Carey, Elise C.

Older adults with cognitive impairment face many healthcare challenges, chief among them participating in medical decision‐making about their own health care. Advance care planning (ACP) is the process whereby individuals communicate their wishes for future care with their clinicians and surrogate decision‐makers while they are still able to do so. ACP has been shown to improve important outcomes for individuals with cognitive impairment, but rates of ACP for these individuals are low because of individual‐, clinician‐, and system‐related factors. Addressing ACP early in the illness trajectory can maximize the chances that people can participate meaningfully. This article recommends best practices for approaching ACP for older adults with cognitive impairment. The importance of providing anticipatory guidance and eliciting values to guide future care to create a shared framework between clinicians, individuals, and surrogate decision‐makers is emphasized. It is recommended that ACP be approached as an iterative process to continue to honor and support people's wishes as cognitive impairment progresses and increasingly threatens independence and function. The article describes effective strategies for assessing decision‐making capacity, identifying surrogate decision‐makers, and using structured communication tools for ACP. It also provides guidelines for documentation and billing. Finally, special considerations for individuals with advanced dementia are described, including the use of artificial hydration and nutrition, decisions about site of care, and the role of hospice care.

32 Background: The link between patient concerns and clinical systems delivery is often suboptimal. We developed a case management system for palliative care which transforms the patient’s greatest concerns into actionable clinical pathways. Methods: The system collects patients’ single greatest and second greatest concern plus Quality of Life (QOL) data (pain, fatigue and overall QOL single-items scored 0-10 with 10 representing worst pain/fatigue, or best QOL) and produces a report to guide the physician and patient. The system presents ten “buttons” in a xylophone-like grid: Personal Relationships, Monitoring Health, Emotional Health, Money, Health Behaviors, Medication Troubles, Care Access, Work Worries, Physical Health and Care Planning. We performed a quality improvement study at Mayo Clinic sites. Results: 409 patients participated in at least one survey from 11/04/2015 to 9/22/2016 (620 total surveys). The most common Main Concern was Physical Health 265/620 (43%) followed by Monitoring Health (17%), Medication (8%), and Emotional Health, Money, and Health Behaviors (7% each), Personal Relationships (6%). Future Care Planning, Work, and Care Access/Coordination were rarely chosen ( < 5%). The most common Second greatest concern was Health Behaviors 73/409 (18%) followed by Physical Health (17%). 93/122 (67%) patients changed their greatest concern from baseline to subsequent visits. The mean QOL, fatigue and pain at baseline were 4.8, 6.0 and 4.8 respectively, indicating substantial clinically significant deficits. Post baseline mean scores improved by a maximum of 0.8, 1.1, and 0.9 points respectively, representing clinically meaningful effects. On average it took 8 minutes for patients to use the system. Conclusions: The system was quick and easy to utilize. The personal impact concerns (physical/emotional health, medications) were most often cited as the greatest concern, while care issues were de-emphasized by patients. Patients and physicians praised the system for making visits more efficient and raising issues that otherwise might not have been addressed. This system has the potential to improve patient well-being and clinical outcomes, as well as to reduce burden on clinicians and optimize case management activities.

Background Although most patients express a preference to die at home, many (over 30 percent) still die in hospital. This study's purpose was to explore the experience of hospital death from the perspective of patients’ family members. Methods Interviews were conducted with family members of patients who had died at hospitals affiliated with a large tertiary referral centre in the United States. Content analysis was used to analyze findings. Findings We interviewed 30 family members by phone. Themes were arranged by time frame: before death, time of death, and after death. Conclusion Families do not interpret clinical cues leading up to death in the same way healthcare providers do; families need clear and direct explanations from providers. Clinicians should assess patient and family understandings of prognosis and communicate clearly and directly. Family members value being with their loved one at the time of death, and they value spending time with the body after death; this should be facilitated in clinical practice.

Background: The quality of perimortem care received by patients who died at our hospitals was unknown. Objective: To describe the quality of hospital care experienced in the last week of life, as perceived by decedents’ families. Design: Telephone survey that included established measures and investigator-developed content. Setting: Large, tertiary care center known for high-quality, cost-effective care. Participants: Family members of 104 patients who died in-hospital (10% of annual deaths) over the course of 1 year. Intervention: None. Measurements: Participant perceptions of the decedent’s care, including symptom management, personal care, communication, and care coordination. Results: Decedents were mostly male (64%), white (96%), married (73%), and Christian (91%). Most survey participants were spouses of the decedent (68%); they were predominately white (98%), female (70%), and Christian (90%) and had a median age of 70 years (range, 35-91 years). Overall satisfaction was high. Pain, dyspnea, and anxiety or sadness were highly prevalent among decedents (73%, 73%, and 55%, respectively) but largely well managed. Most participants believed that decedents were treated respectfully and kindly by staff (87%) and that sufficient help was available to assist with medications and dressing changes (97%). Opportunities for improvement included management of decedents’ anxiety or sadness (29%) and personal care (25%), emotional support of the family (57%), communication regarding decedents’ illness (29%), and receiving contradictory or confusing information (33%). Conclusion: Despite high satisfaction with care overall, we identified important unmet needs. Addressing these gaps will improve the care of dying patients.

29 Background: Good communication is crucial to good patient care. Gynecologic oncology providers often face challenging communication scenarios, including giving serious news and discussing goals of care. Communication skills training (CST) has been shown to improve skill acquisition among providers of multiple specialties, but it has not been described in providers from gynecologic oncology or any surgical oncology specialty. Methods: We conducted a two-day CST workshop, based on the VitalTalk© model, with four faculty members (2 gynecologic oncologists and 2 palliative care physicians) and 10 gynecologic oncology provider participants (5 fellows and 5 advanced practice providers). Using didactics, demonstrations and practice sessions with simulated patients we focused on giving serious news and discussing goals of care. Pre and immediate post-workshop surveys evaluated acceptability of the workshop, perceived impact of preparedness to address challenging communication scenarios and anticipated impact on clinical practice. We compared pre and post-workshop prevalence of score of 4 or 5 out of 5 on a Likert scale for preparedness to handle 14 challenging communication scenarios. Results: Participants reported statistically significant increase in preparedness to handle 13 out of 14 challenging communication scenarios. Among those 13 topics, magnitude of improvement in proportion of participants rating preparedness 4 or 5 out of 5 ranged from 40-100% (all p < 0.05). All participants would recommend the course to others and all strongly agreed that this training should be required of all gynecologic oncology clinicians. Conclusions: Participants felt strongly that the workshop provided high quality education relevant to their practice. As a result of the workshop, participants reported statistically significantly increased preparedness to handle challenging communication scenarios. CST is feasible and has high perceived effectiveness for clinicians in the primarily surgical oncologic specialty of gynecologic oncology.

Patients with cancer often have complex needs that must be met within a short intervention window. The authors highlight opportunities for improved multidisciplinary care for patients with advanced cancer and their families.