Dataset Information

Variation in Serious Illness Communication among Surgical Patients Receiving Palliative Care.

ABSTRACT: Background: Natural language processing (NLP), a form of computer-assisted data abstraction, rapidly identifies serious illness communication domains such as code-status confirmation and goals of care (GOC) discussions within free-text notes, using a codebook of phrases. Differences in the phrases associated with palliative care for patients with different types of illness are unknown. Objective: To compare communication of code-status clarification and GOC discussions between patients with advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing palliative procedures and patients admitted with life-threatening trauma. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: Patients with in-hospital admissions within two academic medical centers. Measurements: Sensitivity and specificity of NLP-identified communication domains compared with manual review. Results: Among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (n?=?523), NLP identified code-status clarification in 54% of admissions and GOC discussions in 49% of admissions. The sensitivity and specificity for code-status clarification were 94% and 99% respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity for a GOC discussion were 93% and 100%, respectively. Using the same codebook in patients with life-threatening trauma (n?=?2093), NLP identified code-status clarification in 25.9% of admissions and GOC discussions in 6.3% of admissions. While NLP identification had 100% specificity, the sensitivity for code-status clarification and GOC discussion was reduced to 86% and 50%, respectively. Adding dynamic phrases such as "ongoing discussions" and phrases related to "family meetings" increased the sensitivity of the NLP codebook for code status to 98% and for GOC discussions to 100%. Conclusions: Communication of code status and GOC differ between patients with advanced cancer and those with life-threatening trauma. Recognition of these differences can aid in identification in patterns of palliative care delivery.

SUBMITTER: Udelsman BV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7643760 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variation in Serious Illness Communication among Surgical Patients Receiving Palliative Care.

Udelsman Brooks V BV Udelsman Brooks V BV Lee Katherine C KC Lilley Elizabeth J EJ Chang David C DC Lindvall Charlotta C Cooper Zara Z

Journal of palliative medicine 20191002 3

Background: Natural language processing (NLP), a form of computer-assisted data abstraction, rapidly identifies serious illness communication domains such as code-status confirmation and goals of care (GOC) discussions within free-text notes, using a codebook of phrases. Differences in the phrases associated with palliative care for patients with different types of illness are unknown. Objective: To compare communication of code-status clarification and GOC discussion ...[more]

PMID: 31580763

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Economics of care for adults with serious illness is a policy priority worldwide. Palliative care may lower costs for hospitalized adults, but the evidence has important limitations. Objective:To estimate the association of palliative care consultation (PCC) with direct hospital costs for adults with serious illness. Data Sources:Systematic searches of the Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL, and EconLit databases were performed for English-language journal articles using keywords in the domains of palliative care (eg, palliative, terminal) and economics (eg, cost, utilization), with limiters for hospital and consultation. For Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL, we searched without a time limitation. For PubMed, CINAHL, and EconLit, we searched for articles published after August 1, 2013. Data analysis was performed from April 8, 2017, to September 16, 2017. Study Selection:Economic evaluations of interdisciplinary PCC for hospitalized adults with at least 1 of 7 illnesses (cancer; heart, liver, or kidney failure; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; AIDS/HIV; or selected neurodegenerative conditions) in the hospital inpatient setting vs usual care only, controlling for a minimum list of confounders. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Eight eligible studies were identified, all cohort studies, of which 6 provided sufficient information for inclusion. The study estimated the association of PCC within 3 days of admission with direct hospital costs for each sample and for subsamples defined by primary diagnoses and number of comorbidities at admission, controlling for confounding with an instrumental variable when available and otherwise propensity score weighting. Treatment effect estimates were pooled in the meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures:Total direct hospital costs. Results:This study included 6 samples with a total 133 118 patients (range, 1020-82 273), of whom 93.2% were discharged alive (range, 89.0%-98.4%), 40.8% had a primary diagnosis of cancer (range, 15.7%-100.0%), and 3.6% received a PCC (range, 2.2%-22.3%). Mean Elixhauser index scores ranged from 2.2 to 3.5 among the studies. When patients were pooled irrespective of diagnosis, there was a statistically significant reduction in costs (-$3237; 95% CI, -$3581 to -$2893; P < .001). In the stratified analyses, there was a reduction in costs for the cancer (-$4251; 95% CI, -$4664 to -$3837; P < .001) and noncancer (-$2105; 95% CI, -$2698 to -$1511; P < .001) subsamples. The reduction in cost was greater in those with 4 or more comorbidities than for those with 2 or fewer. Conclusions and Relevance:The estimated association of early hospital PCC with hospital costs may vary according to baseline clinical factors. Estimates may be larger for primary diagnosis of cancer and more comorbidities compared with primary diagnosis of noncancer and fewer comorbidities. Increasing palliative care capacity to meet national guidelines may reduce costs for hospitalized adults with serious and complex illnesses.

Project description:ImportanceDiscussions about goals of care are important for high-quality palliative care yet are often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness.ObjectiveTo evaluate a communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care discussions between clinicians and hospitalized older patients with serious illness.Design, setting, and participantsA pragmatic, randomized clinical trial of a clinician-facing communication-priming intervention vs usual care was conducted at 3 US hospitals within 1 health care system, including a university, county, and community hospital. Eligible hospitalized patients were aged 55 years or older with any of the chronic illnesses used by the Dartmouth Atlas project to study end-of-life care or were aged 80 years or older. Patients with documented goals-of-care discussions or a palliative care consultation between hospital admission and eligibility screening were excluded. Randomization occurred between April 2020 and March 2021 and was stratified by study site and history of dementia.InterventionPhysicians and advance practice clinicians who were treating the patients randomized to the intervention received a 1-page, patient-specific intervention (Jumpstart Guide) to prompt and guide goals-of-care discussions.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. There was also an evaluation of whether the effect of the intervention varied by age, sex, history of dementia, minoritized race or ethnicity, or study site.ResultsOf 3918 patients screened, 2512 were enrolled (mean age, 71.7 [SD, 10.8] years and 42% were women) and randomized (1255 to the intervention group and 1257 to the usual care group). The patients were American Indian or Alaska Native (1.8%), Asian (12%), Black (13%), Hispanic (6%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.5%), non-Hispanic (93%), and White (70%). The proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days was 34.5% (433 of 1255 patients) in the intervention group vs 30.4% (382 of 1257 patients) in the usual care group (hospital- and dementia-adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 0.4% to 7.8%]). The analyses of the treatment effect modifiers suggested that the intervention had a larger effect size among patients with minoritized race or ethnicity. Among 803 patients with minoritized race or ethnicity, the hospital- and dementia-adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 10.2% (95% CI, 4.0% to 16.5%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. Among 1641 non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 1.6% (95% CI, -3.0% to 6.2%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. There was no evidence of differential treatment effects of the intervention on the primary outcome by age, sex, history of dementia, or study site.Conclusions and relevanceAmong hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04281784.

Project description:ImportanceThe American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) guidelines encourage trauma service clinicians to deliver palliative care in parallel with life-sustaining treatment and recommend goals of care (GOC) discussions within 72 hours of admission for patients with serious illness.ObjectiveTo measure adherence to TQIP guidelines-recommended GOC discussions for trauma patients with serious illness, treated at a level I trauma center in the US.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 674 adults admitted to a trauma service center for 3 or more days between December 2019 and June 2020. The medical records of 486 patients who met the criteria for serious illness using a consensus definition adapted to the National Trauma Data Bank were reviewed for the presence of a GOC discussion. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on admission before or after the guidelines were incorporated into the institutional practice guidelines on March 1, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were GOC completion within 72 hours of admission and during the overall hospitalization. Patient and clinical factors associated with GOC completion were assessed. Other palliative care processes measured included palliative care consultation, prior advance care planning document, and do-not-resuscitate code status. Additional end-of-life processes (ie, comfort care and inpatient hospice) were measured in a subset with inpatient mortality.ResultsOf 674 patients meeting the review criteria, 486 (72.1%) met at least 1 definition of serious illness (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [21.3] years; mean [SD] Injury Severity Score, 16.9 [12.3]). Of these patients, 328 (67.5%) were male and 266 (54.7%) were White. Among the seriously ill patients, 92 (18.9%) had evidence of GOC completion within 72 hours of admission and 124 (25.5%) during the overall hospitalization. No differences were observed between patients admitted before and after institutional guideline publication in GOC completion within 72 hours (19.0% [47 of 248 patients] vs 18.9% [45 of 238]; P = .99) or during the overall hospitalization (26.2% [65 of 248 patients] vs 24.8% [59 of 238]; P = .72). After adjusting for age, GOC completion was found to be associated with the presence of mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 6.42; 95% CI, 3.49-11.81) and meeting multiple serious illness criteria (OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.25-7.38).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that, despite the presence of national guidelines, GOC discussions for patients with serious illness were documented infrequently. This study suggests a need for system-level interventions to ensure best practices and may inform strategies to measure and improve trauma service quality in palliative care.

Project description:BackgroundThe care of palliative patients takes place as non-specialized and specialized care, in outpatient and inpatient settings. However, palliative care is largely provided as General Outpatient Palliative Care (GOPC). This study aimed to investigate whether the survival curves of GOPC patients differed from those of the more intensive palliative care modalities and whether GOPC palliative care was appropriate in terms of timing.MethodsThe study is based on claims data from a large statutory health insurance. The analysis included 4177 patients who received palliative care starting in 2015 and who were fully insured 1 year before and 1 year after palliative care or until death. The probability of survival was observed for 12 months. Patients were classified into group A, which consisted of patients who received palliative care only with GOPC, and group B including patients who received inpatient or specialized outpatient palliative care. Group A was further divided into two subgroups. Patients who received GOPC on only 1 day were assigned to subgroup A1, and patients who received GOPC on two or more days were assigned to subgroup A2. The survival analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier curves. The median survival times were compared with the log-rank test.ResultsThe survival curves differed between groups A and B, except in the first quartile of the survival distribution. The median survival was significantly longer in group A (137 days, n = 2763) than in group B (47 days, n = 1424, p < 0.0001) and shorter in group A1 (35 days, n = 986) than in group A2 (217 days, n = 1767, p < 0.0001). The survival rate during the 12-month follow-up was higher in group A (42%) than in group B (11%) and lower in group A1 (38%) than in group A2 (44%).ConclusionsThe results of the analysis revealed that patients who received the first palliative care shortly before death suspected insufficient care, especially patients who received GOPC for only 1 day and no further palliative care until death or 12-month follow-up. Palliative care should start as early as necessary and be continuous until the end of life.

Dataset Information

Variation in Serious Illness Communication among Surgical Patients Receiving Palliative Care.

Publications

Variation in Serious Illness Communication among Surgical Patients Receiving Palliative Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets