Komal Patel Murali

Abstract

~

Abstract

~

Abstract

The objective of this study was to characterize multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) among seriously ill adults receiving palliative care at the end of life. A latent class analysis was conducted to identify latent subgroups of seriously ill older adults based on a baseline Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) measurement, a measure of comorbidity burden, and mortality risk. The three latent subgroups were: (1) low to moderate CCI with MCC, (2) high CCI with MCC, and (3) high CCI and metastatic cancer. The “low to moderate CCI and MCC” subgroup included older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, dementia, diabetes, and lymphoma. A “high CCI and MCC” subgroup included individuals with severe illness including liver or renal disease among other MCCs. A “high CCI and metastatic cancer” included all participants with metastatic cancer. This study sheds light on the MCC profile of seriously ill adults receiving palliative care.

Abstract

~

Abstract

~

Abstract

Importance: In the US, improving end-of-life care has become increasingly urgent. Some states have enacted legislation intended to facilitate palliative care delivery for seriously ill patients, but it is unknown whether these laws have any measurable consequences for patient outcomes. Objective: To determine whether US state palliative care legislation is associated with place of death from cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis used information about state legislation combined with death certificate data for 50 US states (from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017) for all decedents who had any type of cancer listed as the underlying cause of death. Data analysis for this study occurred between September 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022. Exposures: Presence of a nonprescriptive (relating to palliative and end-of-life care without prescribing particular clinician actions) or prescriptive (requiring clinicians to offer patients information about care options) palliative care law in the state-year where death occurred. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel relative risk regression with state modeled as a random effect was used to estimate the likelihood of dying at home or hospice for decedents dying in state-years with a palliative care law compared with decedents dying in state-years without such laws. Results: This study included 7547907 individuals with cancer as the underlying cause of death. Their mean (SD) age was 71 (14) years, and 3609146 were women (47.8%). In terms of race and ethnicity, the majority of decedents were White (85.6%) and non-Hispanic (94.1%). During the study period, 553 state-years (85.1%) had no palliative care law, 60 state-years (9.2%) had a nonprescriptive palliative care law, and 37 state-years (5.7%) had a prescriptive palliative care law. A total of 3780918 individuals (50.1%) died at home or in hospice. Most decedents (70.8%) died in state-years without a palliative care law, while 15.7% died in state-years with a nonprescriptive law and 13.5% died in state-years with a prescriptive law. Compared with state-years without a palliative care law, the likelihood of dying at home or in hospice was 12% higher for decedents in state-years with a nonprescriptive palliative care law (relative risk, 1.12 [95% CI 1.08-1.16]) and 18% higher for decedents in state-years with a prescriptive palliative care law (relative risk, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.11-1.26]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of decedents from cancer, state palliative care laws were associated with an increased likelihood of dying at home or in hospice. Passage of state palliative care legislation may be an effective policy intervention to increase the number of seriously ill patients who experience their death in such locations.

Abstract

~

Abstract

Purpose: To understand clinicians' views regarding use of clinical criteria, or triggers, for specialist palliative care consultation in the ICU. Materials and methods: Secondary analysis of a qualitative study that explored factors associated with adoption of specialist palliative care in the ICU. Semi-structured interviews with 36 ICU and palliative care clinicians included questions related to triggers for specialist palliative care. We performed a thematic analysis to identify participants' views on use of triggers, including appropriateness of cases for specialists and issues surrounding trigger implementation. Results: We identified five major themes: 1) Appropriate triggers for specialist palliative care, 2) Issues leading to clinician ambivalence for triggers, 3) Prospective buy-in of stakeholders, 4) Workflow considerations in deploying a trigger system, and 5) Role of ICU clinicians in approving specialist palliative care consults. Appropriate triggers included end-of-life care, chronic critical illness, frequent ICU admissions, and patient/family support. Most clinicians had concerns about “trigger overload” and ICU clinicians wanted to be broadly involved in implementation efforts. Conclusions: ICU and palliative care clinicians identified important issues to consider when implementing triggers for specialist palliative care consultation. Future research is needed to longitudinally examine the most appropriate triggers and best practices for trigger implementation.

Abstract

Background: Conflict between clinicians is prevalent within intensive care units (ICUs) and may hinder optimal delivery of care. However, little is known about the sources of interpersonal conflict and how it manifests within the context of palliative and end-of-life care delivery in ICUs. Objective: To characterize interpersonal conflict in the delivery of palliative care within ICUs. Design: Secondary thematic analysis using a deductive-inductive approach. We analyzed existing qualitative data that conducted semistructured interviews to examine factors associated with variable adoption of specialty palliative care in ICUs. Settings/Subjects: In the parent study, 36 participants were recruited from two urban academic medical centers in the United States, including ICU attendings (n = 17), ICU nurses (n = 11), ICU social workers (n = 1), and palliative care providers (n = 7). Measurements: Coders applied an existing framework of interpersonal conflict to guide initial coding and analysis, combined with a flexible inductive approach allowing new codes to emerge. Results: We characterized three properties of interpersonal conflict: disagreement, interference, and negative emotion. In the context of delivering palliative and end-of-life care for critically ill patients, "disagreement" centered around whether patients were appropriate for palliative care, which care plans should be prioritized, and how care should be delivered. "Interference" involved preventing palliative care consultation or goals-of-care discussions and hindering patient care. "Negative emotion" included occurrences of silencing or scolding, rudeness, anger, regret, ethical conflict, and grief. Conclusions: Our findings provide an in-depth understanding of interpersonal conflict within palliative and end-of-life care for critically ill patients. Further study is needed to understand how to prevent and resolve such conflicts.

Abstract

Background: Integrating palliative care services in the home health care (HHC) setting is an important strategy to provide care for seriously ill adults and improve symptom burden, quality of life, and caregiver burden. Routine palliative care in HHC is only possible if clinicians who provide this care are prepared and patients and caregivers are well equipped with the knowledge to receive this care. A key first step in integrating palliative care services within HHC is to measure preparedness of clinicians and readiness of patients and caregivers to receive it. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to review existing literature related to the measurement of palliative care-related knowledge, attitudes, and confidence among HHC clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane for relevant articles between 2000 and 2021. Articles were included in the final analysis if they (1) reported specifically on palliative care knowledge, attitudes, or confidence, (2) presented measurement tools, instruments, scales, or questionnaires, (3) were conducted in the HHC setting, (4) and included HHC clinicians, patients, or caregivers. Results: Seventeen articles were included. While knowledge, attitudes, and confidence have been studied in HHC clinicians, patients, and caregivers, results varied significantly across countries and health care systems. No study captured knowledge, attitudes, and confidence of the full HHC workforce; notably, home health aides were not included in the studies. Conclusion: Existing instruments did not comprehensively contain elements of the eight domains of palliative care outlined by the National Consensus Project (NCP) for Quality Palliative Care. A comprehensive psychometrically tested instrument to measure palliative care-related knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in the HHC setting is needed.