Tulsky, James A.

Importance Many older adults with advanced cancer never communicate goals of care or treatment preferences to their clinicians, raising the risk that care received will not match their values. Scalable models of care may help surmount this barrier. Objective To test whether a combined patient and clinician intervention increased the rate of advance care planning (ACP) documentation in large health care systems. Design, Setting, and Participants This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial using an open cohort design included patients aged 65 years or older with advanced cancer seen at oncology clinics in 3 health care systems located in the US South, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions from April 1, 2020, to November 30, 2022. Data collection ended in 2024. Intervention The intervention involved delivering brief evidence-based patient-facing video decision aids available in 25 languages as well as goals-of-care communication training to oncology clinicians. Patients in the control period received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ACP documentation, which included any electronic health record documentation of a goals-of-care conversation, palliative care, hospice, or limitation of life-sustaining treatments, identified via a validated natural language processing program. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Twenty-nine practices, comprising 13 800 unique eligible patients with a total of 29 357 repeated measurements, were included (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [6.6] years; 52.3% men [15 344 of 29 357 measurements]). The proportion of patients with ACP documentation was greater in the intervention phase compared with the usual care phase (adjusted rate difference, 6.8% [95% CI, 2.8%-10.8%]; P < .001). ACP documentation in the intervention phase occurred among 3980 of 15 754 patients (25.3%) (goals-of-care conversation, 21.4% [3377 of 15 754]; palliative care, 9.6% [1517 of 15 754]; hospice, 5.4% [847 of 15 754]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 7.2% [1128 of 15 754]). In comparison, ACP documentation in the usual care phase occurred among 2834 of 13 603 patients (20.8%) (goals-of-care conversation, 16.8% [2281 of 13 603]; palliative care, 9.5% [1287 of 13 603]; hospice, 5.3% [724 of 13 603]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 8.4% [1149 of 13 603]). Conclusions and Relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial for older adults with advanced cancer, a bundled evidence-based decision aid and communication training intervention increased the proportion of older patients with ACP documentation. This approach offers an innovative paradigm with a clinically meaningful increase in ACP documentation, a widely used quality metric that reflects high-quality patient-centered care delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03609177

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) may help enable reliable, rapid data management for many uses, such as facilitating communication of advance care planning (ACP). However, issues with validity and accuracy of EHRs hinder the use of ACP information for practical applications. Design: We present a cross-sectional pilot study of 433 older adults with cancer from three large health care systems, participating in an ongoing multisite pragmatic trial (4UH3AG060626-02). We compared data extracted from dedicated structured EHR fields for ACP to a chart review of corresponding ACP documentation contained in the medical chart. Results: Structured ACP data existed for 43.2% of patients and varied by site (25.7% −48.9%). Of the identified structured ACP data elements, 59.2% of recorded elements were correct, 23.7% were incorrect, and 17.1% were duplicates with heterogeneity across sites. Conclusion: Structured ACP data in EHRs were frequently incorrect. This represents a problem for patients and their families, as well as quality improvement and research efforts. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03609177.

Abstract Objective Electronic health record documentation by intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians may predict patient outcomes. However, it is unclear whether physician and nursing notes differ in their ability to predict short-term ICU prognosis. We aimed to investigate and compare the ability of physician and nursing notes, written in the first 48 hours of admission, to predict ICU length of stay and mortality using 3 analytical methods. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study with split sampling for model training and testing. We included patients ≥18 years of age admitted to the ICU at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2008 to 2012. Physician or nursing notes generated within the first 48 hours of admission were used with standard machine learning methods to predict outcomes. Results For the primary outcome of composite score of ICU length of stay ≥7 days or in-hospital mortality, the gradient boosting model had better performance than the logistic regression and random forest models. Nursing and physician notes achieved area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.826 and 0.796, respectively, with even better predictive power when combined (AUC, 0.839). Discussion Models using only nursing notes more accurately predicted short-term prognosis than did models using only physician notes, but in combination, the models achieved the greatest accuracy in prediction. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that statistical models derived from text analysis in the first 48 hours of ICU admission can predict patient outcomes. Physicians’ and nurses’ notes are both uniquely important in mortality prediction and combining these notes can produce a better predictive model.

BackgroundCommunication gaps arise early in the childhood cancer trajectory and may persist. The authors conducted a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a communication intervention, the Day 100 Talk (D100). D100 involves an interprofessional family conference during initial months of treatment between oncologists, psychosocial clinicians, and parents, facilitated by a 3‐part conversation tool.MethodsThe authors enrolled English‐speaking parents of children with nonrelapsed, nonprogressive cancer who were receiving continuity care from enrolled pediatric oncologists and psychosocial clinicians at a single site. The a priori feasibility threshold was 60% parent completion of the D100 intervention. Surveys from parents and professionals and debrief interviews with professionals assessed D100 acceptability.ResultsThirty‐seven parents (77%) and 38 oncology professionals (67%) enrolled. Twenty of 33 evaluable parents (61%) participated in a D100 family conference. Most commonly, parents did not complete the D100 intervention because of scheduling difficulties related to clinical team constraints. All 17 parents who completed a post‐D100 survey agreed or strongly agreed that D100 participation was helpful. In debrief interviews, professionals identified D100 benefits, namely, stepping back to the big picture and getting on the same page, and barriers related to logistical challenges and professionals' anticipatory dread.ConclusionsThe D100 intervention pilot demonstrates high acceptability among parents of children with cancer. Despite meeting the prespecified feasibility threshold, findings highlight important barriers to D100 dissemination, namely, perceived burdens on professionals. Potential strategies to reduce burden may include using virtual visit platforms, incorporating D100 elements across multiple visits, or prioritizing intervention delivery to parents with the greatest need for enhanced communication.

53 Background: The National Academy of Medicine recommends interprofessional collaboration to promote optimal patient- and family-centered care. We sought to understand whether medical and psychosocial professionals who participated in an interprofessional communication intervention perceived it as distinct from usual clinical care. Methods: Our intervention targeted “medical” (physicians, nurse practitioners) and “psychosocial” (social workers, psychologists) professionals. It consisted of an interprofessional family conference, using a structured conversation guide, conducted during the first 6 months of a child’s cancer care. Conferences aimed to enable families to share hopes and worries and ask questions about their child’s care. Clinicians received a 60-minute training focused on communication skills, such as eliciting families’ hopes and worries, and suggested approaches to collaborating during conferences. Clinicians participated in debriefing interviews after each conference (range 1-3). Three of us conducted thematic analysis of interview data. Results: Twenty-two professionals (6 attending MDs, 4 fellow MDs, 8 NPs, and 8 psychosocial clinicians) gave 34 interviews. Medical and psychosocial professionals described interprofessional family conferences as distinct from usual practice patterns, largely due to their interprofessional colleagues’ presence. This co-presence contributed to “being on the same page.” Conferences sometimes bred a new understanding of a family’s needs and consequent care changes. However, both medical and psychosocial professionals noted that psychosocial professionals often were not vocal contributors to the conference. Some psychosocial clinicians reported being unsure of “the rules.” Conclusions: An interprofessional communication intervention promoted shared understanding between interprofessional colleagues. However, medical professionals were described as more vocal, perhaps due to insufficient role clarity or medical dominance.