Improving Serious Illness Care for Surgical Patients: Quality Indicators for Surgical Palliative Care

From guidelines to clinical practice in care for ischaemic stroke patients: A systematic review and expert opinion

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Guidelines help physicians to provide optimal care for stroke patients, but implementation is challenging due to the quantity of recommendations. Therefore a practical overview related to applicability of recommendations can be of assistance.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on ischaemic stroke guidelines published in scientific journals, covering the whole acute care process for patients with ischaemic stroke. After data extraction, experts rated the recommendations on dimensions of applicability, that is, actionability, feasibility and validity, on a 9-point Likert scale. Agreement was defined as a score of ≥8 by ≥80% of the experts.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles were identified and 48 recommendations were ultimately extracted. Papers were included only if they described the whole acute care process for patients with ischaemic stroke. Data extraction and analysis revealed variation in terms of both content and comprehensiveness of this description. Experts reached agreement on 34 of 48 (70.8%) recommendations in the dimension actionability, for 16 (33.3%) in feasibility and for 15 (31.3%) in validity. Agreement on all three dimensions was reached for seven (14.6%) recommendations: use of a stroke unit, exclusion of intracerebral haemorrhage as differential diagnosis, administration of intravenous thrombolysis, performance of electrocardiography/cardiac evaluation, non-invasive vascular examination, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis and administration of statins if needed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Substantial variation in agreement was revealed on the three dimensions of the applicability of recommendations. This overview can guide stroke physicians in improving the care process and removing barriers where implementation may be hampered by validity and feasibility.

Palliative surgery: state of the science and future directions

Palliative surgical procedures are operations that aim to alleviate symptoms in a patient with serious, life-limiting illness. They are common, particularly within the field of surgical oncology. However, few high-quality studies have attempted to measure the durability of improvements in symptoms and quality of life after palliative surgery. Furthermore, many of the studies that do exist are outdated and employ highly inconsistent definitions of palliative surgery. Consequently, the paucity of robust and reliable evidence on the benefits, risks, and trade-offs of palliative surgery hampers clinical decision-making for patients and their surgeons. The evidence for palliative surgery suggests that, with effective communication about goals of care and careful patient selection, palliative surgery can provide symptomatic relief and reduce healthcare burdens for certain seriously ill patients.

Implementation of a Multi-Disciplinary Team and Quality of Goals of Care Discussions in Palliative Surgical Oncology Patients

BACKGROUND

Palliative surgical oncology patients represent a unique group with complex needs who often require multidisciplinary input for the provision of timely and holistic care. The authors assembled a multi-disciplinary palliative intervention team and evaluated its association with the quality of discussions on goals of care (GOC) among advanced cancer patients undergoing palliative interventions.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study analyzed advanced cancer patients undergoing palliative interventions at a single urban academic center from October 2019 to March 2022. In January 2021, a multi-disciplinary palliative surgical intervention (MD-PALS) team was assembled. All palliative surgical oncology patients were discussed at multi-disciplinary meetings and managed by members of the MD-PALS team. An interrupted time series (ITS) model was built to evaluate the association of MD-PALS implementation and the quality of GOC discussions as measured by a consensus-derived four-point GOC discussion quality score.

RESULTS

The study recruited 126 palliative surgical oncology patients: 44 in the pre-MD-PALS group and 82 in the post-MD-PALS group. The two groups did not differ significantly in baseline demographics, treatment, or postoperative and survival outcomes. Compared with the pre-MD-PALS group, the post-MD-PALS group had a significantly higher mean GOC discussion quality score (1.34 vs 2.61; p < 0.001). Based on the ITS model, the average quarterly GOC discussion quality score increased significantly among patients after implementation of the MD-PALS team (change = 1.93; 95 % confidence interval, 0.96-2.90; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of an MD-PALS team was associated with improvements in the quality of GOC discussions among palliative surgical oncology patients.

Prevalence of unpaid caregiving, pain, and depression in older seriously ill patients undergoing elective surgery

INTRODUCTION

Serious illness is a life-limiting condition negatively impacting daily function, quality of life, or excessively straining caregivers. Over 1 million older seriously ill adults undergo major surgery annually, and national guidelines recommend that palliative care be available to all seriously ill patients. However, the palliative care needs of elective surgical patients are incompletely described. Understanding baseline caregiving needs and symptom burden among seriously ill older surgical patients could inform interventions to improve outcomes.

METHODS

Using Health and Retirement Study data (2008-2018) linked to Medicare claims, we identified patients ≥66 years who met an established serious illness definition from administrative data and underwent major elective surgery using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria. Descriptive analyses were performed for preoperative patient characteristics, including: unpaid caregiving (no or yes); pain (none/mild or moderate/severe); and depression (no, CES-D < 3, or yes, CES-D ≥ 3). Multivariable regression was performed to examine the association between unpaid caregiving, pain, depression, and in-hospital outcomes, including hospital days (days admitted between discharge date and one-year post-discharge), in-hospital complications (no or yes), and discharge destination (home or non-home).

RESULTS

Of the 1343 patients, 55.0% were female and 81.6% were non-Hispanic White. Mean age was 78.0 (SD 6.8); 86.9% had ≥2 comorbidities. Before admission, 27.3% of patients received unpaid caregiving. Pre-admission pain and depression were 42.6% and 32.8%, respectively. Baseline depression was significantly associated with non-home discharge (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p = 0.003), while baseline pain and unpaid caregiving needs were not associated with in-hospital or post-acute outcomes in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to elective surgery, older adults with serious illnesses have high unpaid caregiving needs and a prevalence of pain and depression. Baseline depression alone was associated with discharge destinations. These findings highlight opportunities for targeted palliative care interventions throughout the surgical encounter.

What If We Do Not Operate? Outcomes of Nonoperatively Managed Emergency General Surgery Patients

INTRODUCTION

Although two-thirds of patients with emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions are managed nonoperatively, their long-term outcomes are not well described. We describe outcomes of nonoperative management in a cohort of older EGS patients and estimate the projected risk of operative management using the NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied single-center inpatients aged 65 y and more with an EGS consult who did not undergo an operation (January 2019-December 2020). For each patient, we recorded the surgeon's recommendation as either an operation was "Not Needed" (medical management preferred) or "Not Recommended" (risk outweighed benefits). Our main outcome of interest was mortality at 30 d and 1 y. Our secondary outcome of interest was SRC-projected 30-day postoperative mortality risk (median % [interquartile range]), calculated using hypothetical low-risk and high-risk operations.

RESULTS

We included 204 patients (60% female, median age 75 y), for whom an operation was "Not Needed" in 81% and "Not Recommended" in 19%. In this cohort, 11% died at 30 d and 23% died at 1 y. Mortality was higher for the "Not Recommended" cohort (37% versus 5% at 30 d and 53% versus 16% at 1 y, P < 0.05). The SRC-projected 30-day postoperative mortality risk was 3.7% (1.3-8.7) for low-risk and 5.8% (2-11.8) for high-risk operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonoperative management in older EGS patients is associated with very high risk of short-term and long-term mortality, particularly if a surgeon advised that risks of surgery outweighed benefits. The SRC may underestimate risk in the highest-risk patients.

Shared Decision Making in the Geriatric Surgery Verification Program: Assessing Baseline Performance

CONTEXT

As part of the launch of the Geriatric Surgery Verification program in 2019, the American College of Surgeons issued care standards for older patients, including requirements for preoperative documentation of patients' goals. Hospital performance on these standards prior to the Geriatric Surgery Verification program is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess baseline performance of the Geriatric Surgery Verification (GSV) standard for documentation of preoperative goals for older patients, and to determine factors associated with standard adherence.

METHODS

Using natural language processing, this study examines the electronic health records of patients aged 65 years or older who underwent coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) or colectomies in 2017 or 2018 at three hospitals. The primary outcome was adherence to at least one of the three components of GSV Standard 5.1, which requires preoperative documentation of overall health goals, treatment goals, and patient-centered outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2630 operations and 2563 patients were included. At least one component of the standard was met in 307 (11.7%) operations and all three components were met in 5 (0.2%). Higher likelihood of meeting the standard was demonstrated for patients who were female (odds ratio [OR] 1.30; 95% CI 1.00-1.68), undergoing colectomy (OR 2.82; 95% CI 2.15-3.72), or with more comorbidities (Charlson scores >3 [OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.14-2.09]).

CONCLUSION

Before GSV program implementation, clinicians for two major operations almost never met the GSV standard for preoperative discussion of patient goals. Interdisciplinary teams will need to adjust clinical practice to meet best-practice communication standards for older patients.

Quality Indicators in Surgical Palliative Care: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Defining high quality palliative care in seriously ill surgical patients is essential to provide patient-centered surgical care. Quality indicators specifically for seriously ill surgical patients are necessary in order to integrate palliative care into existing surgical quality improvement programs.

OBJECTIVES

To identify existing quality indicators that measure palliative care delivery in seriously ill surgical patients, characterize their development, and assess their methodological quality.

METHODS

A PRISMA-guided systematic review included studies that reported on the development process and characteristics of palliative care quality indicators and guidelines in adult surgical patients. Relevant measures were categorized into the previously defined National Consensus Project domains of palliative care and the Donabedian quality framework, and assessed for methodological quality.

RESULTS

There were 263 unique measures identified from 26 studies, of which 70% were process measures. Indicators addressing Care of the Patient Near the End of Life (31.5%) and Physical Aspects of Care (20.8%) were the most common. Indicators addressing Spiritual (2.6%) and Cultural Aspects of Care (1.2%) were the least common. Methodological quality varied widely across studies. Although most studies defined a purpose for the indicators and used scientific evidence, many studies lacked input from target populations and few had discussed the practical application of indicators.

CONCLUSION

This review was a key step that informed efforts to develop quality indicators for seriously ill surgical patients. Few indicators addressed non-physical aspects of suffering and no indicators were identified addressing palliative surgery. Future attention is needed toward the development and practical application of palliative care quality indicators in surgical patients.