Structural Barriers to Well-grounded Advance Care Planning for the Seriously Ill: a Qualitative Study of Clinicians' and Administrators' Experiences During a Pragmatic Trial

BACKGROUND

Advance Care Planning (ACP) comprises an iterative communication process aimed at understanding patients' goals, values, and preferences in the context of considering and preparing for future medical treatments and decision making in serious illness. The COVID pandemic heightened patients' and clinicians' awareness of the need for ACP.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to explore the experiences of clinicians and administrators in the context of an intervention to improve ACP during the COVID pandemic.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinicians and administrators across five sites that participated in the ACP-COVID trial.

APPROACH

We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews examining the context and approach to ACP. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis to systematically organize the data and facilitate review across the categories and participants. Templates were developed with iterative input and line-by-line review by the analytic team, to reach consensus. Findings were then organized into emergent themes.

KEY RESULTS

Across 20 interviews (4 administrators, 16 clinicians) we identified three themes related to how participants thought about ACP: (1) clinicians have varying views of what constitutes ACP; (2) the health system critically shapes ACP culture and norms; and (3) the centrality of clinicians' affective experience and own needs related to ACP. Varying approaches to ACP include a forms-focused approach; a discussion-based approach; and a parental approach. System features that shape ACP norms are (1) the primacy of clinician productivity measures; (2) the role of the EHR; and (3) the culture of quality improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high organizational commitment to ACP, we found that the health system channeled clinicians' ACP efforts narrowly on completion of forms, in tension with the ideal of well-grounded ACP. This resulted in a state of moral distress that risks undermining confidence in the process of ACP and may increase risk of harm for patients, family/caregivers, and providers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

Forms or Free-Text? Measuring Advance Care Planning Activity Using Electronic Health Records

Advance care planning (ACP) discussions seek to guide future serious illness care. These discussions may be recorded in the electronic health record by documentation in clinical notes, structured forms and directives, and physician orders. Yet, most studies of ACP prevalence have only examined structured electronic health record elements and ignored data existing in notes. We sought to investigate the relative comprehensiveness and accuracy of ACP documentation from structured and unstructured electronic health record data sources. We evaluated structured and unstructured ACP documentation present in the electronic health records of 435 patients with cancer drawn from three separate healthcare systems. We extracted structured ACP documentation by manually annotating written documents and forms scanned into the electronic health record. We coded unstructured ACP documentation using a rule-based natural language processing software that identified ACP keywords within clinical notes and was subsequently reviewed for accuracy. The unstructured approach identified more instances of ACP documentation (238, 54.7% of patients) than the structured ACP approach (187, 42.9% of patients). Additionally, 16.6% of all patients with structured ACP documentation only had documents that were judged as misclassified, incomplete, blank, unavailable, or a duplicate of a previously entered erroneous document. ACP documents scanned into electronic health records represent a limited view of ACP activity. Research and measures of clinical practice with ACP should incorporate information from unstructured data.

Efficacy of ketamine mouthwash in the management of oral and pharyngeal toxicity associated with head and neck chemoradiotherapy: protocol for a phase II, Simon's two-stage trial

INTRODUCTION

Curative intent treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) is frequently radiation therapy over 7 weeks with concurrent chemotherapy. This regimen is effective but carries a burden of toxicity leading to severe pain and treatment breaks portending inferior outcomes. Conventional palliation methods include opioids, anticonvulsants and local anaesthetics. Breakthrough toxicities are nevertheless ubiquitous and present an urgent unmet need. Ketamine is an inexpensive drug with mechanisms of analgesia outside the opioid pathway including N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism and a pharmacologically unique property of opioid desensitisation. Systemic ketamine is validated in randomised controlled trials for efficacy in reducing pain and/or opioid burden in the oncologic setting. Literature supports peripherally administered ketamine for pain control without systemic toxicity. These data support our rationale of using ketamine mouthwash to decrease acute toxicity of curative treatment of HNC, the efficacy of which is our aim to elucidate.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a phase II, Simon's two-stage trial. Patients have pathologically confirmed HNC and an intended regimen of 70 Gy of radiation with concurrent cisplatin. The protocol is initiated on diagnosis of grade 3 mucositis and consists of 2 weeks of 4 times daily (QID) ketamine mouthwash use. The primary endpoint is pain response defined as a combination of pain score and opioid use. 23 subjects will be enrolled in stage 1. If statistical criteria are met, 33 subjects will be enrolled in stage 2. Secondary endpoints include daily pain, daily opioid use, dysphagia at baseline and completion, nightly sleep quality, feeding tube placement and any unscheduled treatment breaks.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All trial data will be stored in an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database. The protocol is registered under Northwell IRB registration number #22-0292 and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational New Drug (IND) approval has been granted under IND number 161609. Results are intended to be published in an open-source journal and further data, statistics and source documents are available on request.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05331131.

Reaching Ambulatory Older Adults with Educational Tools: Comparative Efficacy and Cost of Varied Outreach Modalities in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Providing patients with access to health information that can be obtained outside of an office visit is an important part of education, yet little is known about the effectiveness of outreach modalities to connect older adults to online educational tools. The objective was to identify the effectiveness and cost of outreach modalities providing online information about advance care planning (ACP) for older adults.

METHODS

Six different outreach modalities were utilized to connect patients to online educational tools (ACP video decision aids). Participants were 13,582 patients aged 65 and older of 185 primary care providers with appointments over a 30-month period within a large health system in the greater New York City area. Main outcome measures were number of online video views and costs per outreach for each modality.

KEY RESULTS

There were 1150 video views for 21,407 remote outreach events. Text messages, sent to the largest volume of patients (8869), had the highest outcome rate (9.6%) and were the most economical ($0.09). Characterization of phone calls demonstrated 21.7% engagement in the topic of ACP but resulted in minimal video views (<1%) and incurred the highest cost per outreach ($2.88). In-office handouts had negligible results (<1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Text was the most cost-effective modality to connect older adults to an online educational tool in this pragmatic trial, though overall efficacy of all modalities was low.

From evidence to practice: early integration of palliative care in a comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that all patients with a diagnosis of advanced cancer be referred to a palliative care team within 8 weeks of diagnosis. The benefits of early integrated palliative care are well recognized; however, there is a lack of consensus to guide operational aspects of a palliative care service within a comprehensive cancer center. In this study, we explore current palliative care referral patterns at an academic cancer center and provide recommendations for operationalizing palliative care services as a program within comprehensive cancer centers in order to adequately meet the needs of patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer or advanced hematologic malignancy referred to the palliative care team at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021, was conducted. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to the initiation of the chart review.

RESULTS

A total of 243 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer or advanced hematologic malignancy were included in this review. Patients with gastrointestinal (26%), gynecologic (19%), and thoracic (21%) malignancies constituted 66% of the total cohort. The most frequent reason for referral was pain (52%). In total, 39% of patients were referred within 8 weeks of an advanced cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

ASCO recommends that all patients with advanced cancer be referred to a palliative care specialist within 8 weeks of diagnosis. Of the newly referred patients with advanced cancer, only 39% were referred to the palliative care team within 8 weeks of their diagnosis. This considerable gap suggests the need for a consensus with regard to operationalizing the palliative care team.

Association of an Advance Care Planning Video and Communication Intervention With Documentation of Advance Care Planning Among Older Adults: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

IMPORTANCE

COVID-19 has disproportionately killed older adults and racial and ethnic minority individuals, raising questions about the relevance of advance care planning (ACP) in this population. Video decision aids and communication skills training offer scalable delivery models.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether ACP video decision aids and a clinician communication intervention improved the rate of ACP documentation during an evolving pandemic, with a focus on African American and Hispanic patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Advance Care Planning: Communicating With Outpatients for Vital Informed Decisions trial was a pre-post, open-cohort nonrandomized controlled trial that compared ACP documentation across the baseline pre-COVID-19 period (September 15, 2019, to March 14, 2020), the COVID-19 wave 1 period (March 15, 2020, to September 14, 2020), and an intervention period (December 15, 2020, to June 14, 2021) at a New York metropolitan area ambulatory network of 22 clinics. All patients 65 years or older who had at least 1 clinic or telehealth visit during any of the 3 study periods were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was ACP documentation.

RESULTS

A total of 14 107 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.0 [8.4] years; 8856 [62.8%] female; and 2248 [15.9%] African American or Hispanic) interacted with clinicians during the pre-COVID-19 period; 12 806 (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [8.5] years; 8047 [62.8%] female; and 1992 [15.6%] African American or Hispanic), during wave 1; and 15 106 (mean [SD] 80.9 [8.3] years; 9543 [63.2%] female; and 2535 [16.8%] African American or Hispanic), during the intervention period. Clinicians documented ACP in 3587 patients (23.8%) during the intervention period compared with 2525 (17.9%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (rate difference [RD], 5.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-7.9%; P = .01) and 1598 (12.5%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.3%; 95% CI, 6.3%-12.1%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented in 447 African American patients (30.0%) during the intervention period compared with 233 (18.1%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 11.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-15.9%; P < .001) and 130 (11.0%) during wave 1 (RD, 19.1%; 95% CI, 11.7%-21.2%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented for 222 Hispanic patients (21.2%) during the intervention period compared with 127 (13.2%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 8.0%; 95% CI, 2.1%-10.9%; P = .004) and 82 (10.2%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.1%; 95% CI, 5.5%-14.5%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This intervention, implemented during the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, was associated with higher rates of ACP documentation, especially for African American and Hispanic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

Risk Factor Assessment of Hospice Patients Readmitted within 7 Days of Acute Care Hospital Discharge

Factors surrounding readmission rates for hospice patients within seven days are still relatively unknown. The present study specifically investigates the seven-day readmission rate of patients newly discharged to hospice, and the predictive factors associated with readmission for this population. In a retrospective case-control study, we seek to identify potential predictors by comparing the characteristics of patients discharged to hospice and readmitted within one week to patients who were not readmitted. Cases (n = 46) were patients discharged to home hospice and readmitted to the hospital within seven days. Controls (n = 117) were patients discharged to home hospice and not readmitted to the hospital within seven days. Significant risk factors for readmission within seven days were found to be: age (p < 0.01), race (p < 0.001), language (p < 0.001), and insurance (p < 0.001). Further study of these predictors may identify opportunities for interventions that address patient and family concerns that may lead to readmission.

Health providers’ perspectives on medical marijuana use

235

Background: According to the CDC, 117 million Americans have one or more chronic health conditions and 31% have used two or more prescription drugs in the past month. Approximately 40% of adults in the United States are using some form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Medical marijuana is one such medicine, and to date 29 states have legalized medical marijuana. Methods: A multicenter, anonymous, on-line survey of health care providers was distributed via e-mail within a large health system in the NY Metropolitan area. The survey was distributed in April and May of 2017. The specific aim was to collect information about health care providers’ perspectives on the use of MM in general and for specific medical conditions. Results: The sample (n = 137) consisted of 4% RNs, 10% NPs, 10% fellows, 21% resident physicians, and 52% attending physicians. Average experience was 13 years (range: 0-43), half (53%) were under 40 years old and just over half (56%) were female. Most practitioners recognized a benefit of MM for the treatment of cancer-associated symptoms, few were concerned with side effects and 5% of responders answered that MM was not appropriate at any stage of illness. Responders were “most likely to recommend or refer MM if other therapies were not effective” for cancer (83%), chronic pain (68%), spinal cord injury with spasticity (50%), MS (46%), epilepsy (42%), neuropathy (42%) and Parkinson’s disease (41%). Most providers (77%) believed that MM has the potential to reduce overall opioid use, this was found to be statistically more common in younger providers. The most common conditions that providers reported their patients were requesting MM for were cancer (37%), chronic pain (26%) and neuropathy (10%). The most common concerns about MM use were side effects (16%), addiction (13%), legal consequences (11%), cost (7%) and that other providers would judge MM use (7%). Conclusions: Our survey shows that providers are overwhelmingly in support of MM use in patients with chronic illness, particularly in cancer patients. However providers describe significant and practical concerns about MM utilization. Given the rate at which MM is being legalized throughout the country, it is imperative that there be increased focus on education and clinical studies on MM.

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.

Developing a supportive oncology program in a cancer institute: Needs assessment

141

Background: Cancer patients experience significant symptom and psychosocial burden (Temel JS, et. al. N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19; 363(8):733-42. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.). Integration of supportive oncology programs within cancer centers has developed since the findings of Temel and Jackson. Addressing a growing need to manage patients comprehensively, the Northwell Health Divisions of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine and Hematology and Oncology partnered to initiate a community-based supportive oncology program. A needs assessment was completed of the providers staff, and important stakeholders. Methods: A sixteen-question survey was created and distributed to the staff at the cancer center. Questions focused on providers’ need for support in fifteen areas. The target audience included physicians, fellows, mid-level providers, registered nurses, social workers, dietitians, and care navigators. A student intern administered surveys over a six-week period. Results: A total of 61 surveys were collected. Of these, 30 were completed by registered nurses, 13 by physicians, 9 by mid-level practitioners, and 3 by social workers. Physicians expressed the highest level of need (> 4.5/5) related to nutritional status, psychosocial factors and pharmaceutical review. Mid-level providers expressed highest level of need related to pain and depression. Nurses expressed highest level of need related to psychosocial factors, pain, depression, fatigue and pharmaceutical review. The average level of need across all areas and all respondents was 4.2 on a 5 point scale. The biggest challenge identified was lack of time to perform comprehensive assessments of patients. Conclusions: A high level of need for a supportive oncology program was identified. Per our assessment, providing comprehensive care with an emphasis on symptom control, nutritional and psychosocial support, and pharmaceutical review would benefit both providers and patients. Time constraints were identified as an issue by all practitioners and staff. The survey results supported the need for an added level of multi-disciplinary support for oncologists to care for cancer patients in the community.

Risk factor assessment of hospice patients who are readmitted within 7 days of acute care hospital discharge

121

Background: Although 20% of adults 65 and older are re-hospitalized within 30 days of discharge, there is a dearth of research investigating readmission of patients discharged to hospice and the predictors of the readmissions. The study aim was to identify risk factors for hospital readmission within 7 days of discharge to home hospice. Methods: This was a retrospective case control study with cases being patients discharged to home hospice that were readmitted to the hospital within 7 days. Controls were patients discharged to home hospice and not readmitted to the hospital within 7 days. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic and clinical characteristics. The chi-square or Fisher’s Exact test were used to compare categorical predictors between cases and controls. The two-sample t-test or the Mann-Whitney test were used to compare continuous predictors between cases and controls. Results: There were 163 subjects; 46 cases (28.22%) and 117 controls (71.78%). The most frequent hospital diagnosis was cancer (56.4%). There was a significant association between 7-day readmission (i.e., case) and age (P < 0.0041), race (P < 0.0008), language (P < 0.0007) and insurance (P < 0.0001). Specifically, cases were significantly younger than controls (69.5 vs. 77.0). Cases were more likely to be Hispanic (15.2 vs. 5.1), Asian (15.2 vs. 5.1) and other (13.0 vs. 2.6) when compared to controls. Cases were more likely to speak Spanish (13.3 vs. 3.5) or other (20.0 vs. 5.3) and less likely to speak English (66.7 vs. 91.2). Cases were less likely to have Medicare (8.7 vs. 82.9) and more likely to have Medicaid (32.6 vs. 4.3), private insurance (13.0 vs. 10.3) or other form of insurance including dual eligibility (45.7 vs. 2.6). Gender, marital status, religion, hospital diagnosis, discharge day, family support at home, symptoms and emergency contact relationship were not significantly association with 7-day readmission. Conclusions: Our data highlights four risk factors, namely age, race, language and insurance status as factors predicting readmission within seven days of acute care hospital discharge. Further study of these predictors may identify opportunities for interventions to obviate these readmissions.