Dena Schulman-Green

Abstract

PURPOSE: Despite the importance of measuring delirium severity in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), no validated instrument currently exists. Our goal was to generate items for use in such an instrument. METHOD: An interdisciplinary expert panel developed items to assess seven domains and 21 subdomains of delirium severity. Nursing experts provided input on items. RESULTS: Experts achieved consensus on 21 items, including best respondents for each item, and appropriate look-back periods. Nursing experts emphasized the need for educating nursing staff and obtaining information from caregivers. CONCLUSION: Careful, nuanced identification of distinguishing features is key for generating items for measuring delirium severity in persons with ADRD. Once developed, engaging nurses will be essential to facilitate adoption and relevance of the tool.

Abstract

Background: Across the globe, family-integrated care (FICare) has become an evidence-based standard in which parents deliver the majority of infant care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Because of extensive barriers to parent presence, adaptations to FICare may be required for successful implementation. Family management theory may provide structure to the Parent Education of FICare and help nurses guide parents’ skill development as equal care members. Purpose: To identify family management skills employed by NICU parents using the Self- and Family Management Framework (SFMF). Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of qualitative interview data from NICU parents (n = 17) who shared their experiences of using family management skills to care for their infant. We categorized skills according to 3 main self- and family management processes: Focusing on Infant Illness Needs; Activating Resources; and Living With Infant Illness. Results: Parents reported several family management skills currently identified in the SFMF, as well as new skills such as conflict management, power brokerage, and addressing resources related to social determinants of health. Parent activation of resources was critical to sustaining parent focus on the infant’s illness needs. Implications for Practice and Research: By teaching skills that parents reported as helping them manage infant care, neonatal nurses may better facilitate parent integration into the care team. Future researchers can incorporate the skills identified in this study into the design of family management interventions that facilitate FICare implementation in the United States.

Abstract

Data sharing is increasingly an expectation in health research as part of a general move toward more open sciences. In the United States, in particular, the implementation of the 2023 National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy has made it clear that qualitative studies are not exempt from this data sharing requirement. Recognizing this trend, the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC) realized the value of creating a de-identified qualitative data repository to complement its existing de-identified quantitative data repository. The PCRC Data Informatics and Statistics Core leadership partnered with the Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) to establish the first serious illness and palliative care qualitative data repository in the U.S. We describe the processes used to develop this repository, called the PCRC-QDR, as well as our outreach and education among the palliative care researcher community, which led to the first ten projects to share the data in the new repository. Specifically, we discuss how we co-designed the PCRC-QDR and created tailored guidelines for depositing and sharing qualitative data depending on the original research context, establishing uniform expectations for key components of relevant documentation, and the use of suitable access controls for sensitive data. We also describe how PCRC was able to leverage its existing community to recruit and guide early depositors and outline lessons learned in evaluating the experience. This work advances the establishment of best practices in qualitative data sharing.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic severely disrupted hospice care, yet there is little research regarding how widespread disruptions affected clinician and family decision-making. We aimed to understand how the pandemic affected structures, processes, and outcomes of end-of-life care. Research Design and Methods: Retrospective narrative chart review of electronic health records of 61 patients referred and admitted to hospice from 3 New York City geriatrics practices who died between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. We linked longitudinal, unstructured medical, and hospice electronic health record notes to create a real-time, multiperspective trajectory of patients' interactions with providers using directed content analysis. Results: Most patients had dementia and were enrolled in hospice for 11 days. Care processes were shaped by structural factors (staffing, supplies, and governmental/institutional policies), and outcomes were prioritized by care teams and families (protecting safety, maintaining high-touch care, honoring patient values, and supporting patients emotionally and spiritually). Processes used to achieve these outcomes were decision-making, care delivery, supporting a "good death,"and emotional and spiritual support. Discussion and Implications: Care processes were negotiated throughout the end of life, with clinicians and families making in-the-moment decisions. Some adaptations were effective but also placed extraordinary pressure on paid and family caregivers. Healthcare teams' and families' goals to meet patients' end-of-life priorities can be supported by ongoing assessment of patient goals and process changes needed to support them, stronger structural supports for paid and family caregivers, incentivizing relationships across primary care and hospice teams, and extending social work and spiritual care.

Abstract

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51–79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Abstract

Context: The critical role of hospice and palliative care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is well recognized, but there is limited evidence to guide healthcare leadership through future crises. Objectives: Our goal was to support future organizational resilience by exploring hospice and palliative team members’ perspectives on crisis leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC). Methods: This qualitative descriptive study used individual, semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled interdisciplinary team members. Enrollment sites were two large NYC metro hospice care organizations and one outpatient palliative care practice. We asked participants to complete a demographic form and a 45–60 minute interview. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively, for data analysis. We triangulated the data by presenting preliminary study findings to a group of clinicians (n=21) from one of the referring organizations. Results: Participants (n=30) were professionally diverse (e.g., nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, administrators), experienced (mean=17 years; 10 years in hospice), and highly educated (83% ≥ master's degree). About half (n=15) self-identified as white, non-Hispanic, and nearly half (n=13) self-identified as being from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Two (n=2) did not wish to self-identify. We identified four themes that reflected challenges and adaptive responses to providing care during a crisis: Stay Open and Stay Safe; Act Flexibly; Lead Adaptively; and Create a Culture of Solidarity. Conclusion: While additional work is indicated, findings offer direction for a crisis management playbook to guide leadership in hospice, palliative care, and other healthcare settings in future crises.

Abstract

Introduction: Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Twenty patients aged 51–79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy. Conclusion: Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

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

The Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is a multicomponent delirium prevention program targeting delirium risk factors of cognitive impairment, vision and hearing impairment, malnutrition and dehydration, immobility, sleep deprivation, and medications. We created a modified and extended version of the program, HELP-ME, deployable under COVID-19 conditions, for example, patient isolation and restricted staff and volunteer roles. We explored perceptions of interdisciplinary clinicians who implemented HELP-ME to inform its development and testing. This was a qualitative descriptive study of HELP-ME among older adults on medical and surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants included HELP-ME staff at 4 pilot sites across the United States who implemented HELP-ME.We held five 1-hour video focus groups (5-16 participants/group) to review specific intervention protocols and the overall program. We asked participants open-endedly about positive and challenging aspects of protocol implementation. Groups were recorded and transcribed. We used directed content analysis to analyze data. Participants identified general, technology-related, and protocol-specific positive and challenging aspects of the program. Overarching themes included the need for enhanced customization and standardization of protocols, need for increased volunteer staffing, digital access to family members, patient technological literacy and comfort, variation in the feasibility of remote delivery among intervention protocols, and preference for a hybrid program model. Participants offered related recommendations. Participants felt that HELP-ME was successfully implemented, with some modifications needed to address limitations of remote implementation. A hybrid model combining remote and in-person aspects was recommended as the preferred option.

Abstract

Background: CommunityRx is an evidence-based social care intervention delivered to family and friend caregivers (“caregivers”) at the point of healthcare to address health-related social risks (HRSRs). Two CommunityRx randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are being fielded concurrently on Chicago’s South Side, a predominantly African American/Black community. CommunityRx-Hunger is a double-blind RCT enrolling caregivers of hospitalized children. CommunityRx-Dementia is a single-blind RCT enrolling caregivers of community-residing people with dementia. RCTs with caregivers face recruitment barriers, including caregiver burden and lack of systematic strategies to identify caregivers in clinical settings. COVID-19 pandemic-related visitor restrictions exacerbated these barriers and prompted the need for iteration of the protocols from in-person to remote operations. This study describes these protocols and methods used for successful iteration to overcome barriers. Methods and findings: CommunityRx uses individual-level data to generate personalized, local community resource referrals for basic, health and caregiving needs. In early 2020, two in-person RCT protocols were pre-tested. In March 2020, when pandemic conditions prohibited face-to-face clinical enrollment, both protocols were iterated to efficient, caregiver-centered remote operations. Iterations were enabled in part by the Automated Randomized Controlled Trial Information-Communication System (ARCTICS), a trial management system innovation engineered to integrate the data collection database (REDCap) with community resource referral (NowPow) and SMS texting (Mosio) platforms. Enabled by engaged Community Advisory Boards and ARCTICS, both RCTs quickly adapted to remote operations. To accommodate these adaptations, launch was delayed until November (CommunityRx-Hunger) and December (CommunityRx-Dementia) 2020. Despite the delay, 65% of all planned participants (CommunityRx-Hunger n = 417/640; CommunityRx-Dementia n = 222/344) were enrolled by December 2021, halfway through our projected enrollment timeline. Both trials enrolled 13% more participants in the first 12 months than originally projected for in-person enrollment. Discussion: Our asset-based, community-engaged approach combined with widely accessible institutional and commercial information technologies facilitated rapid migration of in-person trials to remote operations. Remote or hybrid RCT designs for social care interventions may be a viable, scalable alternative to in-person recruitment and intervention delivery protocols, particularly for caregivers and other groups that are under-represented in traditional health services research. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: CommunityRx-Hunger (NCT04171999, 11/21/2019); CommunityRx for Caregivers (NCT04146545, 10/31/2019).