Cambia Health Solutions (United States)

Background: Serious illness communication priming guides like the Jumpstart Guide can increase goals-of-care conversations (GOCC), but have not been evaluated in the stroke population. Objectives: To conduct a randomized pilot study evaluating feasibility and acceptability of the Jumpstart Guide adapted for outpatient stroke survivors, their surrogates, and clinicians. Methods: We recruited stroke survivors ≥60years of age (or their surrogates if patients had communication barriers) at a single academically-affiliated stroke clinic. Patients/surrogates were randomized to intervention (patient/surrogate and clinician received pre-visit Jumpstart Guide) or control arms. We assessed feasibility of participant enrollment, survey completion and extraction of GOCC documentation. We assessed acceptability using patient/surrogate and clinician surveys. Results: We enrolled 15/24 (63%) of eligible patients or surrogates, 8 of which were randomized to the intervention vs 7 to the control arm. Six clinicians were enrolled for the 8 intervention encounters. Patient characteristics in both groups were similar with mean age 74.7years, 10/15 male, 12/15 white, and 10/15 with acute ischemic stroke. Most patients/surrogates (7/8 intervention vs 7/7 control) and all intervention clinicians completed post-visit surveys. Most intervention participants reported successful pre-visit receipt of the Jumpstart Guide (6/7 patient/surrogates; 6/8 clinicians). Of these, all intervention patients/surrogates and 5/6 clinicians stated they would "definitely" or "probably" recommend it to others. Two intervention vs no control patients had newly documented GOCC post-visit. Conclusions: Implementation of a stroke-specific Jumpstart guide in an outpatient stroke clinic is feasible and acceptable. A large randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate its efficacy in improving GOCC.

People with disorders of consciousness (DoC) are characteristically unable to synchronously participate in decision-making about clinical care or research. The inability to self-advocate exacerbates preexisting socioeconomic and geographic disparities, which include the wide variability observed across individuals, hospitals, and countries in access to acute care, expertise, and sophisticated diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic interventions. Concerns about equity for people with DoC are particularly notable when they lack a surrogate decision-maker (legally referred to as "unrepresented" or "unbefriended"). Decisions about both short-term and long-term life-sustaining treatment typically rely on neuroprognostication and individual patient preferences that carry additional ethical considerations for people with DoC, as even individuals with well thought out advance directives cannot anticipate every possible situation to guide such decisions. Further challenges exist with the inclusion of people with DoC in research because consent must be completed (in most circumstances) through a surrogate, which excludes those who are unrepresented and may discourage investigators from exploring questions related to this population. In this article, the Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group reviews equity considerations in clinical care and research involving persons with DoC in the following domains: (1) access to acute care and expertise, (2) access to diagnostics and therapeutics, (3) neuroprognostication, (4) medical decision-making for unrepresented people, (5) end-of-life decision-making, (6) access to postacute rehabilitative care, (7) access to research, (8) inclusion of unrepresented people in research, and (9) remuneration and reciprocity for research participation. The goal of this discussion is to advance equitable, harmonized, guideline-directed, and goal-concordant care for people with DoC of all backgrounds worldwide, prioritizing the ethical standards of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Although the focus of this evaluation is on people with DoC, much of the discussion can be extrapolated to other critically ill persons worldwide.

BackgroundInvolving patient and community stakeholders in clinical trials adds value by ensuring research prioritizes patient goals both in conduct of the study and application of the research. The use of stakeholder committees and their impact on the conduct of a multicenter clinical trial have been underreported clinically and academically. The aim of this study is to describe how Study Advisory Committee (SAC) recommendations were implemented throughout the Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial. EMPallA is a multi-center, pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care of older adults with advanced illness.MethodsA SAC consisting of 18 individuals, including patients with palliative care experience, members of healthcare organizations, and payers was convened for the EMPallA trial. The SAC engaged in community-based participatory research and assisted in all aspects from study design to dissemination. The SAC met with the research team quarterly and annually from project inception to dissemination. Using meeting notes and recordings we completed a qualitative thematic analysis using an iterative process to develop themes and subthemes to summarize SAC recommendations throughout the project’s duration.ResultsThe SAC convened 16 times between 2017 and 2020. Over the course of the project, the SAC provided 41 unique recommendations. Twenty-six of the 41 (63%) recommendations were adapted into formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) study modifications. Recommendations were coded into four major themes: Scientific, Pragmatic, Resource and Dissemination. A majority of the recommendations were related to either the Scientific (46%) or Pragmatic (29%) themes. Recommendations were not mutually exclusive across three study phases: Preparatory, execution and translational. A vast majority (94%) of the recommendations made were related to the execution phase. Major IRB study modifications were made based on their recommendations including data collection of novel dependent variables and expanding recruitment to Spanish-speaking patients.ConclusionsOur study provides an example of successful integration of a SAC in the conduct of a pragmatic, multi-center RCT. Future trials should engage with SACs in all study phases to ensure trials are relevant, inclusive, patient-focused, and attentive to gaps between health care and patient and family needs.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03325985, 10/30/2017.

47 Background: Multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) are associated with increased intensity of end-of-life (EOL) care in many conditions but their effect has not been well explored in patients with cancer. We examined intensity of EOL care and advance care planning (ACP) by patients with cancer and MCCs versus those without MCCs to better understand how MCCs affect EOL healthcare use in this population. Methods: Our sample included patients with cancer in the UW Medicine system who died between 2010-2017. MCCs were defined using the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare for the most common categories of severe illness in the last two years of life. These included chronic pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, severe chronic liver disease, chronic renal disease, dementia, diabetes with end organ damage, or peripheral vascular disease. Patients were categorized as having none or 1+ MCCs. We used a claims-based indicator for the presence of functional limitation. Outcomes included ACP documentation in the electronic health record, death in hospital, and inpatient or ICU admission in the last month of life. We performed logistic regression for all outcomes controlling for confounders defined a priori (age at death, race, sex, marital status, insurance, education, functional limitation). Results: Of 15,092 patients with cancer, 10,596 (70%) had 1+MCCs (range 1-8 MCCs). Common MCCs were pulmonary (25%), CAD (23%), and renal (18%). Those with MCCs were older (median 66 years (range 18-104) vs 63 years (range 18-102)), with more functional limitations (65% vs 43%). Those with 1+ MCC had more ACP documentation (43% vs. 23%) compared to those with no MCCs. Patients with 1+ MCC were more likely to die in hospital (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.72-2.02) and to have inpatient (OR 2.45, 95% CI 2.20-2.72) or ICU admissions (OR 2.95, 95% CI 2.55-3.42) in their last 30 days versus patients with cancer and no MCCs. Conclusions: Among patients with cancer in a single healthcare system, patients with cancer and MCCs were more likely to have ACP documentation, die in hospital and experience high-intensity hospital-based care at or near EOL. Further research is needed to explore if such high-intensity care is aligned with patient and family goals for care.

Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76%) used the original DCS, and 29 (7%) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions (n = 238, 59%). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves (n = 353, 87%), about treatment (n = 225, 55%), or testing (n = 91, 23%). The most common decision contexts were oncology (n = 113, 28%) and primary care (n = 82, 20%). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.

226 Background: Early studies of the oncology medical home suggest that intensive outpatient care (e.g. 24-hour phone triage, same-day infusion) reduces emergency department (ED) and inpatient (IP) use during cancer treatment. Little is known about which services are most cost-effective. One strategy is to measure observed variation in ED and IP rates to pinpoint care features associated with low-use clinics. This study examined clinic-level variation in ED and IP use in a community setting. Methods: Cancer registry records for Western Washington from 2011 to 2015 were linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Included patients were diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer and treated with chemotherapy or radiation. All ED and IP use was tracked 1 year after treatment start using claims data. Observed clinic rates were measured as the percentage of patients with 1 or more visits. Expected clinic rates were determined from regional average rates weighted by clinic’s cancer-specific stage mix. Observed-to-expected clinic ratios were calculated and the Wilson Score test (95% CI) was used to determine statistically different rates. Results: The 18 clinics included 4,558 eligible patients (median 196 pts/clinic; range: 35-859). Unstaged lung patients had the highest ED rates (38.5%); unstaged breast had the lowest (13.3%). The highest IP rate was among unstaged colorectal (66.7%); the lowest in local breast (11.1%). One clinic had an observed rate that was significantly above its expected rate in both ED only and ED to IP. One clinic was significantly below its expected rate in both ED to IP and IP only. Conclusions: Even after adjusting for cancer-specific stage, there was sizable clinic-level variation in the percentage of patients visiting the ED or IP. Investigation into care delivery features and practice characteristics, along with further risk adjustment, may yield insights into best practices and identify clinics for intervention. [Table: see text]

Where do servant-leadership and corporate strategy meet? What does servant-leadership look like in corporations when it manifests in strategy rather than through personal leadership? How do we know when all or many of the elements within the philosophy of servant-leadership express themselves in and through an institution? Corporations tend to categorize servant-leadership embodied as a way to lead rather than a corporate strategy to exist and grow with customers. For us to move beyond the accepted territories of leadership style to the way a corporation wins markets and develops customer relationships, we must consider the ways in which servant-leadership serves strategy. Furthermore, the current literature has expressed three categories for servant-leadership (Rennaker, 2006, p. 427), namely: (1) non-model discussion, (2) leader-organization models, and (3) leader-follower models.