Managing Code Status Conversations for Seriously Ill Older Adults in Respiratory Failure

Comparison of resuscitation intervention utilization in the emergency department by palliative care eligible patients between cancer and non-cancer

Resuscitation interventions are procedures for managing clinical deterioration in patients with life-threatening conditions by securing the airway, maintaining breathing, or supporting circulation. Little is known about differences in the use of resuscitation interventions and the characteristics of patients eligible for palliative care in the emergency department. The objectives of this study are to compare resuscitation interventions in the emergency department between patients with cancer and non-cancer palliative care eligibility. A retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing the medical records of the palliative care eligible patients who visited the emergency department of one university hospital between January and June 2019. Among the 956 visits (13.7%) by palliative care eligible patients of 7000 random visits, 480 were patients with cancer (50.2%), and 476 were non-cancer patients (49.8%). The overall median age was 72, and 54.1% were female. The mortality rates in the following year were 35.0% for patients with cancer and 18.7% for non-cancer illnesses. The patients with cancer and non-cancer received prior palliative care at 7.3% and 0.8% (p < 0.001) and initiated palliative care at the emergency department at 6.3% and 2.7%, respectively (p = 0.008). The non-cancer patients utilized overall resuscitation interventions 1.7 times more than the cancer patients (aOR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0-2.6, p = 0.030). For the palliative care eligible patients in the emergency department, patients with cancer and non-cancer significantly differed in their characteristics. Patients with non-cancer received more resuscitation interventions than patients with cancer.

Core Competencies for Serious Illness Conversations: An Integrative Systematic Review

Objective: The Serious Illness Care Program was developed to support goals and values discussions between seriously ill patients and their clinicians. The core competencies, that is, the essential clinical conversation skills that are described as requisite for effective serious illness conversations (SICs) in practice, have not yet been explicated. This integrative systematic review aimed to identify core competencies for SICs in the context of the Serious Illness Care Program. Methods: Articles published between January 2014 and March 2023 were identified in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed databases. In total, 313 records underwent title and abstract screening, and 96 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The articles were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines, and data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results: In total, 53 articles were included. Clinicians' core competencies for SICs were described in 3 themes: conversation resources, intrapersonal capabilities, and interpersonal capabilities. Conversation resources included using the conversation guide as a tool, together with applying appropriate communication skills to support better communication. Intrapersonal capabilities included calibrating one's own attitudes and mindset as well as confidence and self-assurance to engage in SICs. Interpersonal capabilities focused on the clinician's ability to interact with patients and family members to foster a mutually trusting relationship, including empathetic communication with attention and adherence to patient and family members views, goals, needs, and preferences. Conclusions: Clinicians need to efficiently combine conversation resources with intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to successfully conduct and interact in SICs.

Common mistakes and evidence-based approaches in goals-of-care conversations for seriously ill older adults in cardiac care unit

For older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses near the end of life, clinicians frequently face difficult decisions about the medical care they provide because of clinical uncertainty. This difficulty is further complicated by unique challenges and medical advancements for patients with advanced heart diseases. In this article, we describe common mistakes encountered by clinicians when having goals-of-care conversations (e.g. conversations between clinicians and seriously ill patients/surrogates to discuss patient's values and goals for clinical care near the end of life.). Then, we delineate an evidence-based approach in goals-of-care conversations and highlight the unique challenges around decision-making in the cardiac intensive care unit.

Emergency Palliative Care: Nongoal Concordant Care and Time-Limited Trials in the Emergency Department

When advance care plans are not communicated or goals are in conflict, significant family and clinician distress may result. The distress is especially high when potentially nongoal concordant care is expected by surrogates in the emergency department (ED). To demonstrate the effect of off-hour, phone consultations by palliative care clinicians in reducing the family and clinician distress when nongoal concordant care is expected in the ED. A partnership between palliative care and emergency medicine can decrease the burden of decision making and provide opportunities for modeling a goals-of-care discussion by experts in this important procedure.

Core elements of serious illness conversations: an integrative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), inclusive of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), has been adapted for use in a variety of settings and among diverse population groups. Explicating the core elements of serious illness conversations could support the inclusion or exclusion of certain components in future iterations of the programme and the guide.

AIM

This integrative systematic review aimed to identify and describe core elements of serious illness conversations in relation to the SICP and/or SICG.

DESIGN

Literature published between 1 January 2014 and 20 March 2023 was searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed. All articles were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines. Data were analysed with thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 64 articles met the inclusion criteria. Three themes were revealed: (1) serious illness conversations serve different functions that are reflected in how they are conveyed; (2) serious illness conversations endeavour to discover what matters to patients and (3) serious illness conversations seek to align what patients want in their life and care.

CONCLUSIONS

Core elements of serious illness conversations included explicating the intention, framing, expectations and directions for the conversation. This encompassed discussing current and possible trajectories with a view towards uncovering matters of importance to the patient as a person. Preferences and priorities could be used to inform future preparation and recommendations. Serious illness conversation elements could be adapted and altered depending on the intended purpose of the conversation.

The differences in code status conversation approaches reported by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians: A mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different.

METHODS

We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians' self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely") was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients' values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patient's acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients' goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.

Best Practices in End of Life and Palliative Care in the Emergency Department

Three-quarters of patients over the age of 65 visit the emergency department (ED) in the last six months of their lives. Approximately 20% of hospice residents have ED visits. These patients must decide whether to receive emergency care that prioritizes life support, which may not achieve their desired outcomes and might even be futile. The patients in these end-of-life stages could benefit from early palliative care or hospice consultation before they present to the ED. Furthermore, early integration of palliative care at the time of ED visits is important in establishing the goals of the entire treatment.

How Emergency Medicine Residents Have Conversations About Life-Sustaining Treatments in Critical Illness: A Qualitative Study Using Inductive Thematic Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The inherent pressures of high-acuity, critical illness in the emergency department create a unique environment whereby acute goals-of-care discussions must be had with patients or substitute decision makers to rapidly decide between divergent treatment paths. Among university-affiliated hospitals, resident physicians are often conducting these highly consequential discussions. This study aimed to use qualitative methods to explore how emergency medicine residents make recommendations regarding life-sustaining treatments during acute goals-of-care discussions in critical illness.

METHODS

Using qualitative methods, semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of emergency medicine residents in Canada from August to December 2021. Inductive thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted using line-by-line coding, and key themes were identified through comparative analysis. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Seventeen emergency medicine residents from 9 Canadian universities were interviewed. Two factors guided residents' treatment recommendations (a duty to provide a recommendation and the balance between disease prognosis and patient values). Three factors influenced residents' comfort when making recommendations (time constraints, uncertainty, and moral distress).

CONCLUSION

While conducting acute goals-of-care discussions with critically ill patients or their substitute decision makers in the emergency department, residents felt a sense of duty to provide a recommendation informed by an intersection between the patient's disease prognosis and the patient's values. Their comfort in making these recommendations was limited by time constraints, uncertainty, and moral distress. These factors are important for informing future educational strategies.

Teaching Palliative Care to Emergency Medicine Residents Using Gamified Deliberate Practice-Based Simulation: Palliative Gaming Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) care for many patients nearing the end of life with advanced serious illnesses. Simulation training offers an opportunity to teach physicians the interpersonal skills required to manage end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized a gaming simulation of an imminently dying patient using the LIVE. DIE. REPEAT (LDR) format, would be perceived as an effective method to teach end-of-life communication and palliative care management skills.

METHODS

This was a gaming simulation replicating the experience of caring for a dying patient with advanced serious illness in the ED. The scenario involved a patient with pancreatic cancer presenting with sepsis and respiratory distress, with a previously established goal of comfort care. The gaming simulation game was divided into 4 stages, and at each level, learners were tasked with completing 1 critical action. The gaming simulation was designed using the LDR serious game scheme in which learners are allowed infinite opportunities to progress through defined stages depicting a single patient scenario. If learners successfully complete the predetermined critical actions of each stage, the game is paused, and there is a debriefing to reinforce knowledge or skills before progressing to the next stage of the gaming simulation. Conversely, if learners do not achieve the critical actions, the game is over, and learners undergo debriefing before repeating the failed stage with an immediate transition into the next. We used the Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified survey to evaluate perceived effectiveness in teaching end-of-life management.

RESULTS

Eighty percent (16/20) of residents completed the Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified survey, and nearly 100% (20/20) either strongly or somewhat agreed that the gaming simulation improved their skills and confidence at the end of life in the following dimensions: (1) better prepared to respond to changes in condition, (2) more confident in assessment skills, (3) teaching patients, (4) reporting to the health care team, (5) empowered to make clinical decisions, and (6) able to prioritize care and interventions. All residents felt the debriefing contributed to learning and provided opportunities to self-reflect. All strongly or somewhat agree that they felt better prepared to respond to changes in the patient's condition, had a better understanding of pathophysiology, were more confident on their assessment skills, and had a better understanding of the medications and therapies after the gaming simulation. A total of 88% (14/16) of them feel more empowered to make clinical decisions. After completing the gaming simulation, 88% (14/16) of residents strongly agreed that they would feel more confident communicating with a patient and prioritizing care interventions in this context.

CONCLUSIONS

This palliative gaming simulation using the LDR format was perceived by resident physicians to improve confidence in end-of-life communication and palliative care management.

Automatable end-of-life screening for older adults in the emergency department using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) visits are common at the end-of-life, but the identification of patients with life-limiting illness remains a key challenge in providing timely and resource-sensitive advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care services. To date, there are no validated, automatable instruments for ED end-of-life screening. Here, we developed a novel electronic health record (EHR) prognostic model to screen older ED patients at high risk for 6-month mortality and compare its performance to validated comorbidity indices.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of ED visits from adults aged ≥65 years who visited any of 9 EDs across a large regional health system between 2014 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression that included clinical and demographic variables, vital signs, and laboratory data was used to develop a 6-month mortality predictive model-the Geriatric End-of-life Screening Tool (GEST) using five-fold cross-validation on data from 8 EDs. Performance was compared to the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, and decision curve analyses. Reproducibility was tested against data from the remaining independent ED within the health system. We then used GEST to investigate rates of ACP documentation availability and code status orders in the EHR across risk strata.

RESULTS

A total of 431,179 encounters by 123,128 adults were included in this study with a 6-month mortality rate of 12.2%. Charlson (AUROC (95% CI): 0.65 (0.64-0.69)) and Elixhauser indices (0.69 (0.68-0.70)) were outperformed by GEST (0.82 (0.82-0.83)). GEST displayed robust performance across demographic subgroups and in our independent validation site. Among patients with a greater than 30% mortality risk using GEST, only 5.0% had ACP documentation; 79.0% had a code status previously ordered, of which 70.7% were full code. In decision curve analysis, GEST provided greater net benefit than the Charlson and Elixhauser scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Prognostic models using EHR data robustly identify high mortality risk older adults in the ED for whom code status, ACP, or palliative care interventions may be of benefit. Although all tested methods identified patients approaching the end-of-life, GEST was most performant. These tools may enable resource-sensitive end-of-life screening in the ED.

Communication Training and Code Status Conversation Patterns Reported by Emergency Clinicians

CONTEXT

During acute health decompensations for seriously ill patients, emergency clinicians often determine the intensity end-of-life care. Little is known about how emergency clinicians conduct these conversations, especially among those who have received serious illness communication training.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the self-reported practice patterns of code status conversations by emergency clinicians with and without serious illness communication training.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among emergency clinicians with and without a recent evidence-based, serious illness communication training tailored for emergency clinicians. Emergency clinicians were included from two academic medical centers. A five-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely" to ask) was used to assess the self-reported likelihood of asking about patients' preferences for medical procedures and patients' values and goals.

RESULTS

Among 161 respondents (71% response rate), 77 (48%) received the training. A total of 70% of emergency clinicians reported asking about procedure-based questions, and only 38% reported asking about patient's values regarding end-of-life care. For value-based questions, statistically significant differences were observed between emergency clinicians who underwent the training and those who did not in four of the seven questions asked (e.g., the higher odds of exploring the patient's life priorities [adjusted OR = 4.34, 95% CI = 1.95-9.65, P-value < 0.001]). No difference was observed in the self-reported rates of all procedure-based questions between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Most emergency clinicians reported asking about procedure-based questions, and some asked about patient's value-based questions. Clinicians with recent serious illness communication training may ask more about some values and priorities.

Key elements and checklist of shared decision-making conversation on life-sustaining treatment in emergency: a multispecialty study from China

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has broad application in emergencies. Most published studies have focused on SDM for a certain disease or expert opinions on future research gaps without revealing the full picture or detailed guidance for clinical practice. This study is to investigate the optimal application of SDM to guide life-sustaining treatment (LST) in emergencies.

METHODS

This study was a prospective two-round Delphi consensus-seeking survey among multiple stakeholders at the China Consortium of Elite Teaching Hospitals for Residency Education. Participants were identified based on their expertise in medicine, law, administration, medical education, or patient advocacy. All individual items and questions in the questionnaire were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from "very unimportant" (a score of 1) to "extremely important" (a score of 5). The percentages of the responses that had scores of 4-5 on the 5-point Likert scale were calculated. A Kendall's W coefficient was calculated to evaluate the consensus of experts.

RESULTS

A two-level framework consisting of 4 domains and 22 items as well as a ready-to-use checklist for the informed consent process for LST was established. An acceptable Kendall's W coefficient was achieved.

CONCLUSION

A consensus-based framework supporting SDM during LST in an emergency department can inform the implementation of guidelines for clinical interventions, research studies, medical education, and policy initiatives.

United States Best Practice Guidelines for Primary Palliative Care in the Emergency Department

The growing palliative care needs of emergency department (ED) patients in the United States have motivated the development of ED primary palliative care principles. An expert panel convened to develop best practice guidelines for ED primary palliative care to help guide frontline ED clinicians based on available evidence and consensus opinion of the panel. Results include recommendations for screening and assessment of palliative care needs, ED management of palliative care needs, goals of care conversations, ED palliative care and hospice consults, and transitions of care.

Home hospital as a disposition for older adults from the emergency department: Benefits and opportunities

The $1 trillion industry of acute hospital care in the United States is shifting from inside the walls of the hospital to patient homes. To tackle the limitations of current hospital care in the United States, on November 25, 2020, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that the acute hospital care at home waiver would reimburse for "home hospital" services. A "home hospital" is the home-based provision of acute services usually associated with the traditional inpatient hospital setting. Prior work suggests that home hospital care can reduce costs, maintain quality and safety, and improve patient experiences for select acutely ill adults who require hospital-level care. However, most emergency physicians are unfamiliar with the evidence of benefits demonstrated by home hospital services, especially for older adults. Therefore, the lead author solicited narrative inputs on this topic from selected experts in emergency medicine and home hospital services with clinical experience, publications, and funding on home hospital care. Then we sought to identify information most relevant to the practice of emergency medicine. We outline the proven and potential benefits of home hospital services specific to older adults compared to traditional acute care hospitalization with a focus on the emergency department.

The geriatric emergency literature 2020: COVID and beyond

Older adults are a rapidly growing patient population with unique characteristics and health considerations. Over the past few years, emergency physicians have started to recognize the complexities and importance of Geriatric Emergency Medicine. Several noteworthy elements of their healthcare were brought to the forefront of emergency medicine because this especially vulnerable patient population was disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Clinical topics such as delirium, telehealth, end-of-life care, and elder abuse came into focus; select relevant articles are reviewed. We also highlight equally notable literature which address clinically challenging topics, such as hip fractures and syncope. Finally, articles about improving the experience of and decreasing recidivism in geriatric emergency department patients are reviewed. In short, this review article summarizes geriatric emergency medicine literature that can help you improve your practice while caring for older adults.

Cultures of Practice: Specialty-Specific Differences in End-of-Life Conversations

Importance: Goals of care discussions at the end of life give opportunity to affirm the autonomy and humanity of dying patients. Best practices exist for communication around goals of care, but there is no research on differences in approach taken by different specialties engaging these conversations. Objective: To describe the communication practices of internal medicine (IM), emergency medicine (EM), and critical care (CC) physicians in a high-fidelity simulation of a terminally ill patient with stable and defined end-of-life preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: Mixed-methods secondary analysis of transcripts obtained from a multicenter study simulating high stakes, time-limited end-of-life decision making in a cohort of 88 volunteer physicians (27 IM, 22 EM, and 39 CC) who were called to evaluate a standardized patient in extremis. The patient had clear comfort-oriented goals of care that the physician needed to elicit and use to inform treatment decisions. Discussions were coded at the level of the sentence for semantic content. Exposures: Data were analyzed by physician specialty. Main Outcome Measure: Occurrence of content codes indicative of prudent (right outcome by the right means) goals of care conversations. Data were analyzed both for number of occurrences of the code in a simulated conversation and for presence or absence of the code within a conversation. Results: There was no difference between physician types in intubation rates or intensive care unit admissions. Codes for "comfort as a goal of care," "noncurative goals of care," and "oblique references to death" emerged as significantly different between physician types. Conclusions and Relevance: This experiment shows demonstrable differences in practice patterns between physician specialties when addressing end-of-life decision making. Some of the variation likely arose from differences in setting, but these data suggest that training in goals of care conversations may benefit if it is adapted to the distinct needs and culture of each specialty.