Is It Time to Redesign Hospice? End-of-Life Care at the User Interface

Hospice is a system of end-of-life care that’s not used to its full potential. That is, hospice is not used in the way that would benefit patients and families as much as it could. My argument is that this is an issue of usability, or ergonomics—the science of design. I illustrate how to take what we have learned from the science of usability to make hospice more accessible and approachable, and to increase hospice use among those who would benefit from it. Underneath this discussion, though, there is a more fundamental question: Can we make hospice more usable or do we need to think about redesigning hospice entirely

Comfort Feeding Only: A Proposal to Bring Clarity to Decision-Making Regarding Difficulty with Eating for Persons with Advanced Dementia

Feeding and eating difficulties leading to weight loss are common in the advanced stages of dementia. When such problems arise, family members are often faced with making a decision regarding the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. The existing evidence based on observational studies suggests that feeding tubes do not improve survival or reduce the risk of aspiration, yet the use of feeding tubes is prevalent in patients with dementia, and the majority of nursing home residents do not have orders documenting their wishes about the use of artificial hydration and nutrition. One reason is that orders to forgo artificial hydration and nutrition get wrongly interpreted as “do not feed,” resulting in a reluctance of families to agree to them. Furthermore, nursing homes fear regulatory scrutiny of weight loss and wrongly believe that the use of feeding tubes signifies that everything possible is being done. These challenges might be overcome with the creation of clear language that stresses the patient's goals of care. A new order, “comfort feeding only,” that states what steps are to be taken to ensure the patient's comfort through an individualized feeding care plan, is proposed. Comfort feeding only through careful hand feeding, if possible, offers a clear goal-oriented alternative to tube feeding and eliminates the apparent care-no care dichotomy imposed by current orders to forgo artificial hydration and nutrition

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

Perceptions of hospitalized patients and their surrogate decision makers on dialysis initiation: a pilot study

Abstract Background Dialysis is often initiated in the hospital during episodes of acute kidney injury and critical illness. Little is known about how patients or their surrogate decision makers feel about dialysis initiation in the inpatient setting. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study at a large academic center in the United States. All patients who initiated dialysis during a 30-day period in 2016 were approached for enrollment. Study participants were defined as individuals who provided consent for dialysis initiation – either the patient or a surrogate decision-maker. Decisional satisfaction and the degree of shared decision-making were assessed using the decisional attitude scale and the control preferences scale, respectively. These scales were incorporated into a study questionnaire along with an exploratory structured interview. Results A total of 31 potential participants were eligible and 21 agreed to participate in the study. Continuous renal replacement therapy was used in 14 out of 21 cases (67%) and there was 33% in-hospital mortality in the study cohort. A majority (62%) of patients were unable to participate in the consent process for dialysis initiation and had to rely on a surrogate decision-maker. The mean score for the decisional attitude scale was 4.1 (95% CI 3.8–4.3) with a score of 5 corresponding to high decisional satisfaction. Most of the decisions were classified as shared and incorporated input from clinicians as well as patients or surrogates. Although 90% of participants agreed that they had a choice in making the decision, 81% were unable to mention any alternatives to dialysis initiation. Conclusions Dialysis initiation was associated with high decisional satisfaction and most participants felt that the decision incorporated input from patients and providers. However, inpatient dialysis initiation was commonly associated with loss of decisional capacity and reliance on a surrogate decision-maker. This finding is likely driven by critical illness. Survivors of critical illness who remain dialysis dependent may need to revisit conversations about the rationale, risks, and benefits of dialysis