Faculty Bibliography

Americans near the end of life experience high rates of nonbeneficial, burdensome, and preventable hospital-based care. If patients' goals of care are unknown or unclear, they have higher rates of hospitalization at the end of life. The demand for palliative care has grown exponentially because of its impact on quality of life, symptom burden, and resource use, requiring the development of new palliative care models. Nurses' holistic outlook and patient-centered focus make them ideal to deliver telephonic palliative care. This article discusses 4 cases delivered by a nurse-led telephonic palliative care program, a part of the Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access project, which is a randomized controlled trial comparing outpatient palliative care with nurse-led telephonic case management after an emergency department visit. Telephonic nurses discuss patients' goals, fears, hopes, and concerns regarding their illness and its trajectory that inform decisions for future interventions and treatments. In addition, they share this information with the patients' surrogate decision-makers and clinicians to facilitate care coordination and symptom management. For seriously ill patients, nurses' abilities and expertise, as well as the difficulties of providing care through in-person models of palliative care delivery, make a nurse-led telephonic model an optimal option.

BACKGROUND:Arranging hospice services from the Emergency Department (ED) can be difficult due to physician discomfort, time constraints, and the intensity of care coordination needed. We report patient and visit characteristics associated with successful transition from the ED directly to hospice. METHODS:Setting: Academic ED with 82,000 annual visits. POPULATION/METHODS:ED patients with a referral to hospice order placed during the ED visit from January 2014-December 2018. Charts were abstracted by trained, non-blinded personnel. Primary goal was to evaluate patient and visit factors associated with requiring admission for hospice transition. RESULTS:Electronic Health Record inquiry yielded 113 patients, 93 of which met inclusion criteria. Patients were aged 65.8 years (range 32-92), 54% were female, and 78% were white, non-hispanic. The majority had cancer (78%, n = d72) and were on public insurance (60%, n = 56). Half (55%, n = 51) were full code upon arrival. Average ED length of stay was 4.6 ± 2.6 hours. Discharge from the ED to hospice was successful for 38% (n = 35), a few (n = 5) were dispositioned to an ED observation unit, and 57% (n = 53) were admitted. Only 10 (11%) required an inpatient length of stay longer than an observation visit (2 days). Case management and social work team arranged for transportation (54.8%, n = 51), hospital beds (16.1%, n = 16), respiratory equipment (18.3%, n = 17), facility placement (33.3%, n = 31), and home health aides (29.0%, n = 27). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Transitioning patients to hospice care from the ED is possible within a typical ED length of stay with assistance from a case manager/social work team.

BACKGROUND:Emergency department (ED) visits among older adults are common near the end of life. Palliative care has been shown to reduce ED visits and to increase quality of life among patients, but recruitment into these programs is often challenging. This descriptive analysis explores the barriers to enrolling seriously ill patients scheduled for discharge from the ED into palliative care research. METHODS:This descriptive sub-study aims to assess the reasons why patients with advanced illness scheduled for discharge home from 11 EDs across the United States decline to participate in Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA), a Phase IV randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing two modes of palliative care delivery. Our aim was to understand why patients decline to enroll to improve future recruitment rates and expand care for patients discharged home from the ED. Research coordinators documented reasons that patients declined to enroll in the larger EMPallA trial; reasons for refusing participation were independently analyzed by two researchers to identify overarching themes. RESULTS:Enrollment rate across all sites was 45%; of the 504 eligible patients who declined participation, 47% (n = 237) declined for reasons related to illness severity. 28% of refusals (n = 143) were related to the mode of palliative care delivery, while 24% (n = 123) were due to misconceptions or stigma related to palliative care. Less commonly, patients refused due to general research barriers (16.5%), family/caregiver barriers (11.7%), and physician-related barriers (< 1%). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with advanced illnesses presenting to the ED often refuse to participate in palliative care research due to the severity of their illness, the mode of care delivery, and misconceptions about palliative care. In contrast with other studies, our study found minimal physician gatekeeping, which may be the result of both changing attitudes toward palliative care and the nature of the ED setting. Robust training programs are crucial to overcome these misconceptions and to educate patients and providers about the role of palliative care. Future palliative care programs and study designs should recognize the burden this vulnerable population endures and consider alternative modes of care delivery in an effort to increase participation and enrollment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT03325985 , October 30, 2017.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Emergency department (ED) visits by patients with cancer frequently end in hospitalization. As concerns about ED and hospital crowding increase, observation unit care may be an important strategy to deliver safe and efficient treatment for eligible patients. In this investigation, we compared the prevalence and clinical characteristics of cancer patients who received observation unit care with those who were admitted to the hospital from the ED. METHODS:We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with cancer presenting to an ED affiliated with one of 18 hospitals of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergency Research Network (CONCERN) between March 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017. We compared patient characteristics with the prevalence of observation unit care usage, hospital admission, and length of stay. RESULTS:Of 1,051 enrolled patients, 596 (56.7%) were admitted as inpatients, and 72 (6.9%) were placed in an observation unit. For patients admitted as inpatients, 23.7% had a length of stay ≤2 days. The conversion rate from observation to inpatient was 17.1% (95% CI 14.6-19.4) among those receiving care in an observation unit. The average observation unit length of stay was 14.7 hours. Patient factors associated ED disposition to observation unit care were female gender and low Charlson Comorbidity Index. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this multicenter prospective cohort study, the discrepancy between observation unit care use and short inpatient hospitalization may represent underutilization of this resource and a target for process change.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:To characterize the national distribution of COVID-19 hospital and emergency department visitor restriction policies across the United States, focusing on patients with cognitive or physical impairment or receiving end-of-life care. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Cross-sectional study of visitor policies and exceptions, using a nationally representative random sample of EDs and hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, by trained study investigators using standardized instrument. Results/UNASSIGNED: < 0.001); however, the prevalence of ED-specific policies did not significantly differ across these site characteristics. Geographic region was not associated with the prevalence of any visitor policies. Among all study sites, only 58% of hospitals reported exceptions for patients receiving end-of-life care, 39% for persons with cognitive impairment, and 33% for persons with physical impairment, and only 12% provided policies in non-English languages. Sites with ED-specific policies reported even fewer exceptions for patients with cognitive impairment (29%), with physical impairments (24%), or receiving end-of-life care (26%). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Although the benefits of visitor policies towards curbing COVID-19 transmission had not been firmly established, such policies were widespread among US hospitals. Exceptions that permitted family or other caregivers for patients with cognitive or physical impairments or receiving end-of-life care were predominantly lacking, as were policies in non-English languages.

Importance:COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. Objective:To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. Data Sources:From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. Study Selection:Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. Data Extraction and Synthesis:A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. Main Outcomes and Measures:Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. Results:Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance:This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

BACKGROUND:Older adults account for a large proportion of emergency department visits, but those with serious life-limiting illness may benefit most from referral to home and community services instead of hospitalization. We aim to document emergency provider perspectives on facilitators and barriers to accessing home and community services for older adults with serious life-limiting illness. METHODS:We conducted interviewer-administered semi-structured interviews with emergency providers from health systems across the United States to obtain provider perspectives on facilitators and barriers to accessing home and community services. We completed qualitative thematic analysis using an iterative process to develop themes and subthemes to summarize provider responses. RESULTS:We interviewed 8 emergency nurses and 10 emergency physicians across 11 health systems. Emergency providers were familiar with local home and community services. Facilitators to accessing these services include care management and social workers. Barriers include services that are not accessible full-time to receive referrals, insurance/payment, and the busy nature of the emergency department. The most helpful reported services were hospice, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and visiting nursing services. Home-based palliative care and full-time emergency department-based care management and social work were the services most desired by providers. Providers expressed support for improving access to home and community services in the hopes of decreasing unnecessary emergency visits and inpatient admissions, and to provide patients with greater options for supportive care. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Obtaining the perspective of emergency providers highlights important considerations to accessing HCS for older-adults with serious life-limiting illness from the emergency department. This study provides foundational information for futures studies and initiatives for improving access to home and community services directly from the emergency department.

Background: Clinical trials are important to improve evidencebased care for persons living with dementia (PLWD) and for their care partners (dyads). Barriers to research recruitment are numerous, including care partners concerns' of ill health, cognitive impairment (CI) severity, and denial of need. The aim of this study is to determine whether a performance- or informant-based screening test for CI is associated with trial enrollment and whether mode of administration influences one's decision to participate.
Method(s): We used cross-sectional data from patients and caregivers who visited the EDs of New York University (NYU) and Indianapolis University (IU) during screening for the Program of Intensive Support in Emergency Departments (ED) for Care Partners of Cognitively Impaired Patients (POISED), which is testing a care management intervention. We offered CI screening to patients >75 years using the Mini-Cog and if unable to do this, we offered their care partners the Short Portable Informant Questionnaire of Cognitive Decline (IQ-CODE). We used chi-square tests and logistic regression to determine whether likelihood of enrollment differed between screening tests and mode of administration: in-person versus telephone.
Result(s): We screened 8860 patients or care partners (dyads) between 3/3/2018-4/1/2021, of which n=2840 at NYU and n=660 at IU had positive screens. Of these 3500 dyads, 2142 had a positive Mini-Cog (<2) and 1358 had a positive IQ-CODE (>3.40). We enrolled 13.9% (n=297) of positive Mini-Cogs and 14.5% (n=309) of positive in-person IQ-CODEs. During the pandemic we conducted all IQCODEs by phone and enrolled 34% (n=196) of those who screened positive. Adjusting for age, sex, and gender, compared to Mini-Cog screening, only those having positive IQCODES by phone were more likely to enroll (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 3.75 (95% CI: 2.76, 5.11).
Conclusion(s): Higher enrollment using informant-based telephone screening after discharge suggests that care partner recognition of a problem and perhaps having less distraction from the ED visit may increase trial enrollment. Whether the pandemic was the predomant factor encouraging enrollment is unknown