PURPOSE: A growing body of scientific research indicates that oncology teams tend to offer individuals with cancer little clinical advice regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) and that individuals with cancer instead turn to cannabis dispensaries for MC guidance. Our objective was to investigate dispensary personnels backgrounds and trainings in MC advising. METHODS: The study design was semistructured interviews across 13 states with cannabis dispensary personnel in managerial or client-facing positions. Of 38 recruited, 26 (68%) completed interview. The primary outcome was training in MC advising. Researchers targeted thematic saturation and adhered to Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. RESULTS: Of 26 participants, 54% were female, with an average age of 40 (range: 22-64) years. Half worked in client-facing roles; half worked in managerial ones. Study participants endorsed passionate commitment to their profession, often motivated by personal experience with MC therapeutics. Cannabis dispensaries often privileged sales skills over cannabis therapeutics knowledge when hiring, resulting in uneven baseline levels of cannabis therapeutics expertise among staff. Most participants reported workplace cannabis therapeutics training to be unstandardized and weak. They described dispensary personnel as resourceful in pursuing cannabis knowledge, self-financing learning in off-hours, sampling dispensary products, and exchanging knowledge. Nearly half the participants called for quality, standardized cannabis therapeutics training for dispensary personnel. CONCLUSION: The many oncology teams who defer to dispensary personnel regarding MC advising rely on a workforce who views themselves as unevenly trained. Further research should include a national survey of cannabis dispensary personnel to learn whether these findings hold true in a larger sample. If so, the oncology community must determine the best approach to clinically advising individuals with cancer about MC.

Background

Bioethicists and professional associations give specific recommendations for discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Objective

To determine whether attending hospitalist physicians' discussions meet these recommendations.

Design

Cross-sectional observational study on the medical services at two hospitals within a university system between August 2008 and March 2009.

Participants

Attending hospitalist physicians and patients who were able to communicate verbally about their medical care.

Main measures

We identified code status discussions in audio-recorded admission encounters via physician survey and review of encounter transcripts. A quantitative content analysis was performed to determine whether discussions included elements recommended by bioethicists and professional associations. Two coders independently coded all discussions; Cohen's kappa was 0.64-1 for all reported elements.

Key results

Audio-recordings of 80 patients' admission encounters with 27 physicians were obtained. Eleven physicians discussed code status in 19 encounters. Discussions were more frequent in seriously ill patients (OR 4, 95% CI 1.2-14.6), yet 66% of seriously ill patients had no discussion. The median length of the code status discussions was 1 min (range 0.2-8.2). Prognosis was discussed with code status in only one of the encounters. Discussions of patients' preferences focused on the use of life-sustaining interventions as opposed to larger life goals. Descriptions of CPR as an intervention used medical jargon, and the indication for CPR was framed in general, as opposed to patient-specific scenarios. No physician quantitatively estimated the outcome of or provided a recommendation about the use of CPR.

Conclusions

Code status was not discussed with many seriously ill patients. Discussions were brief, and did not include elements that bioethicists and professional associations recommend to promote patient autonomy. Local and national guidelines, research, and clinical practice changes are needed to clarify and systematize with whom and how CPR is discussed at hospital admission.

Pain is common and variable in its severity among hospitalized patients with cancer. Although biopsychosocial factors are well established as modulators of chronic pain, less is known about what patient-level factors are associated with worse pain outcomes among hospitalized cancer patients. This prospective cohort study included patients with active cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) with pain severity of ≥4/10 and followed pain outcomes longitudinally throughout hospital admission. Baseline demographic, clinical, and psychological factors were assessed on ED presentation, and daily average clinical pain ratings and opioid consumption during hospitalization were abstracted. Univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equation analyses examined associations of candidate biopsychosocial, demographic, and clinical predictors with average daily pain and opioid administration. Among 113 hospitalized patients, 73% reported pain as the primary reason for presenting to the ED, 43% took outpatient opioids, and 27% had chronic pain that predated their cancer. Higher pain catastrophizing ( B = 0.1, P ≤ 0.001), more recent surgery ( B = -0.2, P ≤ 0.05), outpatient opioid use ( B = 1.4, P ≤ 0.001), and history of chronic pain before cancer diagnosis ( B = 0.8, P ≤ 0.05) were independently associated with greater average daily pain while admitted to the hospital. Higher pain catastrophizing ( B = 1.6, P ≤ 0.05), higher anxiety ( B = 3.7, P ≤ 0.05), lower depression ( B = -4.9, P ≤ 0.05), metastatic disease ( B = 16.2, P ≤ 0.05), and outpatient opioid use ( B = 32.8, P ≤ 0.001) were independently associated with higher daily opioid administration. Greater psychological distress, especially pain catastrophizing, as well as pain and opioid use history, predicted greater difficulty with pain management among hospitalized cancer patients, suggesting that early assessment of patient-level characteristics may help direct consultation for more intensive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions.

Background: With support from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, we convened researchers representing palliative care, psychosocial oncology, spiritual care, oncology, and psychedelic-assisted therapies. We aimed to define priorities and envision an agenda for future research on psychedelic-assisted therapies in patients with serious illness. Over two days in January 2020, participants engaged in an iterative series of reflective exercises that elicited their attitude and perspectives on scientific opportunities for this research. Objectives: The aim of the study is to identify themes that shape priorities and an agenda for research on psychedelic-assisted therapy for those affected by serious illness. Methods: We collected data through preconference interviews, audio recordings, flip charts, and sticky notes. We applied thematic qualitative analysis to elucidate key themes. Results: We identified seven key opportunities to advance the field of psychedelic-assisted therapies in serious illness care. Four opportunities were related to the science and design of psychedelic-assisted therapies: clarifying indications; developing and refining therapeutic protocols; investigating the impact of set and setting on therapeutic outcomes; and understanding the mechanisms of action. The other three pertained to institutional and societal drivers to support optimal and responsible research: education and certification for therapists; regulations and funding; and diversity and inclusion. Additionally, participants suggested epistemological limitations of the medical model to understand the potential value and therapeutic use of psychedelics. Conclusions: Medicine and society are witnessing a resurgence of interest in the effects and applications of psychedelic-assisted therapies in a wide range of settings. This article suggests key opportunities for research in psychedelic-assisted therapies for those affected by serious illness.

Background

Identification of older adults with serious illness (life expectancy less than one year) who may benefit from serious illness conversations or other palliative care interventions in the emergency department (ED) is difficult.

Objectives

To assess the performance of the "surprise question (SQ)" asked of emergency physicians to predict 12-month mortality.

Design

We asked attending emergency physician "Would you be surprised whether this patient died in the next 12 months?" regarding patients ≥65 years old that they had cared for that shift. We prospectively obtained death records from Massachusetts Department of Health Vital Records.

Setting

An urban, university-affiliated ED.

Measurement

Twelve-month mortality.

Results

We approached 38 physicians to answer the SQ, and 86% participated. The mean age of our cohort was 76 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one serious illness. Out of 207 patients, the physicians stated that they "would not be surprised" if the patient died in the next 12 months for 102 of the patients (49%); 44 of the 207 patients (21%) died within 12 months. The SQ demonstrated sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 56%, positive predictive value of 32%, and negative predictive value of 90%. When combined with other predictors, the model sorted the patient who lived from the patient who died correctly 72% of the time (c-statistic = 0.72).

Conclusion

Use of the SQ by emergency physicians may predict 12-month mortality in older ED patients and may help emergency physicians identify older adults in need of palliative care interventions.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are an important intervention to provide care consistent with patient goals near the end of life. The emergency department (ED) could serve as an important time and location for these conversations. Objectives: To determine the feasibility of an ED-based, brief negotiated interview (BNI) to stimulate ACP conversations among seriously ill older adults. Methods: We conducted a pre/postintervention study in the ED of an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center. From November 2017 to May 2019, we prospectively enrolled adults ≥65 years of age with serious illness. Trained clinicians conducted the intervention. We measured patients' ACP engagement at baseline and follow-up (3 ± 1 weeks) and reviewed electronic medical record documentation of ACP (e.g., medical order for life-sustaining treatment [MOLST]). Results: We enrolled 51 patients (mean age = 71; SD 12), 41% were female, and 51% of patients had metastatic cancer. Median duration of the intervention was 11.8 minutes; few (6%) of the interventions were interrupted. We completed follow-up for 61% of participants. Patients' self-reported ACP engagement increased from 3.0 to 3.7 out of 5 after the intervention (p < 0.01). Electronic documentation of health care proxy forms increased (75%-94%, n = 48) as did MOLST (0%-19%, n = 48) during the six months after the ED visit. Conclusion: A novel, ED-based, BNI intervention to stimulate ACP conversations for seriously ill older adults is feasible and may improve ACP engagement and documentation.

Background

Visits to the emergency department (ED) are inflection points in patients' illness trajectories and are an underutilized setting to engage seriously ill patients in conversations about their goals of care. We developed an intervention (ED GOAL) that primes seriously ill patients to discuss their goals of care with their outpatient clinicians after leaving the ED. The aims of this study are (i) to test the impact of ED GOAL administered by trained nurses on self-reported, advance care planning (ACP) engagement after leaving the ED and (ii) to evaluate whether ED GOAL increases self-reported completion of serious illness conversation and other patient-centered outcomes.

Methods

This is a two-armed, parallel-design, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial of 120 seriously ill older adults in two academic and one community EDs in Boston, MA. Participants are English-speaking adults 50 years and older with a serious life-limiting illness with a recent ED visit. Patients with a valid MOLST (medical order for life-sustaining treatment) form or other documented goals of care within the last 3 months are excluded. We enroll the caregivers of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients are assigned to the intervention or control group using block randomization. A blinded research team member will perform outcome assessments. We will assess (i) changes in ACP engagement within 6 months and (ii) qualitative assessments of the effect of ED GOAL.

Discussion

In seriously ill older adults arriving in the ED, this randomized controlled trial will test the effects of ED GOAL on patients' self-reported ACP engagement, EMR documentation of new serious illness conversations, and improving patient-centered outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05209880.

Background

Serious illness conversations may lead to care consistent with patients' goals near the end of life. The emergency department could serve as an important time and location for these conversations.

Aim

To determine the feasibility of an emergency department-based, brief motivational interview to stimulate serious illness conversations among seriously ill older adults by trained nurses.

Design

A pre-/post-intervention study.

Settings/participants

In an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center and a community hospital from January 2021 to January 2022, we prospectively enrolled adults ⩾50 years of age with serious illness and an expected prognosis <1 year. We measured feasibility outcomes using the standardized framework for feasibility studies. In addition, we also collected the validated 4-item Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey (a 5-point Likert scale) at baseline and 4-week follow-up and reviewing the electronic medical record for documentation related to newly completed serious illness conversations.

Results

Among 116 eligible patients who were willing and able to participate, 76 enrolled (65% recruitment rate), and 68 completed the follow-up (91% retention rate). Mean patient age was 64.4 years (SD 8.4), 49% were female, and 58% had metastatic cancer. In all, 16 nurses conducted the intervention, and all participants completed the intervention with a median duration of 27 min. Self-reported Advance Care Planning Engagement increased from 2.78 pre to 3.31 post intervention (readiness to "talk to doctors about end-of-life wishes," p < 0.008). Documentation of health care proxy forms increased (62-70%) as did Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (1-11%) during the 6 months after the emergency department visit.

Conclusion

A novel, emergency department-based, nurse-led brief motivational interview to stimulate serious illness conversations is feasible and may improve advance care planning engagement and documentation in seriously ill older adults.

Objectives

To inform the shared decision-making process between clinicians and older adults and their surrogates regarding emergency intubation.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Multicenter, emergency department (ED)-based cohort.

Participants

Adults aged 65 and older intubated in the ED from 2008 to 2015 from 262 hospitals across the United States (>95% of U.S. nonprofit academic medical centers).

Measurements

Our primary outcome was age-specific in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were age-specific odds of death after adjusting for race, comorbid conditions, admission diagnosis, hospital disposition, and geographic region.

Results

We identified 41,463 ED intubation encounters and included 35,036 in the final analysis. Sixty-four percent were in non-Hispanic whites and 54% in women. Overall in-hospital mortality was 33% (95% confidence interval (CI)=34-35%). Twenty-four percent (95% CI=24-25%) of subjects were discharged to home, and 41% (95% CI=40-42%) were discharged to a location other than home. Mortality was 29% (95% CI=28-29%) for individuals aged 65 to 74, 34% (95% CI=33-35%) for those aged 75 to 79, 40% (95% CI=39-41%) for those aged 80 to 84, 43% (95% CI=41-44%) for those aged 85 to 89, and 50% (95% CI=48-51%) for those aged 90 and older.

Conclusion

After emergency intubation, 33% percent of older adults die during the index hospitalization. Only 24% of survivors are discharged to home. Simple, graphic representations of this information, in combination with an experienced clinician's overall clinical assessment, will support shared decision-making regarding unplanned intubation.

During the last 6 months of life, 75% of older adults with preexisting serious illness, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease, and cancer, visit the emergency department (ED). ED visits often mark an inflection point in these patients' illness trajectories, signaling a more rapid rate of decline. Although most patients are there seeking care for acute issues, many of them have priorities other than to simply live as long as possible; yet without discussion of preferences for treatment, they are at risk of receiving care not aligned with their goals. An ED visit may offer a unique "teachable moment" to empower patients to consider their ability to influence future medical care decisions. However, the constraints of the ED setting pose specific challenges, and little research exists to guide clinicians treating patients in this setting. We describe the current state of goals-of-care conversations in the ED, outline the challenges to conducting these conversations, and recommend a research agenda to better equip emergency physicians to guide shared decisionmaking for end-of-life care. Applying best practices for serious illness communication may help emergency physicians empower such patients to align their future medical care with their values and goals.