Brain Death Determination and Communication: An Innovative Approach Using Simulation and Standardized Patients

CONTEXT

Palliative medicine clinicians in hospital settings are often involved in the care of patients dying in critical care settings, with a subset from brain death. Brain death is a complex concept, not only for families, but also for clinicians. There is wide variability in adhering to formalized guidelines for brain death determination. In addition, communication techniques regarding brain death determination are distinct from those used in shared decision-making. There is a need to obtain knowledge and practical skills in brain death determination, including examination and communication. Simulation can provide a low-stakes setting to practice the process of brain death determination and communication.

OBJECTIVES

Describe a novel approach using high-fidelity simulation to teach hospice and palliative medicine fellows the practical and nuanced aspects of brain death determination and communication. Discuss the impact on fellows' confidence and knowledge for this learning activity.

INNOVATION/METHODS

This three-hour workshop includes a didactic session followed by a single case conducted in three parts using standardized patient encounters and high-fidelity simulation with manikin. It is delivered annually, as part of the monthly core didactic conference for all hospice and palliative medicine fellows in the four fellowship programs in our region.

OUTCOMES/RESULTS

Pre- and post-intervention surveys were performed assessing perceived confidence and content-related knowledge, which showed significant improvement in both areas.

COMMENTS/CONCLUSION

Simulation is a practical and constructive method for teaching the challenging concepts and unique communication skills involved in brain death determination.

Practice Improvement Projects in an Interdisciplinary Palliative Care Training Program

CONTEXT

Demand for palliative care (PC) continues to increase with an insufficient number of specialists to meet the need. This requires implementation of training curricula to expand the workforce of interdisciplinary clinicians who care for persons with serious illness.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of utilizing individual practice improvement projects (PIP) as part of a longitudinal PC curriculum, the Coleman Palliative Medicine Training Program (CPMTP-2).

METHODS

Participants developed their PIPs based on their institutional needs and through a mentor, and participated in monthly meetings and bi-annual conferences, thereby allowing for continued process improvement and feedback.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven interdisciplinary participants implemented 30 PIPs encompassing 7 themes: (1) staff education; (2) care quality and processes; (3) access to care; (4) documentation of care delivered; (5) new program development; (6) assessing gaps in care/patient needs; and (7) patient/family education. The majority of projects did achieve completion, with 16 of 30 projects reportedly being sustained several months after conclusion of the required training period. Qualitative feedback regarding mentors' expertise and availability was uniformly positive.

CONCLUSION

The CPMTP-2 demonstrates the positive impact of PIPs in the development of skills for interdisciplinary learners as part of a longitudinal training program in primary PC. Participation in a PIP with administrative support may lead to operational improvement within PC teams.

Expanding the Interdisciplinary Palliative Medicine Workforce: A Longitudinal Education and Mentoring Program for Practicing Clinicians

CONTEXT

The disparity between gaps in workforce and availability of palliative care (PC) services is an increasing issue in health care. To meet the demand, team-based PC requires additional educational training for all clinicians caring for persons with serious illness.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the educational methodology and evaluation of an existing regional interdisciplinary PC training program that was expanded to include chaplain and social worker trainees.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, 26 social workers, chaplains, physicians, nurses, and advanced practice providers representing 22 health systems completed a two-year training program. The curriculum comprises biannual interdisciplinary conferences, individualized mentoring and clinical shadowing, self-directed e-learning, and profession-focused seminar series for social workers and chaplains. Site-specific practice improvement projects were developed to address gaps in PC at participating sites.

RESULTS

PC and program development skills were self-assessed before and after training. Among 12 skills common to all disciplines, trainees reported significant increases in confidence across all 12 skills and significant increases in frequency of performing 11 of 12 skills. Qualitative evaluation identified a myriad of program strengths and challenges regarding the educational format, mentoring, and networking across disciplines.

CONCLUSION

Teaching PC and program development knowledge and skills to an interdisciplinary regional cohort of practicing clinicians yielded improvements in clinical skills, implementation of practice change projects, and a sense of belonging to a supportive professional network.

Correlates of distress for cancer patients: Results from multi-institution use of holistic patient-reported screening tool

199

Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action for cancer patients. NCCN and ASCO supportive care and age-related guidelines include patient reported concerns beyond distress. This study compares PHQ4 scores to other patient reported concerns. Methods: The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative aggregated “best of” screening tools to assess patient reported needs and concerns aligned with CoC, NCCN and ASCO guidance. This supportive care screening tool was implemented at 8 sites from July 2015 thru July 2018. Analysis used chi squared test. Results: Most patients, 86% (10,635/12,295), reported one plus concerns and/or above threshold scores on PHQ4, PROMIS Pain, Fatigue or Physical Function. A chi squared comparison of patients with at least mild distress on PHQ4 to patients with no distress resulted in p values < .0001 for every screening category. Conclusions: Patients with a PHQ4 distress score of mild, moderate or severe also reported statistically significant levels of practical, family, physical, nutrition and treatment concerns. These patients also scored threshold levels for PROMIS Pain, Fatigue, and Physical Function. Screening only for distress without screening for other patient concerns may direct patients to services that do not address or focus on the underlying cause of the distress.

[Table: see text]

Correlates of distress for cancer patients: Results from multi-institution use of holistic patient-reported screening tool

11587

Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action for cancer patients. NCCN and ASCO supportive care and age-related guidelines include patient reported concerns beyond distress. This study compares PHQ4 scores to other patient reported concerns. Methods: The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative aggregated “best of” screening tools to assess patient reported needs and concerns aligned with CoC, NCCN and ASCO guidance. This supportive care screening tool was implemented at 8 sites from July 2015 thru July 2018. Analysis used chi squared test. Results: Most patients, 86% (10,635/12,295), reported one plus concerns and/or above threshold scores on PHQ4, PROMIS Pain, Fatigue or Physical Function. A chi squared comparison of patients with at least mild distress on PHQ4 to patients with no distress resulted in p values < .0001 for every screening category. Conclusions: Patients with a PHQ4 distress score of mild, moderate or severe also reported statistically significant levels of practical, family, physical, nutrition and treatment concerns. These patients also scored threshold levels for PROMIS Pain, Fatigue, and Physical Function. Screening only for distress without screening for other patient concerns may direct patients to services that do not address or focus on the underlying cause of the distress. [Table: see text]

Incorporating geriatric patient reported outcomes into novel screening tool of distress and supportive care concerns

37

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. The Supportive Oncology Collaborative, collaborative of 100+ clinicians funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool (CSOC-ST) adapted from ASCO Distress, NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, and other validated sub-tools (Weldon, ASCO-Q 2017). The Collaborative then revised the CSOC-ST tool to align with geriatric guidelines. Methods: Literature and guidelines review of geriatric screening, added items to CSOC-ST, and piloted at 4 sites. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test used. Results: 473 patients screened with added geriatric relevant items to CSOC-ST: self-care concerns (PROMIS Instrumental Support), living alone (ASCO Distress 2014), and memory / cognition (PROMIS item bank). Treatment/care concern items were revised to identify health care power of attorney and advance directive interest. Geriatric related items endorsed by patients, see Table. PHQ4, Anxiety and Depression, average score 2.4 (mild > 3). Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: self-care concerns, memory/cognition concerns and specific treatment/care concerns (p < .0001). Conclusions: Pilot results and comparison to geriatric guidelines identified important items to support geriatric patient reported outcomes screening. After pilot, added 3 items for falls/frailty. Eight sites implementing this CSOC-ST.[Table: see text]

Incorporating geriatric patient-reported outcomes into novel screening tool of distress and supportive care concerns

198

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. The Supportive Oncology Collaborative, collaborative of 100+ clinicians funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool (CSOC-ST) adapted from ASCO Distress, NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, and other validated sub-tools (Weldon, ASCO-Q 2017). The Collaborative revised the CSOC-ST tool to align with ASCO geriatric guidelines. Methods: Literature and guidelines review of geriatric screening, added items to CSOC-ST, and piloted at 4 sites. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test used. Results: 473 patients screened with added geriatric relevant items to CSOC-ST: self-care concerns (PROMIS Instrumental Support), living alone (ASCO Distress 2014), and memory / cognition (PROMIS item bank). Treatment/care concern items were revised to identify health care power of attorney and advance directive interest. Geriatric related items endorsed by patients, see Table. PHQ4, Anxiety and Depression, average score 2.4 (mild > 3). Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: self-care concerns, memory/cognition concerns and specific treatment/care concerns (p < .0001). Conclusions: Pilot results and comparison to ASCO geriatric guidelines identified important items to support geriatric patient reported outcomes screening. After pilot, added 3 items for falls/frailty. Eight sites implementing this CSOC-ST.[Table: see text]

Training the Workforce: Description of a Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Education and Mentoring Program in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

The rapid increase in demand for palliative care (PC) services has led to concerns regarding workforce shortages and threats to the resiliency of PC teams.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a regional interdisciplinary training program in PC.

METHODS

Thirty nurse and physician fellows representing 22 health systems across the Chicago region participated in a two-year PC training program. The curriculum was delivered through multiple conferences, self-directed e-learning, and individualized mentoring by expert local faculty (mentors). Fellows shadowed mentors' clinical practices and received guidance on designing, implementing, and evaluating a practice improvement project to address gaps in PC at their institutions.

RESULTS

Enduring, interdisciplinary relationships were built at all levels across health care organizations. Fellows made significant increases in knowledge and self-reported confidence in adult and pediatric PC and program development skills and frequency performing these skills. Fellows and mentors reported high satisfaction with the educational program.

CONCLUSION

This interdisciplinary PC training model addressed local workforce issues by increasing the number of clinicians capable of providing PC. Unique features include individualized longitudinal mentoring, interdisciplinary education, on-site project implementation, and local network building. Future research will address the impact of the addition of social work and chaplain trainees to the program.

A consolidated screening tool for supportive oncology needs and distress

47

Background: The IOM 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized across institutions and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric consolidated screening tool based on validated instruments (NCCN Distress, PHQ-4, PROMIS) and IOM and CoC. The screening tool was piloted at 6 practice-improvement cancer centers in the Chicago area (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public). Patients, providers assessing patients’ screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (providers) were surveyed after use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 175 patients, 81 assessors, and 26 referral providers (social workers, chaplains, subspecialists). The majority of patients (160/175, 91%) completed the screening in <10 minutes, across all patients the screening tool averaged 4 ½ minutes. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent <5 minutes reviewing screening results. Most patients, assessors, and providers reported the screening tool asked the “right questions”. Assessors reporting partial relevance of some screening questions for 34% (26/77) of patients, uncovered ≥ 1 relevant needs for 96% (25/26) of those patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Use of a consolidated supportive oncology screening tool across multiple institutions is feasible, identified unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variability in supportive oncology screening practices may decline, thus improving patient care. The tool has implications for quality improvements and national dissemination. [Table: see text]

Supportive oncology and survivorship care: Initial impact of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative

27

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend supportive oncology and survivorship care. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC) aims to improve quality of supportive care and survivorship in Chicago. Methods: CSOC includes 35 institutions (cancer centers, support and hospice), structured in two design teams (Distress & Survivorship and Palliative). Participants identified opportunities and gaps in supportive and survivorship care in an iterative development of: screening tools, follow-up processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess CSOC impact. Six process improvement sites (2 safety-net, 3 academic, and 1 public) reviewed patient charts at baseline and Q1 2015, compared by Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at the 2 time points; improvements were seen in 6/8 metrics. Conclusions: CSOC successfully developed supportive oncology, survivorship screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation in diverse settings. Ongoing work will continue to evaluate the impact of the CSOC on patient care.[Table: see text]

Palliative Workforce Development and a Regional Training Program

Aims:

Our primary aims were to assess growth in the local hospital based workforce, changes in the composition of the workforce and use of an interdisciplinary team, and sources of support for palliative medicine teams in hospitals participating in a regional palliative training program in Chicago.

Methods:

PC program directors and administrators at 16 sites were sent an electronic survey on institutional and PC program characteristics such as: hospital type, number of beds, PC staffing composition, PC programs offered, start-up years, PC service utilization and sources of financial support for fiscal years 2012 and 2014.

Results:

The median number of consultations reported for existing programs in 2012 was 345 (IQR 109 – 2168) compared with 840 (IQR 320 – 4268) in 2014. At the same time there were small increases in the overall team size from a median of 3.2 full time equivalent positions (FTE) in 2012 to 3.3 FTE in 2013, with a median increase of 0.4 (IQR 0-1.0). Discharge to hospice was more common than deaths in the acute care setting in hospitals with palliative medicine teams that included both social workers and advanced practice nurses ( p < .0001).

Conclusions:

Given the shortage of palliative medicine specialist providers more emphasis should be placed on training other clinicians to provide primary level palliative care while addressing the need to hire sufficient workforce to care for seriously ill patients.

Supportive Oncology Collaborative: Initial impact of supportive oncology screening and care

180

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 report recommends supportive oncology care from diagnosis through survivorship, to end of life. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC) developed a city-wide plan to improve supportive oncology. Metrics derived from the Commission on Cancer (CoC), ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (ASCO-QOPI) and National Quality Forum (NQF) were used to assess the CSOC impact. Methods: Medical records of consecutive cancer patients from 6 practice improvement cancer centers in Chicago (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public) were reviewed for 2 periods: 2014 (n = 843) and Q1 of 2015 (n = 313). Descriptive statistics assessed differences in quality metrics. Results: Significant improvement was achieved in 6 of 8 core supportive oncology metrics (see table). Conclusions: Consolidated metrics are feasible to assess supportive oncology quality. Early data indicate improvement and effectiveness of the collaborative approach. [Table: see text]

A consolidated screening tool for supportive oncology needs and distress

72

Background: The IOM 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized across institutions and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric consolidated screening tool based on validated instruments (NCCN Distress Problem List, PHQ-4, PROMIS) and IOM and CoC. The screening tool was piloted at 6 practice improvement cancer centers in the Chicago area (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public). Patients, providers assessing each patient’s screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (referral providers) were surveyed after each use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 29 patients, 81 assessors and 26 referral providers (SW, chaplain, subspecialist). The majority of patients (22/29, 75%) completed the screening in < 10 minutes without assistance and will complete at every visit. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent < 5 minutes reviewing screening results. The majority of patients, assessors, and referral providers reported that the screening tool asked the “right questions”. Assessors reporting partial relevance of some screening questions for 34% (26/77) of patients, uncovered ≥ 1 relevant needs for 96% (25/26) of those patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Use of a consolidated supportive oncology screening tool across multiple institutions is feasible, discovered unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variations in supportive oncology screening may decline, thus improving access to supportive oncology care with implications for national dissemination. [Table: see text]

How well are cancer centers addressing supportive oncology needs?

96

Background: The IOM 2013 report recommends comprehensive supportive oncology care from diagnosis through survivorship to end of life. The Coleman Foundation supported a baseline assessment of supportive oncology care using key COC, ASCO-QOPI and NQF measures. Methods: Data extracted from medical records at 6 Chicago cancer centers in 2014 (n = 843 patients), including stage I-III (n = 391) and stage IV solid tumor or refractory hematologic malignancy (n = 452). Results: Fifty-four percent of patients had discussions on understanding of illness, 24% were informed of prognosis timeframe, and 5% had a documented healthcare power of attorney. Only 6% of stage IV patients received distress screening within 2 weeks of diagnosis and 15% of Stage IV patients had referrals to palliative care. Among patients with Stage I-III cancer, 38% had a supportive oncology screening, and 2% received treatment summaries and a SCPs. Conclusions: There are still large gaps in important supportive care processes based on IOM 2013 recommendations, COC, and ASCO QOPI measures. Future steps include implementing supportive care processes that address gaps across the 6 cancer centers. [Table: see text]

Implementation of an audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) system in a general medicine clinic: patient response burden

BACKGROUND

Routine implementation of instruments to capture patient-reported outcomes could guide clinical practice and facilitate health services research. Audio interviews facilitate self-interviews across literacy levels.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate time burden for patients, and factors associated with response times for an audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI) system integrated into the clinical workflow.

METHODS

We developed an ACASI system, integrated with a research data warehouse. Instruments for symptom burden, self-reported health, depression screening, tobacco use, and patient satisfaction were administered through touch-screen monitors in the general medicine clinic at the Cook County Health & Hospitals System during April 8, 2011-July 27, 2012. We performed a cross-sectional study to evaluate the mean time burden per item and for each module of instruments; we evaluated factors associated with longer response latency.

RESULTS

Among 1,670 interviews, the mean per-question response time was 18.4 [SD, 6.1] seconds. By multivariable analysis, age was most strongly associated with prolonged response time and increased per decade compared to < 50 years as follows (additional seconds per question; 95% CI): 50-59 years (1.4; 0.7 to 2.1 seconds); 60-69 (3.4; 2.6 to 4.1); 70-79 (5.1; 4.0 to 6.1); and 80-89 (5.5; 4.1 to 7.0). Response times also were longer for Spanish language (3.9; 2.9 to 4.9); no home computer use (3.3; 2.8 to 3.9); and, low mental self-reported health (0.6; 0.0 to 1.1). However, most interviews were completed within 10 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

An ACASI software system can be included in a patient visit and adds minimal time burden. The burden was greatest for older patients, interviews in Spanish, and for those with less computer exposure. A patient's self-reported health had minimal impact on response times.

Domestic violence and childhood sexual abuse in HIV-infected women and women at risk for HIV

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and effect of domestic violence and childhood sexual abuse in women with HIV or at risk for HIV infection.

METHODS

Participants with HIV or at risk for HIV infection enrolled in the Women's Interagency HIV Study. Childhood sexual abuse; all physical, sexual, and coercive violence by a partner; HIV serostatus; demographic data; and substance use and sexual habits were assessed.

RESULTS

The lifetime prevalence of domestic violence was 66% and 67%, respectively, in 1288 women with HIV and 357 uninfected women. One quarter of the women reported recent abuse, and 31% of the HIV-seropositive women and 27% of the HIV-seronegative women reported childhood sexual abuse. Childhood sexual abuse was strongly associated with a lifetime history of domestic violence and high-risk behaviors, including using drugs, having more than 10 male sexual partners and having male partners at risk for HIV infection, and exchanging sex for drugs, money, or shelter.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the hypothesis of a continuum of risk, with early childhood abuse leading to later domestic violence, which may increase the risk of behaviors leading to HIV infection.