palliative care is highly variable, we developed a mobile app intervention that integrates into the electronic health records (EHR) system called PCplanner (Palliative Care planner) with the goal of improving collaborative primary and specialist palliative care delivery in ICU settings.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the methods of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) being conducted to compare PCplanner vs. usual care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The goal of this two-arm, parallel group mixed methods RCT is to determine the clinical impact of the PCplanner intervention on outcomes of interest to patients, family members, clinicians, and policymakers over a 3-month follow up period. The primary outcome is change in unmet palliative care needs measured by the NEST instrument between baseline and 1 week post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal concordance of care, patient-centeredness of care, and quality of communication at 1 week post-randomization; length of stay; as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder at 3 months post-randomization. We will use general linear models for repeated measures to compare outcomes across the main effects and interactions of the factors. We hypothesize that compared to usual care, PCplanner will have a greater impact on the quality of ICU-based palliative care delivery across domains of core palliative care needs, psychological distress, patient-centeredness, and healthcare resource utilization.

Electronic Health Record Mortality Prediction Model for Targeted Palliative Care Among Hospitalized Medical Patients: a Pilot Quasi-experimental Study

BACKGROUND

Development of electronic health record (EHR) prediction models to improve palliative care delivery is on the rise, yet the clinical impact of such models has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical impact of triggering palliative care using an EHR prediction model.

DESIGN

Pilot prospective before-after study on the general medical wards at an urban academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a predicted probability of 6-month mortality of ≥ 0.3.

INTERVENTION

Triggered (with opt-out) palliative care consult on hospital day 2.

MAIN MEASURES

Frequencies of consults, advance care planning (ACP) documentation, home palliative care and hospice referrals, code status changes, and pre-consult length of stay (LOS).

KEY RESULTS

The control and intervention periods included 8 weeks each and 138 admissions and 134 admissions, respectively. Characteristics between the groups were similar, with a mean (standard deviation) risk of 6-month mortality of 0.5 (0.2). Seventy-seven (57%) triggered consults were accepted by the primary team and 8 consults were requested per usual care during the intervention period. Compared to historical controls, consultation increased by 74% (22 [16%] vs 85 [63%], P < .001), median (interquartile range) pre-consult LOS decreased by 1.4 days (2.6 [1.1, 6.2] vs 1.2 [0.8, 2.7], P = .02), ACP documentation increased by 38% (23 [17%] vs 37 [28%], P = .03), and home palliative care referrals increased by 61% (9 [7%] vs 23 [17%], P = .01). There were no differences between the control and intervention groups in hospice referrals (14 [10] vs 22 [16], P = .13), code status changes (42 [30] vs 39 [29]; P = .81), or consult requests for lower risk (< 0.3) patients (48/1004 [5] vs 33/798 [4]; P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting hospital-based palliative care using an EHR mortality prediction model is a clinically promising approach to improve the quality of care among seriously ill medical patients. More evidence is needed to determine the generalizability of this approach and its impact on patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes.

Is this study feasible? Facilitating management of pragmatic trial planning milestones under a phased award funding mechanism

Background

Improving efficiencies in clinical research is crucial to translation of findings into practice and delivery of effective, patient-centered health care. This paper describes a project that monitored pragmatic clinical trials by working with investigators to track achievement of early phase milestones. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project supported scientifically diverse, low-cost, randomized, controlled, pragmatic clinical intervention trials. Funds were available through a cooperative agreement award mechanism, with the initial phase supporting trial planning and the subsequent 4-year awards funding trial implementation. A coordinating center provided evaluation and administrative support, which included capturing progress toward achieving milestones.

Methods

Six funded trials participated in monthly calls throughout the first year to identify and demonstrate metrics and deliverables for each milestone in the Notice of Grant Award. Interviews were conducted with investigators, trial team members, and NIH program officers/project scientists to discuss their perceptions of the impact and value of the management strategy.

Results

Five of six trials transitioned to the implementation phase with milestones ranging from 6 to 15 and quantifiable metrics ranging from 15 to 33, for a total of 121 deliverables. One third of the metrics (42, 35%) were trial-specific. Trial teams reported that the oversight was onerous but complemented their management strategies; program officers/project scientists found that documentation submitted for review was sufficient to assess trial feasibility; and investigators reported advantages to the phased award mechanism, such as leverage to secure commitments from stakeholders and collaborators, help with task prioritization, and earlier consultation with key members of the trial team.

Conclusions

Implementing systematic approaches to identify milestones and track metrics can strengthen the evidence base regarding time and effort to plan and conduct pragmatic clinical trials. Investigators were unaccustomed to producing evidence of performance, and it was challenging to determine what documentation to provide. Efforts to standardize expectations regarding milestones that mark a significant change or stage in trial development or that represent minimum success criteria may provide guidance for more effective and efficient trial management. A framework with clearly specified metrics is especially critical for transparency, particularly when funding decisions are contingent on both merit and feasibility.

Aligning use of intensive care with patient values in the USA: past, present, and future

For more than three decades, both medical professionals and the public have worried that many patients receive non-beneficial care in US intensive care units during their final months of life. Some of these patients wish to avoid severe cognitive and physical impairments, and protracted deaths in the hospital setting. Recognising when intensive care will not restore a person's health, and helping patients and families embrace goals related to symptom relief, interpersonal connection, or spiritual fulfilment are central challenges of critical care practice in the USA. We review trials from the past decade of interventions designed to address these challenges, and present reasons why evaluating, comparing, and implementing these interventions have been difficult. Careful scrutiny of the design and interpretation of past trials can show why improving goal concordant care has been so elusive, and suggest new directions for the next generation of research.

A systematic review of the use of the electronic health record for patient identification, communication, and clinical support in palliative care

Objectives

Globally, healthcare systems are using the electronic health record (EHR) and elements of clinical decision support (CDS) to facilitate palliative care (PC). Examination of published results is needed to determine if the EHR is successfully supporting the multidisciplinary nature and complexity of PC by identifying applications, methodology, outcomes, and barriers of active incorporation of the EHR in PC clinical workflow.

Methods

A systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The data sources PubMed, CINAL, EBSCOhost, and Academic Search Premier were used to identify literature published 1999–2017 of human subject peer-reviewed articles in English containing original research about the EHR and PC.

Results

The search returned 433 articles, 30 of which met inclusion criteria. Most studies were feasibility studies or retrospective cohort analyses; one study incorporated prospective longitudinal mixed methods. Twenty-three of 30 (77%) were published after 2014. The review identified five major areas in which the EHR is used to support PC. Studies focused on CDS to: identify individuals who could benefit from PC; electronic advanced care planning (ACP) documentation; patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as rapid, real-time pain feedback; to augment EHR PC data capture capabilities; and to enhance interdisciplinary communication and care.

Discussion

Beginning in 2015, there was a proliferation of articles about PC and EHRs, suggesting increasing incorporation of and research about the EHR with PC. This review indicates the EHR is underutilized for PC CDS, facilitating PROMs, and capturing ACPs.

Developing a Research Agenda for Integrating Palliative Care into Critical Care and Pulmonary Practice To Improve Patient and Family Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Palliative care is a medical specialty and philosophy of care that focuses on reducing suffering among patients with serious illness and their family members, regardless of disease diagnosis or prognosis. As critical illness or moderate to severe pulmonary disease confers significant disease-related symptom burdens, palliative care and palliative care specialists can aid in reducing symptom burden and improving quality of life among these patients and their family members.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to review the existing gaps in evidence for palliative care in pulmonary disease and critical illness and to use an interdisciplinary working group convened by the National Institutes of Health and the National Palliative Care Research Center to develop a research agenda to address these gaps.

METHODS

We completed a narrative review of the literature concerning the integration of palliative care into pulmonary and/or critical care. The review was based on recent systematic reviews on these topics as well as a summary of relevant articles identified through hand search. We used this review to identify gaps in current knowledge and develop a research agenda for the future.

RESULTS

We identified key areas of need and knowledge gaps that should be addressed to improve palliative care for patients with pulmonary and critical illness. These areas include developing and validating patient- and family-centered outcomes, identifying the key components of palliative care that are effective and cost-effective, developing and evaluating different models of palliative care delivery, and determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of palliative care interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this research agenda is to encourage researchers, clinicians, healthcare systems, and research funders to identify research that can address these gaps and improve the lives of patients with pulmonary and critical illness and their family members.

Does Modality Matter? Palliative Care Unit Associated With More Cost-Avoidance Than Consultations

CONTEXT

Inpatient palliative care (PC) is associated with reduced costs, but the optimal model for providing inpatient PC is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effect of palliative care consultations (PCCs) and care in a palliative care unit (PCU) on cost of care, in comparison with usual care (UC) only and in comparison with each other.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study, using multinomial propensity scoring to control for observed confounding between treatment groups. Participants were adults admitted as inpatients between 2009 and 2015, with at least one of seven life-limiting conditions who died within a year of admission (N = 6761).

RESULTS

PC within 10 days of admission is estimated to reduce costs compared with UC in the case of both PCU (-$6333; 95% CI: -7871 to -4795; P < 0.001) and PCC (-$3559; 95% CI: -5732 to -1387; P < 0.001). PCU is estimated to reduce costs compared with PCC (-$2774; 95% CI: -5107 to -441; P = 0.02) and length of stay compared with UC (-1.5 days; -2.2 to -0.9; P < 0.001). The comparatively larger effect of PCU over PCC is not observable when the treatment groups are restricted to those who received PC early in their admission (within six days).

CONCLUSION

Both PCU and PCC are associated with lower hospital costs than UC. PCU is associated with a greater cost-avoidance effect than PCC, except where both interventions are provided early in the hospitalization. Both timely provision of PC for appropriate patients and creation of more PCUs may decrease hospital costs.

Framing the conversation: use of PRECIS-2 ratings to advance understanding of pragmatic trial design domains

Background

There continues to be debate about what constitutes a pragmatic trial and how it is distinguished from more traditional explanatory trials. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project, which includes five trials and a coordinating unit, has adopted the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) instrument. The purpose of the study was to collect PRECIS-2 ratings at two points in time to assess whether the tool was sensitive to change in trial design, and to explore with investigators the rationale for rating shifts.

Methods

A mixed-methods design included sequential collection and analysis of quantitative data (PRECIS-2 ratings) and qualitative data. Ratings were collected at two annual, in-person project meetings, and subsequent interviews conducted with investigators were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo 11 Pro for Windows. Rating shifts were coded as either (1) actual change (reflects a change in procedure or protocol), (2) primarily a rating shift reflecting rater variability, or (3) themes that reflect important concepts about the tool and/or pragmatic trial design.

Results

Based on PRECIS-2 ratings, each trial was highly pragmatic at the planning phase and remained so 1 year later in the early phases of trial implementation. Over half of the 45 paired ratings for the nine PRECIS-2 domains indicated a rating change from Time 1 to Time 2 (N = 24, 53%). Of the 24 rating changes, only three represented a true change in the design of the trial. Analysis of rationales for rating shifts identified critical themes associated with the tool or pragmatic trial design more generally. Each trial contributed one or more relevant comments, with Eligibility, Flexibility of Adherence, and Follow-up each accounting for more than one.

Conclusions

PRECIS-2 has proved useful for “framing the conversation” about trial design among members of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project. Our findings suggest that design elements assessed by the PRECIS-2 tool may represent mostly stable decisions. Overall, there has been a positive response to using PRECIS-2 to guide conversations around trial design, and the project’s focus on the use of the tool by this group of early adopters has provided valuable feedback to inform future trainings on the tool.