Documentation of Crucial Information Relating to Critically Ill Patients

Time is of the Essence: Why Goals-of-Care Conversations and Prognosis Documentation Matters in Advanced Cancer Patients in an Integrated Health System

Background: Advanced cancer patients benefit less from aggressive therapies and more from goal-directed palliative management. Early and clearly documented goals-of-care discussions, including end-of-life decision making, are essential in this patient population. Integrated healthcare systems are comprehensive care models associated with improved quality of care and lower mortality compared to other healthcare models. The role of advance care planning within our system is understudied. Methods: Patients 18 years and older with a diagnosis of advanced-stage cancer were identified over a 6-month period. Expert panel review was performed to evaluate medical appropriateness of the selected diagnostic workup and management. The role and extent of care planning was reviewed in association with the clinical context. Results: In a cohort of 82 patients, evidence-based and individualized appropriateness of medical management was found to be consistent for all patients. Eighty-two percent of patients elected for oncologic-based treatment, 5% pursued active surveillance, and 11% did not receive treatment. Seventy-three percent of patients were referred to palliative care. Fifty-six percent of patients had a full goals-of-care conversation documented; yet only 9% of goals-of-care conversations were documented by an oncologist. Prognosis was documented fully for only 22% of patients. At the end of the study period, 43 patients were deceased (52%), further indicating the critical importance of documentation. Conclusions: Within our integrated health system, we found consistent guideline- and patient-directed diagnosis and management, along with frequent integration of palliative care services. Goals-of-care conversation and prognosis documentation, especially by the oncologist, remains an area of needed improvement.

What Matters Most: The Documented Goals, Values and Motivators of Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Goals of care conversations are essential to delivery of goal concordant care. Infrequent and inconsistent goals of care documentation potentially limit delivery of goal concordant care.

METHODS

At Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Cancer Center, a standardized documentation template was designed and implemented to increase goals of care documentation by oncologists. The centralized, prompt-based template included value clarification of the goals and values of advanced cancer patients beyond treatment preferences. Documented conversations using the template during the initial pilot period were reviewed to characterization the clinical context in which conversations were recorded. Common goals and motivators were also identified.

RESULTS

A total of 178 advanced cancer patients had at least 1 documented conversation by a medical oncologist using the goals of care template. Oncologists consistently documented within the template goals of therapy and motivating factors in decision making. The most frequently documented goals of care were "Avoiding Pain and Suffering," "Physical Independence," and "Living as Long as Possible." The least recorded goal was "Comfort Focused Treatment Only."

CONCLUSIONS

Review of oncologist documented goals of care conversations using a prompt-based template allowed for characterization of the clinical context, therapy goals and motivators of advanced cancer patients. Communication of goals of care conversations by oncologists using a standardized prompt-based template within a centralized location has the potential to improve delivery of goal concordant care.

Inter-Rater Agreement of Intensivists Evaluating the Goal Concordance of Preference-Sensitive ICU Interventions

CONTEXT

Goal-concordant care has been identified as an important outcome of advance care planning and shared decision-making initiatives. However, validated methods for measuring goal concordance are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the inter-rater reliability of senior critical care fellows rating the goal concordance of preference-sensitive interventions performed in intensive care units (ICUs) while considering patient-specific circumstances as described in a previously proposed methodology.

METHODS

We identified ICU patients receiving preference-sensitive interventions in three adult ICUs at Johns Hopkins Hospital. A simulated cohort was created by randomly assigning each patient one of 10 sets of goals and preferences about limiting life support. Critical care fellows then independently reviewed patient charts and answered two questions: 1) Is this patient's goal achievable? and 2) Will performing this intervention help achieve the patient's goal? When the answer to both questions was yes, the intervention was rated as goal concordant. Inter-rater agreement was summarized by estimating intraclass correlation coefficient using mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Six raters reviewed the charts of 201 patients. Interventions were rated as goal concordant 22%-92% of the time depending on the patient's goal-limitation combination. Percent agreement between pairs of raters ranged from 59% to 86%. The intraclass correlation coefficient for ratings of goal concordance was 0.50 (95% CI 0.31-0.69) and was robust to patient age, gender, ICU, severity of illness, and lengths of stay.

CONCLUSION

Inter-rater agreement between intensivists using a standardized methodology to evaluate the goal concordance of preference-sensitive ICU interventions was moderate. Further testing is needed before this methodology can be recommended as a clinical research outcome.