Rapid Implementation of Inpatient Telepalliative Medicine Consultations During COVID-19 Pandemic.

As coronavirus disease 2019 cases increase throughout the country and health care systems grapple with the need to decrease provider exposure and minimize personal protective equipment use while maintaining high-quality patient care, our specialty is called on to consider new methods of delivering inpatient palliative care (PC). Telepalliative medicine has been used to great effect in outpatient and home-based PC but has had fewer applications in the inpatient setting. As we plan for decreased provider availability because of quarantine and redeployment and seek to reach increasingly isolated hospitalized patients in the face of coronavirus disease 2019, the need for telepalliative medicine in the inpatient setting is now clear. We describe our rapid and ongoing implementation of telepalliative medicine consultation for our inpatient PC teams and discuss lessons learned and recommendations for programs considering similar care models

The Quality Imperative for Palliative Care

Palliative medicine must prioritize the routine assessment of the quality of clinical care we provide. This includes regular assessment, analysis, and reporting of data on quality. Assessment of quality informs opportunities for improvement and demonstrates to our peers and ourselves the value of our efforts. In fact, continuous messaging of the value of palliative care services is needed to sustain our discipline; this requires regularly evaluating the quality of our care. As the reimbursement mechanisms for health care in the United States shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value models, palliative care will be expected to report robust data on quality of care. We must move beyond demonstrating to our constituents (including patients and referrers), “here is what we do,” and increase the focus on “this is how well we do it” and “let’s see how we can do it better.” It is incumbent on palliative care professionals to lead these efforts. This involves developing standardized methods to collect data without adding additional burden, comparing and sharing our experiences to promote discipline-wide quality assessment and improvement initiatives, and demonstrating our intentions for quality improvement on the clinical frontline

Defining Advance Care Planning for Adults: A Consensus Definition From a Multidisciplinary Delphi Panel

Despite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and prior ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA

Erworben im Rahmen der Schweizer Nationallizenzen (http://www.nationallizenzen.ch)Background: Patient empowerment, through which patients become self-determining agents with some control over their health and healthcare, is a common theme across health policies globally. Most care for older people is in the acute setting, but there is little evidence to inform the delivery of empowering hospital care. Objective: We aimed to explore challenges to and facilitators of empowerment among older people with advanced disease in hospital, and the impact of palliative care. Methods: We conducted an ethnography in six hospitals in England, Ireland and the USA. The ethnography involved: interviews with patients aged ≥65, informal caregivers, specialist palliative care (SPC) staff and other clinicians who cared for older adults with advanced disease, and fieldwork. Data were analysed using directed thematic analysis. Results: Analysis of 91 interviews and 340 h of observational data revealed substantial challenges to empowerment: poor communication and information provision, combined with routinised and fragmented inpatient care, restricted patients’ self-efficacy, self-management, choice and decision-making. Information and knowledge were often necessary for empowerment, but not sufficient: empowerment depended on patient-centredness being enacted at an organisational and staff level. SPC facilitated empowerment by prioritising patient-centred care, tailored communication and information provision, and the support of other clinicians. Conclusions: Empowering older people in the acute setting requires changes throughout the health system. Facilitators of empowerment include excellent staff-patient communication, patient-centred, relational care, an organisational focus on patient experience rather than throughput, and appropriate access to SPC. Findings have relevance for many high- and middle-income countries with a growing population of older patients with advanced disease

Code Status Discussions Between Attending Hospitalist Physicians and Medical Patients at Hospital Admission

BackgroundBioethicists and professional associations give specific recommendations for discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).ObjectiveTo determine whether attending hospitalist physicians' discussions meet these recommendations.DesignCross-sectional observational study on the medical services at two hospitals within a university system between August 2008 and March 2009.ParticipantsAttending hospitalist physicians and patients who were able to communicate verbally about their medical care.Main measuresWe identified code status discussions in audio-recorded admission encounters via physician survey and review of encounter transcripts. A quantitative content analysis was performed to determine whether discussions included elements recommended by bioethicists and professional associations. Two coders independently coded all discussions; Cohen's kappa was 0.64-1 for all reported elements.Key resultsAudio-recordings of 80 patients' admission encounters with 27 physicians were obtained. Eleven physicians discussed code status in 19 encounters. Discussions were more frequent in seriously ill patients (OR 4, 95% CI 1.2-14.6), yet 66% of seriously ill patients had no discussion. The median length of the code status discussions was 1 min (range 0.2-8.2). Prognosis was discussed with code status in only one of the encounters. Discussions of patients' preferences focused on the use of life-sustaining interventions as opposed to larger life goals. Descriptions of CPR as an intervention used medical jargon, and the indication for CPR was framed in general, as opposed to patient-specific scenarios. No physician quantitatively estimated the outcome of or provided a recommendation about the use of CPR.ConclusionsCode status was not discussed with many seriously ill patients. Discussions were brief, and did not include elements that bioethicists and professional associations recommend to promote patient autonomy. Local and national guidelines, research, and clinical practice changes are needed to clarify and systematize with whom and how CPR is discussed at hospital admission

Safety and Benefit of Discontinuing Statin Therapy in the Setting of Advanced, Life-Limiting Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

For patients with limited prognosis, some medication risks may outweigh the benefits, particularly when benefits take years to accrue; statins are one example. Data are lacking regarding the risks and benefits of discontinuing statin therapy for patients with limited life expectancy

Use of Palliative Care Consultation for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease: Survey of Liver Transplant Service Providers.

Background/aimPalliative care services (PCS) are recommended to enhance quality of care for hospitalized patients.MethodsWe evaluated the attitudes of liver transplant (LT) providers and perceived barriers to PCS for their patients by conducting a web-based survey of intensive care unit nurses, postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) physician trainees, nurse practitioners, fellows, and attending physicians on the LT service at an academic medical center.ResultsThe response rate was 44% (88/200). Providers agreed that LT and PCS are not mutually exclusive (86%, n = 76). Respondents reported confusion regarding criteria and timing for referral to PCS. Most suggested that referral is appropriate when death is imminent (78%, n = 69). Many providers felt that patients' depression (66%, n = 58) was poorly managed, although few identified that PCS were consulted for depression (28%, n = 25). Overall, 84% (n = 74) identified attending physicians as the main barrier to involving PCS, and attendings (93%, n = 82) were more likely than PGY1 (67%, n = 59) and nurses (55%, n = 48) to describe PCS as end-of-life care (p = 0.03). Nearly all LT providers agreed that patients welcomed goals of care discussions (83%, n = 73), were grateful for PCS (96%, n = 85), and received higher quality care with PCS (96%, n = 85).ConclusionLT providers overwhelmingly report that PCS benefit patients and are consistent with LT goals even while patients are listed for LT. Barriers to PCS include confusion over referral criteria and describing PCS as end-of-life care by attending physicians. PCS teams may expand access for LT patients by establishing clear criteria for PCS referral and targeting educational interventions about palliative care to attendings

Discussing resuscitation preferences with patients: Challenges and rewards

This paper was submitted on behalf of the Palliative Care Task Force. Discussing preferences regarding resuscitation is a challenging and important task for any physician. Understanding patients' wishes at the end of life allows physicians to provide the type of care patients want, to avoid unwanted interventions, and to promote patient autonomy and dignity. Hospitalists face an even greater challenge because they are often meeting a patient for the first time in a crisis situation. Despite the frequency with which clinicians have these conversations, they typically fall short when discussing code status with patients. In this evidencebased review, we discuss physician barriers to conducting effective discussions, offer a variety of approaches to enhancing these conversations, and review important communication techniques