Abraham A. Brody

Abstract

Utilizing a participatory approach, we sought to co-design a 12-week Green Activity Program (GAP) with Hispanic/Latino individuals living with memory challenges and their care partners, local outdoor professionals, and healthcare providers.

Abstract

Social determinants of health (SDOH) impacted the quality of home hospice care provided during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspectives from professionals who provided care identify challenges and lessons learned from their experience. To examine hospice professionals' perspectives of how SDOH affected the delivery of high-quality home hospice care in New York City (NYC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 hospice professionals who delivered care to home hospice patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in NYC using a qualitative descriptive design. Purposive sampling was used to recruit professionals from a range of disciplines including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, chaplains, and hospice administration and management. Participants worked for one of two large NYC metro hospices and one outpatient palliative care practice serving the five boroughs of NYC and the surrounding suburbs. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify themes. Thirty hospice professionals were interviewed, spanning a variety of clinical and administrative roles. Most (21 out of 30) reported that social determinants affected access and/or delivery of equitable hospice care. Two key themes emerged from interviews: (1) SDOH exist and affect the delivery of high-quality care and (2) disparities were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in barriers to care. Subthemes outline barriers described by hospice professionals: decreased hospice enrollment, telehealth challenges, resulting in deficient patient/family education, shortages of nursing assistants in some neighborhoods, and diminished overall quality of hospice care for some patients. SDOH created barriers to hospice care through neighborhood factors, resource barriers, and system challenges. SDOH provide a context to understand disparity in the provision of hospice care. COVID-19 exacerbated these conditions. Addressing multidimensional barriers created by SDOH is key in creating high-quality and equitable hospice care, particularly during a crisis.

Abstract

Purpose: Utilizing a participatory approach, we sought to co-design a 12-week Green Activity Program (GAP) with Hispanic/Latino individuals living with memory challenges and their care partners, local outdoor professionals, and healthcare providers. Methods: Participants were recruited via convenience and snowball sampling in the Bronx, New York with Hispanic/Latino persons living with memory challenges and care partners, outdoor activity professionals, and interdisciplinary healthcare providers/dementia experts. Co-design occurred iteratively with 5 focus groups and 4 individual interviews lasting 30–90 min and focused on program and research design. Sessions were recorded and transcribed. Utilizing directed content analysis data was coded using a priori codes program design and research design. Results: 21 participants completed co-design activities: (n = 8 outdoor activity professionals, n = 6 Hispanic/Latino persons living with memory challenges and care partners, and n = 7 interdisciplinary healthcare providers/dementia experts). Participant preferences for program design were captured by subcodes session duration (30–90 min), frequency (4–8 sessions), and delivery modes (in-person and phone). Participants' preferred nature activities included group exercise and outdoor crafts [crocheting], outcomes of social participation, connectedness to nature, decreased loneliness, and stewardship were identified. Preferred language for recruiting and describing the program were “memory challenges,” “Hispanic/Latino,” and “wellbeing.” Referral pathways were identified including community-based organizations and primary care. Conclusion: Co-design was a successful form of engagement for people living with memory challenges that enabled participants to help design key elements of the GAP and research design. Our processes, findings, and recommendations for tailoring co-design to engage Hispanic/Latino people living with memory challenges can inform the development of other programs for this population.

Abstract

Context: Social determinants of health (SDOH) impacted the quality of home hospice care provided during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspectives from professionals who provided care identify challenges and lessons learned from their experience. Objective: To examine hospice professionals’ perspectives of how SDOH affected the delivery of high-quality home hospice care in New York City (NYC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 hospice professionals who delivered care to home hospice patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in NYC using a qualitative descriptive design. Purposive sampling was used to recruit professionals from a range of disciplines including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, chaplains, and hospice administration and management. Participants worked for one of two large NYC metro hospices and one outpatient palliative care practice serving the five boroughs of NYC and the surrounding suburbs. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify themes. Results: Thirty hospice professionals were interviewed, spanning a variety of clinical and administrative roles. Most (21 out of 30) reported that social determinants affected access and/or delivery of equitable hospice care. Two key themes emerged from interviews: (1) SDOH exist and affect the delivery of high-quality care and (2) disparities were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in barriers to care. Subthemes outline barriers described by hospice professionals: decreased hospice enrollment, telehealth challenges, resulting in deficient patient/family education, shortages of nursing assistants in some neighborhoods, and diminished overall quality of hospice care for some patients. SDOH created barriers to hospice care through neighborhood factors, resource barriers, and system challenges. Conclusion: SDOH provide a context to understand disparity in the provision of hospice care. COVID-19 exacerbated these conditions. Addressing multidimensional barriers created by SDOH is key in creating high-quality and equitable hospice care, particularly during a crisis.

Abstract

Understanding the complex care needs of seriously ill adults with multiple chronic conditions with and without cancer is critical for the delivery of high-quality serious illness and palliative care at the end of life. The objective of this secondary data analysis of a multisite randomized clinical trial in palliative care was to elucidate the clinical profile and complex care needs of seriously ill adults with multiple chronic conditions and to highlight key differences among those with and without cancer at the end of life. Of the 213 (74.2%) older adults who met criteria for multiple chronic conditions (eg, 2 or more chronic conditions requiring regular care with limitations of daily living), 49% had a diagnosis of cancer. Hospice enrollment was operationalized as an indicator for severity of illness and allowed for the capture of complex care needs of those deemed to be nearing the end of life. Individuals with cancer had complex symptomatology with a higher prevalence of nausea, drowsiness, and poor appetite and end of life and lower hospice enrollment. Individuals with multiple chronic conditions without cancer had lower functional status, greater number of medications, and higher hospice enrollment. The care of seriously ill older adults with multiple chronic conditions requires tailored approaches to improve outcomes and quality of care across health care settings, particularly at the end of life.

Abstract

Understanding the complex care needs of seriously ill adults with multiple chronic conditions with and without cancer is critical for the delivery of high-quality serious illness and palliative care at the end of life. The objective of this secondary data analysis of a multisite randomized clinical trial in palliative care was to elucidate the clinical profile and complex care needs of seriously ill adults with multiple chronic conditions and to highlight key differences among those with and without cancer at the end of life. Of the 213 (74.2%) older adults who met criteria for multiple chronic conditions (eg, 2 or more chronic conditions requiring regular care with limitations of daily living), 49% had a diagnosis of cancer. Hospice enrollment was operationalized as an indicator for severity of illness and allowed for the capture of complex care needs of those deemed to be nearing the end of life. Individuals with cancer had complex symptomatology with a higher prevalence of nausea, drowsiness, and poor appetite and end of life and lower hospice enrollment. Individuals with multiple chronic conditions without cancer had lower functional status, greater number of medications, and higher hospice enrollment. The care of seriously ill older adults with multiple chronic conditions requires tailored approaches to improve outcomes and quality of care across health care settings, particularly at the end of life.

Abstract

Background: As more Americans age in place, it is critical to understand care delivery in the home. However, data on the range of home-based services provided by Medicare is limited. We define a taxonomy of clinical care in the home funded through fee-for-service Medicare and methods to identify receipt of those services. Methods: We analyzed Fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims data from a nationally-representative cohort of older adults, the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), to identify home-based clinical care. We included 6,664 NHATS enrollees age ≥ 70 and living in the community, observed an average of 3 times each on claims-linked NHATS surveys. We examined provider and service type of home-based clinical care to identify a taxonomy of 5 types: home-based medical care (physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner visits), home-based podiatry, skilled home health care (SHHC), hospice, and other fee-for-service (FFS) home-based care. We further characterized home-based clinical care by detailed care setting and visit types. Results: From 2011–2016, 17.8%-20.8% of FFS Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 70 received Medicare-funded home-based clinical care. SHHC was the most common service (12.8%-16.1%), followed by other FFS home-based care (5.5%-6.5%), home-based medical care (3.2%-3.9%), and hospice (2.6%-3.0%). Examination of the other-FFS home-based care revealed imaging/diagnostics and laboratory testing to be the most common service. Conclusions: We define a taxonomy of clinical care provided in the home, serving 1 in 5 FFS Medicare beneficiaries. This approach can be used to identify and address research and clinical care gaps in home-based clinical care delivery.

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to assess emergency nurses’ perceived barriers toward engaging patients in serious illness conversations. Methods: Using a mixed-method (quant + QUAL) convergent design, we pooled data on the emergency nurses who underwent the End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium training across 33 emergency departments. Data were extracted from the End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium post-training questionnaire, comprising a 5-item survey and 1 open-ended question. Our quantitative analysis employed a cross-sectional design to assess the proportion of emergency nurses who report that they will encounter barriers in engaging seriously ill patients in serious illness conversations in the emergency department. Our qualitative analysis used conceptual content analysis to generate themes and meaning units of the perceived barriers and possible solutions toward having serious illness conversations in the emergency department. Results: A total of 2176 emergency nurses responded to the survey. Results from the quantitative analysis showed that 1473 (67.7%) emergency nurses reported that they will encounter barriers while engaging in serious illness conversations. Three thematic barriers—human factors, time constraints, and challenges in the emergency department work environment—emerged from the content analysis. Some of the subthemes included the perceived difficulty of serious illness conversations, delay in daily throughput, and lack of privacy in the emergency department. The potential solutions extracted included the need for continued training, the provision of dedicated emergency nurses to handle serious illness conversations, and the creation of dedicated spaces for serious illness conversations. Discussion: Emergency nurses may encounter barriers while engaging in serious illness conversations. Institutional-level policies may be required in creating a palliative care-friendly emergency department work environment.

Abstract

Persons living with advanced cancer have intensive symptoms and psychosocial needs that often result in visits to the Emergency Department (ED). We report on program engagement, advance care planning (ACP), and hospice use for a 6-month longitudinal nurse-led, telephonic palliative care intervention for patients with advanced cancer as part of a larger randomized trial. Patients 50 years and older with metastatic solid tumors were recruited from 18 EDs and randomized to receive nursing calls focused on ACP, symptom management, and care coordination or specialty outpatient palliative care (ClinicialTrials.gov: NCT03325985). One hundred and five (50%) graduated from the 6-month program, 54 (26%) died or enrolled in hospice, 40 (19%) were lost to follow-up, and 19 (9%) withdrew prior to program completion. In a Cox proportional hazard regression, withdrawn subjects were more likely to be white and have a low symptom burden compared to those who did not withdraw. Two hundred eighteen persons living with advanced cancer were enrolled in the nursing arm, and 182 of those (83%) completed some ACP. Of the subjects who died, 43/54 (80%) enrolled in hospice. Our program demonstrated high rates of engagement, ACP, and hospice enrollment. Enrolling subjects with a high symptom burden may result in even greater program engagement.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Poor sleep is ubiquitous in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and is associated with a myriad of negative symptoms. Non-pharmacological interventions can improve sleep, yet sustainability has not been demonstrated. The Improving Sleep Using Mentored Behavioral and Environmental Restructuring (SLUMBER) trial will test whether a staff mentoring approach to address resident sleep issues positively impacts sleep quality and whether improved sleep benefits mood, cognitive performance, and activity engagement for residents living in SNFs. INTERVENTION: This is a four-year hybrid type I effectiveness/implementation randomized stepped-wedge trial using a comprehensive sleep improvement program conducted in three urban SNFs. METHODS: We will provide SNF staff with sleep promotion strategies over a four-month intervention. Staff will have access to in-person workshops, webinars, weekly sleep pearls via text messaging, environmental data, and expert program mentors. We will consent residents for data collection (at baseline, end of intervention, and three- and six-months post-intervention) including resident observations, questionnaires, and wrist actigraphy (to objectively measure sleep). We will also use selected Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) measures. CONCLUSION: SLUMBER uses a unique strategy to iteratively improve sleep interventions through SNF staff buy-in, expert mentoring, and technological supports within a quality improvement framework. As a stepped-wedge trial, the initial SNF units provide opportunities for program improvement in subsequent units, accounting for variation across resident populations at different sites. Protocol limitations include strategies which may require substantial customization for greater spread. A comprehensive staff training program that addresses both sleep quality and related symptoms has the opportunity for considerable dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: USGOV Clinical Trials ID: NCT03327324.