Stiles, Carole

Abstract Objectives Family caregivers (FCGs) may experience numerous psychosocial and practical challenges with interpersonal relationships, mental health, and finances both before and after their care recipient (CR) dies. The specific challenges affecting rural FCGs who often have limited access to palliative care services, transitional care, and other community resources are not well understood. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the challenges rural FCGs experienced immediately before the death of a CR and continuing into the bereavement period. Methods A secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial was conducted. The 8-week intervention included video visits between a palliative care research nurse and FCGs caring for someone with a life-limiting illness. Data were from structured interviews during nurse visits with FCGs in the intervention arm whose CR died during the intervention period. Results Ninety (41.8%) of the 215 FCGs experienced the death of their CR. The majority of FCGs were female (58.9%), White (97.5%), spouses or partners (55.6%) and lived with the CR (66.7%). Most FCGs (84%) continued with intervention visits by the study nurse after the CR’s death. Visits resumed on average 7.2 days post-death. The majority of FCGs experienced challenges with grief/coping skills (56%) and interpersonal relationships/support systems (52%) both pre- and post-death of the CR. FCGs also experienced practical challenges with income/finance, housing, and communication with community resources both pre-and post-death. Significance of results Bereavement support should extend beyond a focus on grief to include practical challenges experienced by FCGs. Because challenges experienced in the bereavement period often begin before a CR’s death, there is benefit in continuity of FCG support provided by a known clinician from pre- to post-death. When given an option, many rural FCGs are open to bereavement support as early as a week after the death of a CR.

Background: Patients with severe and life-limiting illnesses transitioning out of the hospital often rely on family caregivers (FCGs) to manage communication with health care teams during hospitalizations and outpatient care. However, FCGs infrequently receive adequate training or support to prepare for these responsibilities. Effective communication between FCGs and health care teams is critical for preparing FCGs and reducing risks for poor outcomes. This study tested an eight-week intervention to improve FCG preparedness and communication practices during transitions out of the hospital. Methods: Conducted from 2018 to 2022, this randomized controlled trial included adult FCGs in rural areas in the United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa). FCGs caring for adults who received inpatient palliative care and were transitioning out of the hospital were eligible. The intervention group received teaching, guidance, and counseling from a palliative care nurse interventionist via video visits before and for eight weeks after discharge. The control group received monthly phone calls but no intervention. Outcomes included changes in FCG-reported preparedness for caregiving and communication with health care teams. Results: Of the 429 consented, 367 (183 intervention and 184 control participants) initiated the intervention; 164 had complete preparedness data, and 161 had complete communication data at baseline and eight weeks. In unadjusted analyses, the intervention group showed statistically significant improvements in preparedness but not communication practices. After adjusting for factors associated with care transitions, the findings persisted. Conclusion: Partnering rural FCGs with palliative care nurses via video can improve caregiver preparedness during care transitions. Improving communication practices may need more targeted strategies.

Abstract Background Rural family caregivers (FCGs) in the United States often experience high economic costs. This randomized controlled trial compared a transitional palliative care intervention (TPC) to support FCGs of seriously ill care recipients (CRs) to an attention control condition. We evaluated the TPC's effect on healthcare use and out‐of‐pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs. Methods TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR discharge from the hospital. After discharge, a research assistant called all FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect self‐reported healthcare utilization (e.g., outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out‐of‐pocket healthcare spending (e.g., deductibles and coinsurance), and health‐related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using negative binomial regressions. Results The study included 282 FCG–CR dyads across three U.S. states. Follow‐up over the 6‐month period was shortened by high CR mortality rates across both arms (29%), but was similar across arms. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56–0. 99). Total out‐of‐pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control. Across both groups, mean out‐of‐pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56–0.89). Conclusions This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce the number of nights in the hospital for seriously ill patients. Yet, overall rural FCGs and seriously ill CRs experience substantial out‐of‐pocket economic costs in the 6 months following hospitalization. Transitional care intervention design should consider impacts on patient and caregiver spending. Clinicaltrials.gov # is NCT03339271.

Objectives Compared to urban family caregivers (FCG), rural FCG experience greater burdens accessing coordinated care for their loved ones during and after hospitalization. The impact of technology-enhanced transitional palliative care (TPC) on caregiver outcomes is currently being evaluated in a randomized control trial. This study evaluates resource use and health system costs of this FCG-focused TPC intervention and potential Medicare reimbursement mechanisms. Methods Rural caregivers of hospitalized patients were randomized into an 8-week intervention consisting of video visits conducted by a registered nurse certified in palliative care, supplemented with phone calls and texts (n = 215), or attentional control. Labor costs were estimated for a registered nurse and compared to scenario analyses using a nurse practitioner or social worker wages. Medicare reimbursement scenarios included Transitional Care Management (TCM) and Chronic Care Management (CCM) CPT codes. Results In the base case, TPC cost was $395 per FCG facilitated by a registered nurse, compared to $337 and $585 if facilitated by a social worker or nurse practitioner, respectively. Mean Medicare reimbursement in the TCM-only scenario was $322 and $260 for high or moderate complexity patients, respectively. Reimbursement in the CCM only scenario was $348 and $274 for complex and non-complex patients, respectively. Reimbursement in the TCM+CCM scenario was $496 and $397, for high/complex and moderate/non-complex patients, respectively. Conclusion TPC is a feasible, low cost and sustainable strategy to enhance FCG support in rural areas. Potential reimbursement mechanisms are available to offset the costs to the health system for providing transitional palliative care to caregivers of patients recently hospitalized.