Feely, Molly A.

Objectives Early in the pandemic, institutional leadership recognised the importance of providing staff with practical, clinically based communication resources. This paper describes the process of cultivating and disseminating rapid communication resources across a multisite institution to assist others who may need to rapidly respond to communication challenges in the future. Methods In April 2020, the Mayo Healthcare Incident Command System charged the Center for Palliative Medicine with developing and disseminating clinical communication resources within several weeks. The Education Chair for the Center for Palliative Medicine created a COVID-19 communication task force composed of clinician-educators with expertise in serious illness communication from all three academic Mayo Clinic sites. The task force elected to focus on providing accessible, just-in-time online content curated from existing resources and adapted to situational needs. Results The task force developed one-page resources with example language on 16 topic areas. Topics included exploring patient values, discussing time-limited trials and making recommendations. The COVID-19 communication website was launched on 28 May, 6 weeks after the institutional request. Conclusions Key takeaway lessons were the need for: (1) alignment with institutional need and priority, (2) rapid team formation with communication education experts across a variety of institutional geographic settings, (3) quick consensus on topic and content delivery to be practically helpful to clinicians, (4) collaboration with outside groups to use and adapt already available resources when possible and (5) early and iterative involvement with information specialists to help facilitate institutional dissemination.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with an overall poor prognosis, but the clinical trajectory is often unpredictable in individuals. There has been an impetus to promote iterative patient-provider discussions regarding preferences for end of life (EOL) care and advanced care planning. However, very little is known regarding provider preferences or their personal confidence addressing EOL care with their patients with HF. To address these gaps in knowledge, we surveyed clinicians at three practice sites in a large integrated health system. Methods: Physicians, nurse practitioners (NP), and physician assistants (PA) at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) and its surrounding health system were asked to participate in an electronic survey in October 2013. Clinicians surveyed included tertiary care HF specialists (Tertiary Care Cardiology), cardiologists and NP/PAs practicing in a community setting (Community Cardiology), and primary care clinicians (Primary Care). Results: A total of 95 clinicians completed the survey (52.5% response rate), including 50 physicians and 45 NP/PAs. Clinicians reported discussing prognosis and EOL wishes when their patient’s health status was worsening, but only 12% reported annual discussions as advocated by the American Heart Association. In total 52% of providers reported one or more reasons that they hesitate to discuss EOL care with their patients, including provider discomfort (11%), perception of patient (21%) or family (12%) unreadiness to have the discussion, fear of destroying hope (9%), or a lack of time (8%). Tertiary Care (63%) and Community Cardiology (58%) clinicians were more likely to attribute responsibility for having EOL discussions to the HF cardiologist, while 66% of Primary Care providers felt it was their responsibility. Tertiary and Community Cardiology clinicians were more likely to have referred patients to Palliative Medicine within the last year than Primary Care (89% vs. 21%, p<0.001). Overall, 30% of those surveyed reported low or very low confidence levels in initiating prognosis or EOL discussions, enrolling patients in hospice, or providing EOL care, with lower confidence among those with fewer years of clinical experience. The majority of clinicians expressed a high level of interest in further skills acquisition on these topics. Conclusion: There is tremendous variability in the way that clinicians view and approach advanced care discussions with their patients with HF; varying provider perception and lack of provider confidence may contribute. Despite this variability, most clinicians are interested in further development and skills acquisition. Addressing the learning needs of providers is an important next step toward enhancing the EOL care of patients with HF.

Drug interactions are common and can affect patient outcomes. Drugs that undergo emergency approval have less preapproval drug testing to identify potential interactions. Tramadol is an effective pain medication prodrug with a complex mechanism of action that requires extensive metabolism. Remdesivir is an antiviral medication given emergency approval to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infections. Remdesivir is also a nucleotide analogue prodrug that undergoes intracellular metabolic conversions to its active metabolite. We discuss the case of a hospitalized patient in the United States diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed acute pain crisis secondary to a drug–drug interaction between tramadol and remdesivir, and we propose a possible mechanism of interaction.

Background and objectives Dialysis is a preference-sensitive decision where prognosis may play an important role. Although patients desire risk prediction, nephrologists are wary of sharing this information. We reviewed the performance of prognostic indices for patients starting dialysis to facilitate bedside translation. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for eligible studies of patients starting dialysis published from inception to December 31, 2018. Selection Criteria: Articles describing validated prognostic indices predicting mortality at the start of dialysis. We excluded studies limited to prevalent dialysis patients, AKI and studies excluding mortality in the first 1–3 months. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, performed full text assessment of inclusion criteria and extracted: study design, setting, population demographics, index performance and risk of bias. Pre-planned random effects meta-analysis was performed stratified by index and predictive window to reduce heterogeneity. Results Of 12,132 articles screened and 214 reviewed in full text, 36 studies were included describing 32 prognostic indices. Predictive windows ranged from 3 months to 10 years, cohort sizes from 46 to 52,796. Meta-analysis showed discrimination area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 073) with high heterogeneity ( I 2 =99.12). Meta-analysis by index showed highest AUC for The Obi, Ivory, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)=0.74, also CCI was the most commonly used (ten studies). Other commonly used indices were Kahn-Wright index (eight studies, AUC 0.68), Hemmelgarn modification of the CCI (six studies, AUC 0.66) and REIN index (five studies, AUC 0.69). Of the indices, ten have been validated externally, 16 internally and nine were pre-existing validated indices. Limitations include heterogeneity and exclusion of large cohort studies in prevalent patients. Conclusions Several well validated indices with good discrimination are available for predicting survival at dialysis start.

Background and objectives Withdrawal from maintenance hemodialysis before death has become more common because of high disease and treatment burden. The study objective was to identify patient factors and examine the terminal course associated with hemodialysis withdrawal, and assess patterns of palliative care involvement before death among patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We designed an observational cohort study of adult patients on incident hemodialysis in a midwestern United States tertiary center, from January 2001 to November 2013, with death events through to November 2015. Logistic regression models evaluated associations between patient characteristics and withdrawal status and palliative care service utilization. Results Among 1226 patients, 536 died and 262 (49% of 536) withdrew. A random sample (10%; 52 out of 536) review of Death Notification Forms revealed 73% sensitivity for withdrawal. Risk factors for withdrawal before death included older age, white race, palliative care consultation within 6 months, hospitalization within 30 days, cerebrovascular disease, and no coronary artery disease. Most withdrawal decisions were made by patients (60%) or a family member (33%; surrogates). The majority withdrew either because of acute medical complications (51%) or failure to thrive/frailty (22%). After withdrawal, median time to death was 7 days (interquartile range, 4–11). In-hospital deaths were less common in the withdrawal group (34% versus 46% nonwithdrawal, P =0.003). A third (34%; 90 out of 262) of those that withdrew received palliative care services. Palliative care consultation in the withdrawal group was associated with longer hemodialysis duration (odds ratio, 1.19 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.3; P <0.001), hospitalization within 30 days of death (odds ratio, 5.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.62 to 12.73; P <0.001), and death in hospital (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 3.27; P =0.02). Conclusions In this single-center study, the rate of hemodialysis withdrawals were twice the frequency previously described. Acute medical complications and frailty appeared to be driving factors. However, palliative care services were used in only a minority of patients.

Background and objectives ESRD requiring dialysis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates, including increased rates of cognitive impairment, compared with the general population. About one quarter of patients receiving dialysis choose to discontinue dialysis at the end of life. Advance directives are intended to give providers and surrogates instruction on managing medical decision making, including end of life situations. The prevalence of advance directives is low among patients receiving dialysis. Little is known about the contents of advance directives among these patients with advance directives. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients receiving maintenance in–center hemodialysis at a tertiary academic medical center between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2012. We collected demographic data, the prevalence of advance directives, and a content analysis of these advance directives. We specifically examined the advance directives for instructions on management of interventions at end of life, including dialysis. Results Among 808 patients (mean age of 68.6 years old; men =61.2%), 49% had advance directives, of which only 10.6% mentioned dialysis and only 3% specifically addressed dialysis management at end of life. Patients who had advance directives were more likely to be older (74.5 versus 65.4 years old; P <0.001) and have died during the study period (64.4% versus 46.6%; P <0.001) than patients who did not have advance directives. Notably, for patients receiving dialysis who had advance directives, more of the advance directives addressed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (44.2%), mechanical ventilation (37.1%), artificial nutrition and hydration (34.3%), and pain management (43.4%) than dialysis (10.6%). Conclusions Although one-half of the patients receiving dialysis in our study had advance directives, end of life management of dialysis was rarely addressed. Future research should focus on improving discernment and documentation of end of life values, goals, and preferences, such as dialysis–specific advance directives, among these patients.