Yeow, Mei-Ean

Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) simulation training primarily focuses on communication skills, rather than symptom management. Simulation can be an effective educational tool in high stakes clinical settings and provides a safe environment to improve skills in crisis management. HPM providers are often called to manage refractory symptoms in emotionally charged situations, especially at end-of-life care. These scenarios may present infrequently during their 1-year fellowship training. We describe a novel two-part simulation series ‘End of Life Symptom Management: Emergencies in Palliative Medicine’ that we have developed for our interdisciplinary HPM Fellowship. Our simulation series is conducted at our institution’s simulation centre and includes scenarios of (1) refractory pain, (2) palliative sedation, (3) initiation of buprenorphine-naloxone for cancer-associated pain in a patient with opioid use disorder (OUD), (4) acute pain crisis in a hospice patient with OUD on buprenorphine-naloxone, (5) terminal delirium, (6) compassionate extubation/respiratory distress, (7) status epilepticus and (8) terminal haemorrhage. Pre and postsession data collected from our HPM fellows reflect an increase in confidence levels after participating in the sessions. This simulation curriculum has allowed our fellows the opportunity to encounter and navigate these scenarios in a safe and controlled learning environment before encountering them in practice.

Background Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical workflows, yet their alignment with medical-ethical principles is unclear. Objective To evaluate how LLMs reconcile deontological and utilitarian reasoning in medically adapted “Trolley dilemma” scenarios. Methods We tested 14 LLMs, including GPT-o1-preview and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama, using five medically adapted Trolley dilemmas sourced from philosophical and real-world scenarios. Each model generated 10 independent answers per case (overall 700 responses). Responses were forced to “yes” (utilitarian) or “no” (deontological). The primary outcome was the proportion of utilitarian choices. χ 2 tests compared models. Results LLM responses varied. Some models, such as GPT-4 and Gemma, selected the utilitarian option in 20% of cases, while others, like Qwen-2-7B, reached 80% ( p < .001). GPT-o1-preview and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama selected utilitarian responses in 44% and 38% of cases, respectively. Some models selected the consequence-maximizing option in vignettes where doing so required overriding consent or endorsing intentional harm within the scenario framing. Seven of the fourteen models tested recommended impermissible medical actions, including nonconsensual limb amputation, killing a healthy person for organ harvesting, and transferring a patient to hospice against their wishes, in 44 of 700 outputs (6.3 %). Conclusions In this constrained forced-choice stress test, models occasionally endorsed boundary-violating actions within the vignette framing. These results do not generalize to routine clinical decision-making, but motivate further benchmarked evaluation of refusal behavior and boundary constraints in ethically sensitive medical contexts. We must carefully define how these models influence clinical decisions, establish robust ethical guidelines for their use, and ensure that fundamental ethical norms are not compromised.

Background: Patients with non-English Language Preference are at risk of adverse health outcomes, particularly at end of life and during serious illness. Medical interpreters often feel unprepared to interpret conversations about serious illness. Best practice guidelines recommend a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter to better prepare both providers. The CHECK-IN (Check in for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information) guide is a simple communication tool designed to facilitate this pre-encounter huddle. We describe the results of a pilot feasibility study of the CHECK-IN guide performed in a simulation environment. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary performance of the CHECK-IN guide. Methods: This U.S.-based study is a single-center simulation-based nonblinded randomized pilot feasibility study. Participating clinicians were randomized to usual practice (control) vs. introduction to the CHECK-IN guide (intervention). Clinicians completed pre- and post-session surveys. Participating clinicians were evaluated using the Faculty Observation Rating Scale (FORS), Interpreter Scale (IS), and Interpreter Impact Rating Scale (IIRS). Results: Participants had a highly favorable opinion on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the CHECK-IN tool; 91% of participants agreed/strongly agreed on the acceptability of the tool, 91% agreed/strongly agreed on the appropriateness of the tool, and 100% agreed/strongly agreed on the feasibility of the tool. There were no statistical differences between control and intervention groups for the IS, IIRS, and FORS scores. Conclusion: The CHECK-IN guide is a promising tool to guide a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter, thereby improving interpreter-mediated communication when having conversations about serious illness.

12011 Background: Patients (pts) with high HCT-Comorbidity Index scores (HCT-CI of ≥3), older age (≥65 years), and/or who are frail per gait speed (<0.8 meters/second) have increased morbidity and mortality after allo-HCT compared to younger and healthier counterparts. We report the phase II analysis (PIIA) and interim phase III primary outcome analysis (PIIIA) of a seamless phase II/III prospective, randomized clinical trial conducted at 11 transplant centers to test new approaches to improve quality of life (QOL) in this population. Methods: Phase II compared specialist-administered supportive and palliative care (SPC), patient-administered management of comorbidities (MC, e.g. physical exercise, stress reduction, etc), both (SPC+MC), and usual care (UC) for change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) QOL scores from baseline to day 90 (D90). Pts deceased prior to D90 were assigned FACT-BMT score=0. The winning phase II arm moved forward versus UC in phase III. Results: PIIA was done after enrolling 35 pts to each of the 4 study arms. Calculating the difference between FACT-BMT scores on D90 minus baseline, excluding missing data, indicated that only SPC resulted in a small improvement in QOL compared to either MC or SPC+MC (Table); hence SPC was the winning phase II arm. The PIIIA was conducted after enrolling 158 SPC pts and 153 UC pts. The SPC and UC arms were well balanced with median age (both 68 years), HCT-CI ≥3 (49% vs 55%), frailty per gait speed (13% vs 12%), female sex (41% vs 34%), non-white race (9.5% vs 11.5%), and Hispanic or unreported ethnicity (7.7% vs 5.7%), respectively. After median follow-up of 362 days, 45 pts had died in each arm. The mean QOL difference between D90 and baseline was 2.83 for SPC and 4.27 for UC (difference of differences, -1.44, 95% CI of difference, -5.03 to 2.14, p=0.43). Fitting a generalized linear model that included baseline, D30, and D90 values and testing the null hypothesis that the slope of scores differs between SPC and UC resulted in p=0.85. Using the Kaplan Meier method, no difference in survival was observed across arms (HR 1.13 [0.75-1.73]). Conclusions: Specialist-administered palliative care showed no meaningful improvement in QOL, nor a survival advantage, compared to usual care in frail, older and comorbid allo-HCT recipients, resulting in the cessation of this Phase II/III trial. Analysis of the whole patient population for primary and secondary outcomes is in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT03870750 . Change in FACT-BMT (D90 value minus baseline value) comparing the 4 arms of phase II. Group Mean difference (sd) Median difference (range) SPC (n=28) -2.93 (28.52) 0.25 (-102 to 38.22) CM (n=18) -18.37 (33.80) -9.50 (-98.33 to 11) SPC+CM (n=27) -15.76 (32.69) -7.67 (-90 to 32)

INTRODUCTION While prognostic understanding (PU) is important for all patients (pts) considering hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT), it may be particularly important for older (&gt;65 years), medically infirm, and/or frail pts deciding whether to undergo allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT). This abstract reports on PU and concordance with transplant physician (hereafter MD) PU for pts participating in an ongoing seamless, phase II-III randomized clinical trial (ACE-BMT) comparing 4-arms: a pt-administered comorbidity management intervention (CM), specialist-administered palliative care (PC), a combined arm of CM and PC to standard of care. Here we report preliminary data on the concordance between pt and MD PU on the chance of cure 1-year (yr) post allo-HCT. METHODS Pt PU was compared to MD PU (gold standard) to determine concordance. MD and pt answers were compared on a single validated question asked at enrollment to the study (typically 2 weeks prior to HCT). Both pts and MD's estimated the chance of cure 1 yr after allo-HCT by selecting one of six possible response options: very good (more than 90%), good (75-90%), better than 50% (50-74%), worse than 50% (25-49%), bad (10-24%) or very bad (less than 10%). PU was “concordant” or “accurate” if MD and pt selected the same response option. Pts with discordant PU were labeled “pessimistic” if the pt selected a response option with a lower chance of cure than the MD (and “optimistic” if a higher chance). Response options were further simplified to greater than or less than 50% chance of cure and MD and pt PU were compared again. Descriptive statistics, chi-square for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables were used. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between pt prognostic concordance and pt socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS All pts consented to date were included (n=358), except those who did not answer the prognosis question (n=61). 54.2% (n=194) had HCT-Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) of ≥3, 67.9% (n=243) were older than 65 yrs and 4.5% (n=16) were frail, defined by walk speed &lt;0.8 m/s. Median age was 68 yrs (range 20-80). 39.7% (n=141) were female. 89.9% (n=322) identified as White, 4.2% (n=15) Asian, and 1% each as Black/African American and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. 5.3% (n=19) identified Hispanic. 11.5% (n=44) had high school education or less. 54.1% (n=183) made less than $100,000/yr. 40.1% (n=136) had acute myelogenous leukemia, 25.4% (n=86) had high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and 10.6% (n=36) had a myeloproliferative cancer. 72.1% (n=245) had matched, 82.5% (n=283) unrelated and 95.0% (n=36) peripheral blood allo-HCT. 9% (n=31) had KPS of 100%, 35% (n=121) KPS 90%, and 47.5% (n=147) KPS 80%. Pts reported having a very good, good, better than 50%, worse than 50% and bad/very bad chance of cure 1 yr post allo-HCTL 34.4% (n=123), 30.7% (n=110), 26.0% (n=93), 7.3% (n=26) and 1.7% (n=6), respectively. 91.1% (n=326) of pts felt they had a &gt;50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. MD answers were missing for 159/358 (44.4%) pts. MDs reported pt had a very good, good, better than 50%, worse than 50% and bad/very bad chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT, 3.0% (n=6), 6.5% (n=13), 52.8% (n=105), 35.7% (n=71) and 2% (n=4) respectively. 62.3% (n=124) of MDs felt the pt had a &gt;50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. For the subset of pts with MD prognostic data (n=199), pt's PU was concordant 20.6% (n=41) of the time when compared across all 6 response options. Overall, 71.9% (n=143) of pts erred toward optimism, while 7.5% (n=15) of pts were pessimistic. 60.8% of MD and pts agreed on prognosis when dichotomized to better or worse than 50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. Prognostic concordance was not significantly associated with any pt socio-demographic factors, HCT-CI or KPS via descriptive statistics or regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS In this prospective randomized trial focusing on a population of older, medically infirm, and/or frail pts receiving allo-HCT, pts' PU was not concordant with MD prognosis approximately 80% of the time. While some pts were pessimistic, the majority overestimated the likelihood they would be cured of disease compared to MD estimates. Future studies should investigate the true accuracy of both MD and pt prognosis, as well as how to improve communication about prognosis and pt PU (if inaccurate based on best available information) prior to HCT.

Communication regarding serious illness is challenging in most circumstances. Patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) have unique language and cultural needs that often require collaboration with a trained medical interpreter, especially when the clinical encounter involves serious illness decision making or elucidation of patient goals, preferences, and values. Although there is mounting evidence to support interpreter/clinician huddles before a serious illness communication encounter, no current initiatives exist to operationalize this evidence. We are currently in the process of developing, evaluating, and implementing a formal interpreter/clinician huddle process to promote high quality care for patients with LEP. Our huddle guide, called the Check-In for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information (CHECK-IN), is designed to facilitate collaboration between an interpreter and clinician during a serious illness encounter by prompting exchange of relevant sociocultural and clinical information between clinicians and interpreters.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing “Family Care Rituals” as a means of engaging family members in the care of patients admitted to the ICU with a high risk of ICU mortality on outcomes including stress-related symptoms in family members. Design: Prospective, before-and-after intervention evaluation. Setting: Two U.S. academic medical ICU’s, and one Italian academic medical/surgical ICU. Subjects: Family members of patients who had an attending predicted ICU mortality of greater than 30% within the first 24 hours of admission. Interventions: A novel intervention titled “Family Care Rituals” during which, following a baseline observation period, family members enrolled in the intervention phase were given an informational booklet outlining opportunities for engagement in care of the patient during their ICU stay. Measurements and Main Results: Primary outcome was symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in family members 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes included symptoms of depression, anxiety, and family satisfaction. At 90-day follow-up, 131 of 226 family members (58.0%) responded preintervention and 129 of 226 family members (57.1%) responded postintervention. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly higher preintervention than postintervention (39.2% vs 27.1%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.58; p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in symptoms of depression (26.5% vs 25.2%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.93; p = 0.818), anxiety (41.0% vs 45.5%; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.20; p = 0.234), or mean satisfaction scores (85.1 vs 89.0; unadjusted odds ratio, 3.85; p = 0.052) preintervention versus postintervention 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge. Conclusions: Offering opportunities such as family care rituals for family members to be involved with providing care for family members in the ICU was associated with reduced symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. This intervention may lessen the burden of stress-related symptoms in family members of ICU patients.

Background: Clinicians need to deliver prognostic information to surrogates of nondecisional, critically ill patients so that surrogates can make informed medical decisions that reflect the patient’s values. Our objective was to implement a new approach for communicating with surrogates of patients with chronic critical illness. Methods: Surrogate decision makers of patients who were difficult to liberate from mechanical ventilation were prospectively enrolled. Surrogates met with different members of the intensive care unit treatment team for sequential 15-minute appointments to receive patient-specific assessments and education on chronic critical illness. The feasibility and acceptability of this approach were determined. A 24-question comprehension instrument was developed to assess a participant’s understanding that a family member was displaying features of chronic critical illness. Each question was scored from 1 to 5, with larger scores indicating greater comprehension. Results: Over a 15-week period, educational sessions for 9 mechanically ventilated patients were conducted. On average, 2 surrogates per patient (range: 1-4) and 6 members of the interdisciplinary team (range: 4-6) were at each meeting. Surrogates and clinicians had very positive impressions of the communication intervention. The average preintervention comprehension score was 85 of 120 (standard deviation [SD]: 8, range: 71-101). The postintervention comprehension score was greater by 5 points on average (SD: 9, range: −11 to +20 points, P = .04). Conclusions: Surrogates of critically ill patients approved of this novel communication approach and had a greater understanding of the patient’s medical condition after the intervention.