Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Home-based primary care (HBPC) is an important care delivery model for high-need older adults. Currently, target patient populations vary across HBPC programs, hindering expansion and large-scale evaluation. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Develop and validate criteria that identify appropriate HBPC target populations. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS:A modified Delphi process was used to achieve expert consensus on criteria for identifying HBPC target populations. All criteria were defined and validated using linked data from Medicare claims and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) (cohort n=21,727). Construct validation involved assessing demographics and health outcomes/expenditures for selected criteria. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Delphi panelists (n=29) represented diverse professional perspectives. Criteria were validated on community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (age above 70) enrolled in NHATS. MEASURES/METHODS:Criteria were selected via Delphi questionnaires. For construct validation, sociodemographic characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries were self-reported in NHATS, and annual health care expenditures and mortality were obtained via linked Medicare claims. RESULTS:Panelists proposed an algorithm of criteria for HBPC target populations that included indicators for serious illness, functional impairment, and social isolation. The algorithm's Delphi-selected criteria applied to 16.8% of Medicare beneficiaries. These HBPC target populations had higher annual health care costs [Med (IQR): $10,851 (3316, 31,556) vs. $2830 (913, 9574)] and higher 12-month mortality [15% (95% CI: 14, 17) vs. 5% (95% CI: 4, 5)] compared with the total validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS:We developed and validated an algorithm to define target populations for HBPC, which suggests a need for increased HBPC availability. By enabling objective identification of unmet demands for HBPC access or resources, this algorithm can foster robust evaluation and equitable expansion of HBPC.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The critical role of hospice and palliative care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is well recognized, but there is limited evidence to guide healthcare leadership through future crises. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Our goal was to support future organizational resilience by exploring hospice and palliative team members' perspectives on crisis leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC). METHODS:This qualitative descriptive study used individual, semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled interdisciplinary team members. Enrollment sites were two large NYC metro hospice care organizations and one outpatient palliative care practice. We asked participants to complete a demographic form and a 45-60 minute interview. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively, for data analysis. We triangulated the data by presenting preliminary study findings to a group of clinicians (n=21) from one of the referring organizations. RESULTS:Participants (n=30) were professionally diverse (e.g., nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, administrators), experienced (mean=17 years; 10 years in hospice), and highly educated (83% ≥ master's degree). About half (n=15) self-identified as white, non-Hispanic, and nearly half (n=13) self-identified as being from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Two (n=2) did not wish to self-identify. We identified four themes that reflected challenges and adaptive responses to providing care during a crisis: Stay Open and Stay Safe; Act Flexibly; Lead Adaptively; and Create a Culture of Solidarity. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While additional work is indicated, findings offer direction for a crisis management playbook to guide leadership in hospice, palliative care, and other healthcare settings in future crises.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The critical role of hospice and palliative care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is well recognized, but there is limited evidence to guide healthcare leadership through future crises. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Our goal was to support future organizational resilience by exploring hospice and palliative team members' perspectives on crisis leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC). METHODS:This qualitative descriptive study used individual, semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled interdisciplinary team members. Enrollment sites were two large NYC metro hospice care organizations and one outpatient palliative care practice. We asked participants to complete a demographic form and a 45-60 minute interview. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively, for data analysis. We triangulated the data by presenting preliminary study findings to a group of clinicians (n=21) from one of the referring organizations. RESULTS:Participants (n=30) were professionally diverse (e.g., nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, administrators), experienced (mean=17 years; 10 years in hospice), and highly educated (83% ≥ master's degree). About half (n=15) self-identified as white, non-Hispanic, and nearly half (n=13) self-identified as being from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Two (n=2) did not wish to self-identify. We identified four themes that reflected challenges and adaptive responses to providing care during a crisis: Stay Open and Stay Safe; Act Flexibly; Lead Adaptively; and Create a Culture of Solidarity. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While additional work is indicated, findings offer direction for a crisis management playbook to guide leadership in hospice, palliative care, and other healthcare settings in future crises.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The critical role of hospice and palliative care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is well recognized, but there is limited evidence to guide healthcare leadership through future crises. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Our goal was to support future organizational resilience by exploring hospice and palliative team members' perspectives on crisis leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC). METHODS:This qualitative descriptive study used individual, semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled interdisciplinary team members. Enrollment sites were two large NYC metro hospice care organizations and one outpatient palliative care practice. We asked participants to complete a demographic form and a 45-60 minute interview. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively, for data analysis. We triangulated the data by presenting preliminary study findings to a group of clinicians (n=21) from one of the referring organizations. RESULTS:Participants (n=30) were professionally diverse (e.g., nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, administrators), experienced (mean=17 years; 10 years in hospice), and highly educated (83% ≥ master's degree). About half (n=15) self-identified as white, non-Hispanic, and nearly half (n=13) self-identified as being from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Two (n=2) did not wish to self-identify. We identified four themes that reflected challenges and adaptive responses to providing care during a crisis: Stay Open and Stay Safe; Act Flexibly; Lead Adaptively; and Create a Culture of Solidarity. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While additional work is indicated, findings offer direction for a crisis management playbook to guide leadership in hospice, palliative care, and other healthcare settings in future crises.

Ensuring reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in clinical tasks is crucial. Our study assesses two state-of-the-art LLMs (ChatGPT and LlaMA-2) for extracting clinical information, focusing on cognitive tests like MMSE and CDR. Our data consisted of 135,307 clinical notes (Jan 12th, 2010 to May 24th, 2023) mentioning MMSE, CDR, or MoCA. After applying inclusion criteria 34,465 notes remained, of which 765 underwent ChatGPT (GPT-4) and LlaMA-2, and 22 experts reviewed the responses. ChatGPT successfully extracted MMSE and CDR instances with dates from 742 notes. We used 20 notes for fine-tuning and training the reviewers. The remaining 722 were assigned to reviewers, with 309 each assigned to two reviewers simultaneously. Inter-rater-agreement (Fleiss' Kappa), precision, recall, true/false negative rates, and accuracy were calculated. Our study follows TRIPOD reporting guidelines for model validation. For MMSE information extraction, ChatGPT (vs. LlaMA-2) achieved accuracy of 83% (vs. 66.4%), sensitivity of 89.7% (vs. 69.9%), true-negative rates of 96% (vs 60.0%), and precision of 82.7% (vs 62.2%). For CDR the results were lower overall, with accuracy of 87.1% (vs. 74.5%), sensitivity of 84.3% (vs. 39.7%), true-negative rates of 99.8% (98.4%), and precision of 48.3% (vs. 16.1%). We qualitatively evaluated the MMSE errors of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 on double-reviewed notes. LlaMA-2 errors included 27 cases of total hallucination, 19 cases of reporting other scores instead of MMSE, 25 missed scores, and 23 cases of reporting only the wrong date. In comparison, ChatGPT's errors included only 3 cases of total hallucination, 17 cases of wrong test reported instead of MMSE, and 19 cases of reporting a wrong date. In this diagnostic/prognostic study of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 for extracting cognitive exam dates and scores from clinical notes, ChatGPT exhibited high accuracy, with better performance compared to LlaMA-2. The use of LLMs could benefit dementia research and clinical care, by identifying eligible patients for treatments initialization or clinical trial enrollments. Rigorous evaluation of LLMs is crucial to understanding their capabilities and limitations.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The critical role of hospice and palliative care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is well recognized, but there is limited evidence to guide healthcare leadership through future crises. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Our goal was to support future organizational resilience by exploring hospice and palliative team members' perspectives on crisis leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC). METHODS:This qualitative descriptive study used individual, semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled interdisciplinary team members. Enrollment sites were two large NYC metro hospice care organizations and one outpatient palliative care practice. We asked participants to complete a demographic form and a 45-60 minute interview. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively, for data analysis. We triangulated the data by presenting preliminary study findings to a group of clinicians (n=21) from one of the referring organizations. RESULTS:Participants (n=30) were professionally diverse (e.g., nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, administrators), experienced (mean=17 years; 10 years in hospice), and highly educated (83% ≥ master's degree). About half (n=15) self-identified as white, non-Hispanic, and nearly half (n=13) self-identified as being from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Two (n=2) did not wish to self-identify. We identified four themes that reflected challenges and adaptive responses to providing care during a crisis: Stay Open and Stay Safe; Act Flexibly; Lead Adaptively; and Create a Culture of Solidarity. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While additional work is indicated, findings offer direction for a crisis management playbook to guide leadership in hospice, palliative care, and other healthcare settings in future crises.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic severely disrupted hospice care, yet there is little research regarding how widespread disruptions affected clinician and family decision-making. We aimed to understand how the pandemic affected structures, processes, and outcomes of end-of-life care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Retrospective narrative chart review of electronic health records of 61 patients referred and admitted to hospice from 3 New York City geriatrics practices who died between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. We linked longitudinal, unstructured medical, and hospice electronic health record notes to create a real-time, multiperspective trajectory of patients' interactions with providers using directed content analysis. RESULTS:Most patients had dementia and were enrolled in hospice for 11 days. Care processes were shaped by structural factors (staffing, supplies, and governmental/institutional policies), and outcomes were prioritized by care teams and families (protecting safety, maintaining high-touch care, honoring patient values, and supporting patients emotionally and spiritually). Processes used to achieve these outcomes were decision-making, care delivery, supporting a "good death," and emotional and spiritual support. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Care processes were negotiated throughout the end of life, with clinicians and families making in-the-moment decisions. Some adaptations were effective but also placed extraordinary pressure on paid and family caregivers. Healthcare teams' and families' goals to meet patients' end-of-life priorities can be supported by ongoing assessment of patient goals and process changes needed to support them, stronger structural supports for paid and family caregivers, incentivizing relationships across primary care and hospice teams, and extending social work and spiritual care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic severely disrupted hospice care, yet there is little research regarding how widespread disruptions affected clinician and family decision-making. We aimed to understand how the pandemic affected structures, processes, and outcomes of end-of-life care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Retrospective narrative chart review of electronic health records of 61 patients referred and admitted to hospice from 3 New York City geriatrics practices who died between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. We linked longitudinal, unstructured medical, and hospice electronic health record notes to create a real-time, multiperspective trajectory of patients' interactions with providers using directed content analysis. RESULTS:Most patients had dementia and were enrolled in hospice for 11 days. Care processes were shaped by structural factors (staffing, supplies, and governmental/institutional policies), and outcomes were prioritized by care teams and families (protecting safety, maintaining high-touch care, honoring patient values, and supporting patients emotionally and spiritually). Processes used to achieve these outcomes were decision-making, care delivery, supporting a "good death," and emotional and spiritual support. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Care processes were negotiated throughout the end of life, with clinicians and families making in-the-moment decisions. Some adaptations were effective but also placed extraordinary pressure on paid and family caregivers. Healthcare teams' and families' goals to meet patients' end-of-life priorities can be supported by ongoing assessment of patient goals and process changes needed to support them, stronger structural supports for paid and family caregivers, incentivizing relationships across primary care and hospice teams, and extending social work and spiritual care.