Richardson, Lynne D.

Importance The emergency department (ED) offers an opportunity to initiate palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Objective To assess the effect of a multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, and survival in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Design, Setting, and Participants Cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, clinical trial including patients aged 66 years or older who visited 1 of 29 EDs across the US between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, had 12 months of prior Medicare enrollment, and a Gagne comorbidity score greater than 6, representing a risk of short-term mortality greater than 30%. Nursing home patients were excluded. Intervention A multicomponent intervention (the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine intervention) included (1) evidence-based multidisciplinary education; (2) simulation-based workshops on serious illness communication; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback for ED clinical staff. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was hospital admission. The secondary outcomes included subsequent health care use and survival at 6 months. Results There were 98 922 initial ED visits during the study period (median age, 77 years [IQR, 71-84 years]; 50% were female; 13% were Black and 78% were White; and the median Gagne comorbidity score was 8 [IQR, 7-10]). The rate of hospital admission was 64.4% during the preintervention period vs 61.3% during the postintervention period (absolute difference, −3.1% [95% CI, −3.7% to −2.5%]; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.14]). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes before vs after the intervention. The rate of admission to an intensive care unit was 7.8% during the preintervention period vs 6.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.15]). The rate of at least 1 revisit to the ED was 34.2% during the preintervention period vs 32.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09]). The rate of hospice use was 17.7% during the preintervention period vs 17.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16]). The rate of home health use was 42.0% during the preintervention period vs 38.1% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of at least 1 hospital readmission was 41.0% during the preintervention period vs 36.6% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of death was 28.1% during the preintervention period vs 28.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.18]). Conclusions and Relevance This multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED did not have an effect on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, or short-term mortality in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109

Abstract The emergency department ( ED ) occupies a unique position within the healthcare system, serving as a safety net for vulnerable patients, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or medical diagnosis. Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents special challenges when used with vulnerable population groups. The differing circumstances, needs, and perspectives of vulnerable groups invoke issues of provider bias, disrespect, judgmental attitudes, and lack of cultural competence, as well as patient mistrust and the consequences of their social and economic disenfranchisement. A research agenda that includes community‐engaged approaches, mixed‐methods studies, and cost‐effectiveness analyses is proposed to address the following questions: 1) What are the best processes/formats for SDM among racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, social, or otherwise vulnerable groups who experience disadvantage in the healthcare system? 2) What organizational or systemic changes are needed to support SDM in the ED whenever appropriate? 3) What competencies are needed to enable emergency providers to consider patients’ situation/context in an unbiased way? 4) How do we teach these competencies to students and residents? 5) How do we cultivate these competencies in practicing emergency physicians, nurses, and other clinical providers who lack them? The authors also identify the importance of using accurate, group‐specific data to inform risk estimates for SDM decision aids for vulnerable populations and the need for increased ED ‐based care coordination and transitional care management capabilities to create additional care options that align with the needs and preferences of vulnerable populations.

AbstractObjectivesThe objective was to describe perceptions of practicing emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the appropriateness and medicolegal implications of using shared decision‐making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a cross‐sectional survey of EPs at a large, national professional meeting to assess perceived appropriateness of SDM for different categories of ED management (e.g., diagnostic testing, treatment, disposition) and in common clinical scenarios (e.g., low‐risk chest pain, syncope, minor head injury). A 21‐item survey instrument was iteratively developed through review by content experts, cognitive testing, and pilot testing. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted.ResultsWe approached 737 EPs; 709 (96%) completed the survey. Two‐thirds (67.8%) of respondents were male; 51% practiced in an academic setting and 44% in the community. Of the seven management decision categories presented, SDM was reported to be most frequently appropriate for deciding on invasive procedures (71.5%), computed tomography (CT) scanning (56.7%), and post‐ED disposition (56.3%). Among the specific clinical scenarios, use of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke was felt to be most frequently appropriate for SDM (83.4%), followed by lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage (73.8%) and CT head for pediatric minor head injury (69.9%). Most EPs (66.8%) felt that using and documenting SDM would decrease their medicolegal risk while a minority (14.2%) felt that it would increase their risk.ConclusionsAcceptance of SDM among EPs appears to be strong across management categories (diagnostic testing, treatment, and disposition) and in a variety of clinical scenarios. SDM is perceived by most EPs to be medicolegally protective.