Fewer Side Effects From Proton Therapy in NSCLC

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Fewer Side Effects From Proton Therapy in NSCLC

LONDON – Proton beam therapy for non–small cell lung cancer is associated with fewer radiation-induced side effects than are conventional radiotherapy methods when combined with chemotherapy, according to preliminary data from two retrospective studies conducted at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Significantly less esophagitis, pneumonitis, and bone marrow toxicity were observed with proton beam therapy (PBT) than with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), Dr. Ritsuko Komaki reported May 10, at the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) Anniversary Conference.

Photo credit: M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
The Proton Therapy Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston is one of the few particle-beam radiation facilities at U.S. hospitals. It houses the technology for generating the beam, three patient-care areas for delivering the beam to the patient, clinical areas, and diagnostic areas.    

Proton beam therapy also significantly reduced the incidence of esophagitis when compared with IMRT and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). A mean esophageal dose of 40 Gy or higher was identified as the cut-off point for high-grade esophagitis occurring with any method.

"Radiation dose escalation improves local control but increases toxicity, especially when combined with concurrent chemotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] or even small cell lung cancer," said Dr. Komaki, a professor of radiation oncology at M.D. Anderson, which opened its 94,000-square-foot Proton Therapy Center in 2006. As such, "radiation chemotherapy is a double-edged sword," she observed. "It will kill cancer cells, but it also kills normal tissues, and more targeted treatment is needed."

"One of the most important benefits of PBT is that there is no exit dose," Dr. Komaki added in an interview with Elsevier Global Medical News. "The protons stop after penetrating the tumor, and there is no dose of radiation beyond it."

This has the potential to spare surrounding cells and organs from damage, she observed. Normal tissues that might be affected by radiation therapy for NSCLC include the lungs, esophagus, heart, and bone marrow, which cannot always be avoided by the use of 3D-CRT or even IMRT.

An expensive new technology that delivers highly targeted radiation with electrically charged particles, proton beam therapy is promising but unproven, according to a 2009 review commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors found few comparative studies to establish effectiveness or safety for the technology, which is housed in a small but growing number of proton beam centers that can cost $100 million to $225 million to build (Ann. Intern. Med. 2009;151:556-65).

Dr. Komaki and her associates are recruiting patients into the first, prospective randomized trial to directly compare proton beam therapy with IMRT in unresectable stage II /III NSCLC. The phase II trial is supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute, and involves treatment with 74 Gy proton beam therapy or IMRT with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel. To date, 107 of the planned 168 patients have been enrolled in the study at the Texas institution and at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, the other participating center, she said.

A recent report from the M.D. Anderson showed that higher doses of proton radiation could be delivered to lung tumors with a lower risk of esophagitis and pneumonitis than either IMRT or 3D-CRT (Cancer 2011;doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25848).

The new data presented by Dr. Komaki showed significantly reduced rates of grade 2 or higher esophagitis (P less than .0001), pneumonitis (P less than .002), hematologic toxicities (P less than .0001 for neutrophil toxicity and P less than .001 for hemoglobin and white blood cell toxicities), and fatigue (P less than.0001) in 60 patients treated with proton beam therapy compared with 75 patients treated with IMRT (Radiother. Oncol. 2011;99:S89-90, abstract 233).

Other research from the M.D. Anderson team focused on esophagitis, and examined dosimetric and clinical factors that could lead to this side effect following proton beam therapy, IMRT, or 3D-CRT for definitive NSCLC treatment (Radiother. Oncol. 2011;99[Suppl.1]:S210, abstract 518).

Dr. Daniel Gomez, a radiation oncologist at M.D. Anderson, presented data on 678 patients treated at the institution between 1999 and 2008. Dr. Gomez explained that the type of radiation therapy received had altered over the years, with 463 patients treated with 3D-CRT between 1999 and 2005, 122 with IMRT between 2005 and 2007, and 94 patients treated with proton beam therapy between 2006 and 2008.

"Esophagitis is a common toxicity in the treatment of NSCLC with definitive radiation," Dr. Gomez observed. Although studies have looked at what factors might predict this life-limiting side effect, conflicting results have been obtained.

Data show, for example, that the presence of acute toxicity is a predictor of late toxicity (Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005,61:335-47), but a variety of dosimetric parameters have been noted and there does not appear to be a single threshold at which a toxic effect is or is not likely to be observed (Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010;76:S86-93).

 

 

Data presented by Dr. Gomez, however, suggest that a mean delivered esophageal dose of above 40 Gy may be predictive of high-grade inflammation regardless of whether proton beams, IMRT or 3D-CRT is used. This research might eventually help develop dosing guides for clinicians to use in routine practice, he suggested.

"Patients receiving IMRT had a higher rate of esophagitis in all grades, including grade 3," Dr. Gomez said. In contrast, "patients receiving proton therapy had lower rates of esophagitis at all grades." The incidence of grade 3 or higher esophagitis was 14% (n = 65) for 3D-CRT, 27% (n = 33) for IMRT, and 6% (n = 6) for proton beam therapy.

Dr. Gomez also reported that grade 3 or higher esophagitis was more likely in patients who received concurrent chemotherapy than in those who did not (18.4% vs. 7.4%, P less than .001). The mean esophageal dose of radiation delivered to patients given concurrent chemotherapy also was, significantly higher (32.2 Gy vs. 15.8 Gy, P less than .001), however.

The M.D. Anderson investigators said they have just finished (May 12) recruiting patients into a phase III trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 0617) that will compare conventional (60 Gy in 6 weeks) vs. high dose (74 Gy in 7.5 weeks) radiation therapy in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, with or without the addition of cetuximab (Erbitux) in 500 patients with NSCLC.

Although the trial is not directly comparing the type of radiation treatment used, it should still be possible to retrospectively analyze the results to determine the individual effects of the radiation modalities used at each participating center, Dr. Komaki noted.

"When we started this trial, it was not acquiring patients because some of the radiation and medical oncologists said that it was obvious that patients given 60 Gy would do worse compared to 74 Gy," she added in the interview. "When we included cetuximab based on the results of the RTOG 0324 trial, however, recruitment started to rocket." The RTOG 0324 trial showed the feasibility of combining cetuximab with chemoradiation in NSCLC (J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 May 9 [Epub ahead of print, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.7875]).

Discussing the downsides of proton beam therapy vs. IMRT, Dr. Komaki conceded that the newer method involved a lot more sophisticated planning and was more expensive. There is also concern that the sharp drop-off of radiation received with proton beam therapy might mean that important areas of the tumor are missed – although this may explain the lower rate of side effects seen with PBT to date. "There is no give," Dr. Komaki said.

As relatively few proton beam facilities are in operation, large cooperative trials are difficult to perform. The prospective phase II trial comparing proton beam therapy and IMRT now being conducted at M.D. Anderson and the Massachusetts General Hospital will be the proof that such trials are possible, and provide valuable information on the comparative safety and efficacy of the two procedures.

Dr. Komaki and Dr. Gomez said they had no financial conflicts of interest.



Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
oncology
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

LONDON – Proton beam therapy for non–small cell lung cancer is associated with fewer radiation-induced side effects than are conventional radiotherapy methods when combined with chemotherapy, according to preliminary data from two retrospective studies conducted at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Significantly less esophagitis, pneumonitis, and bone marrow toxicity were observed with proton beam therapy (PBT) than with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), Dr. Ritsuko Komaki reported May 10, at the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) Anniversary Conference.

Photo credit: M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
The Proton Therapy Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston is one of the few particle-beam radiation facilities at U.S. hospitals. It houses the technology for generating the beam, three patient-care areas for delivering the beam to the patient, clinical areas, and diagnostic areas.    

Proton beam therapy also significantly reduced the incidence of esophagitis when compared with IMRT and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). A mean esophageal dose of 40 Gy or higher was identified as the cut-off point for high-grade esophagitis occurring with any method.

"Radiation dose escalation improves local control but increases toxicity, especially when combined with concurrent chemotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] or even small cell lung cancer," said Dr. Komaki, a professor of radiation oncology at M.D. Anderson, which opened its 94,000-square-foot Proton Therapy Center in 2006. As such, "radiation chemotherapy is a double-edged sword," she observed. "It will kill cancer cells, but it also kills normal tissues, and more targeted treatment is needed."

"One of the most important benefits of PBT is that there is no exit dose," Dr. Komaki added in an interview with Elsevier Global Medical News. "The protons stop after penetrating the tumor, and there is no dose of radiation beyond it."

This has the potential to spare surrounding cells and organs from damage, she observed. Normal tissues that might be affected by radiation therapy for NSCLC include the lungs, esophagus, heart, and bone marrow, which cannot always be avoided by the use of 3D-CRT or even IMRT.

An expensive new technology that delivers highly targeted radiation with electrically charged particles, proton beam therapy is promising but unproven, according to a 2009 review commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors found few comparative studies to establish effectiveness or safety for the technology, which is housed in a small but growing number of proton beam centers that can cost $100 million to $225 million to build (Ann. Intern. Med. 2009;151:556-65).

Dr. Komaki and her associates are recruiting patients into the first, prospective randomized trial to directly compare proton beam therapy with IMRT in unresectable stage II /III NSCLC. The phase II trial is supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute, and involves treatment with 74 Gy proton beam therapy or IMRT with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel. To date, 107 of the planned 168 patients have been enrolled in the study at the Texas institution and at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, the other participating center, she said.

A recent report from the M.D. Anderson showed that higher doses of proton radiation could be delivered to lung tumors with a lower risk of esophagitis and pneumonitis than either IMRT or 3D-CRT (Cancer 2011;doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25848).

The new data presented by Dr. Komaki showed significantly reduced rates of grade 2 or higher esophagitis (P less than .0001), pneumonitis (P less than .002), hematologic toxicities (P less than .0001 for neutrophil toxicity and P less than .001 for hemoglobin and white blood cell toxicities), and fatigue (P less than.0001) in 60 patients treated with proton beam therapy compared with 75 patients treated with IMRT (Radiother. Oncol. 2011;99:S89-90, abstract 233).

Other research from the M.D. Anderson team focused on esophagitis, and examined dosimetric and clinical factors that could lead to this side effect following proton beam therapy, IMRT, or 3D-CRT for definitive NSCLC treatment (Radiother. Oncol. 2011;99[Suppl.1]:S210, abstract 518).

Dr. Daniel Gomez, a radiation oncologist at M.D. Anderson, presented data on 678 patients treated at the institution between 1999 and 2008. Dr. Gomez explained that the type of radiation therapy received had altered over the years, with 463 patients treated with 3D-CRT between 1999 and 2005, 122 with IMRT between 2005 and 2007, and 94 patients treated with proton beam therapy between 2006 and 2008.

"Esophagitis is a common toxicity in the treatment of NSCLC with definitive radiation," Dr. Gomez observed. Although studies have looked at what factors might predict this life-limiting side effect, conflicting results have been obtained.

Data show, for example, that the presence of acute toxicity is a predictor of late toxicity (Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005,61:335-47), but a variety of dosimetric parameters have been noted and there does not appear to be a single threshold at which a toxic effect is or is not likely to be observed (Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010;76:S86-93).

 

 

Data presented by Dr. Gomez, however, suggest that a mean delivered esophageal dose of above 40 Gy may be predictive of high-grade inflammation regardless of whether proton beams, IMRT or 3D-CRT is used. This research might eventually help develop dosing guides for clinicians to use in routine practice, he suggested.

"Patients receiving IMRT had a higher rate of esophagitis in all grades, including grade 3," Dr. Gomez said. In contrast, "patients receiving proton therapy had lower rates of esophagitis at all grades." The incidence of grade 3 or higher esophagitis was 14% (n = 65) for 3D-CRT, 27% (n = 33) for IMRT, and 6% (n = 6) for proton beam therapy.

Dr. Gomez also reported that grade 3 or higher esophagitis was more likely in patients who received concurrent chemotherapy than in those who did not (18.4% vs. 7.4%, P less than .001). The mean esophageal dose of radiation delivered to patients given concurrent chemotherapy also was, significantly higher (32.2 Gy vs. 15.8 Gy, P less than .001), however.

The M.D. Anderson investigators said they have just finished (May 12) recruiting patients into a phase III trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 0617) that will compare conventional (60 Gy in 6 weeks) vs. high dose (74 Gy in 7.5 weeks) radiation therapy in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, with or without the addition of cetuximab (Erbitux) in 500 patients with NSCLC.

Although the trial is not directly comparing the type of radiation treatment used, it should still be possible to retrospectively analyze the results to determine the individual effects of the radiation modalities used at each participating center, Dr. Komaki noted.

"When we started this trial, it was not acquiring patients because some of the radiation and medical oncologists said that it was obvious that patients given 60 Gy would do worse compared to 74 Gy," she added in the interview. "When we included cetuximab based on the results of the RTOG 0324 trial, however, recruitment started to rocket." The RTOG 0324 trial showed the feasibility of combining cetuximab with chemoradiation in NSCLC (J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 May 9 [Epub ahead of print, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.7875]).

Discussing the downsides of proton beam therapy vs. IMRT, Dr. Komaki conceded that the newer method involved a lot more sophisticated planning and was more expensive. There is also concern that the sharp drop-off of radiation received with proton beam therapy might mean that important areas of the tumor are missed – although this may explain the lower rate of side effects seen with PBT to date. "There is no give," Dr. Komaki said.

As relatively few proton beam facilities are in operation, large cooperative trials are difficult to perform. The prospective phase II trial comparing proton beam therapy and IMRT now being conducted at M.D. Anderson and the Massachusetts General Hospital will be the proof that such trials are possible, and provide valuable information on the comparative safety and efficacy of the two procedures.

Dr. Komaki and Dr. Gomez said they had no financial conflicts of interest.



LONDON – Proton beam therapy for non–small cell lung cancer is associated with fewer radiation-induced side effects than are conventional radiotherapy methods when combined with chemotherapy, according to preliminary data from two retrospective studies conducted at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Significantly less esophagitis, pneumonitis, and bone marrow toxicity were observed with proton beam therapy (PBT) than with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), Dr. Ritsuko Komaki reported May 10, at the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) Anniversary Conference.

Photo credit: M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
The Proton Therapy Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston is one of the few particle-beam radiation facilities at U.S. hospitals. It houses the technology for generating the beam, three patient-care areas for delivering the beam to the patient, clinical areas, and diagnostic areas.    

Proton beam therapy also significantly reduced the incidence of esophagitis when compared with IMRT and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). A mean esophageal dose of 40 Gy or higher was identified as the cut-off point for high-grade esophagitis occurring with any method.

"Radiation dose escalation improves local control but increases toxicity, especially when combined with concurrent chemotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] or even small cell lung cancer," said Dr. Komaki, a professor of radiation oncology at M.D. Anderson, which opened its 94,000-square-foot Proton Therapy Center in 2006. As such, "radiation chemotherapy is a double-edged sword," she observed. "It will kill cancer cells, but it also kills normal tissues, and more targeted treatment is needed."

"One of the most important benefits of PBT is that there is no exit dose," Dr. Komaki added in an interview with Elsevier Global Medical News. "The protons stop after penetrating the tumor, and there is no dose of radiation beyond it."

This has the potential to spare surrounding cells and organs from damage, she observed. Normal tissues that might be affected by radiation therapy for NSCLC include the lungs, esophagus, heart, and bone marrow, which cannot always be avoided by the use of 3D-CRT or even IMRT.

An expensive new technology that delivers highly targeted radiation with electrically charged particles, proton beam therapy is promising but unproven, according to a 2009 review commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors found few comparative studies to establish effectiveness or safety for the technology, which is housed in a small but growing number of proton beam centers that can cost $100 million to $225 million to build (Ann. Intern. Med. 2009;151:556-65).

Dr. Komaki and her associates are recruiting patients into the first, prospective randomized trial to directly compare proton beam therapy with IMRT in unresectable stage II /III NSCLC. The phase II trial is supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute, and involves treatment with 74 Gy proton beam therapy or IMRT with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel. To date, 107 of the planned 168 patients have been enrolled in the study at the Texas institution and at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, the other participating center, she said.

A recent report from the M.D. Anderson showed that higher doses of proton radiation could be delivered to lung tumors with a lower risk of esophagitis and pneumonitis than either IMRT or 3D-CRT (Cancer 2011;doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25848).

The new data presented by Dr. Komaki showed significantly reduced rates of grade 2 or higher esophagitis (P less than .0001), pneumonitis (P less than .002), hematologic toxicities (P less than .0001 for neutrophil toxicity and P less than .001 for hemoglobin and white blood cell toxicities), and fatigue (P less than.0001) in 60 patients treated with proton beam therapy compared with 75 patients treated with IMRT (Radiother. Oncol. 2011;99:S89-90, abstract 233).

Other research from the M.D. Anderson team focused on esophagitis, and examined dosimetric and clinical factors that could lead to this side effect following proton beam therapy, IMRT, or 3D-CRT for definitive NSCLC treatment (Radiother. Oncol. 2011;99[Suppl.1]:S210, abstract 518).

Dr. Daniel Gomez, a radiation oncologist at M.D. Anderson, presented data on 678 patients treated at the institution between 1999 and 2008. Dr. Gomez explained that the type of radiation therapy received had altered over the years, with 463 patients treated with 3D-CRT between 1999 and 2005, 122 with IMRT between 2005 and 2007, and 94 patients treated with proton beam therapy between 2006 and 2008.

"Esophagitis is a common toxicity in the treatment of NSCLC with definitive radiation," Dr. Gomez observed. Although studies have looked at what factors might predict this life-limiting side effect, conflicting results have been obtained.

Data show, for example, that the presence of acute toxicity is a predictor of late toxicity (Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005,61:335-47), but a variety of dosimetric parameters have been noted and there does not appear to be a single threshold at which a toxic effect is or is not likely to be observed (Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010;76:S86-93).

 

 

Data presented by Dr. Gomez, however, suggest that a mean delivered esophageal dose of above 40 Gy may be predictive of high-grade inflammation regardless of whether proton beams, IMRT or 3D-CRT is used. This research might eventually help develop dosing guides for clinicians to use in routine practice, he suggested.

"Patients receiving IMRT had a higher rate of esophagitis in all grades, including grade 3," Dr. Gomez said. In contrast, "patients receiving proton therapy had lower rates of esophagitis at all grades." The incidence of grade 3 or higher esophagitis was 14% (n = 65) for 3D-CRT, 27% (n = 33) for IMRT, and 6% (n = 6) for proton beam therapy.

Dr. Gomez also reported that grade 3 or higher esophagitis was more likely in patients who received concurrent chemotherapy than in those who did not (18.4% vs. 7.4%, P less than .001). The mean esophageal dose of radiation delivered to patients given concurrent chemotherapy also was, significantly higher (32.2 Gy vs. 15.8 Gy, P less than .001), however.

The M.D. Anderson investigators said they have just finished (May 12) recruiting patients into a phase III trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 0617) that will compare conventional (60 Gy in 6 weeks) vs. high dose (74 Gy in 7.5 weeks) radiation therapy in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, with or without the addition of cetuximab (Erbitux) in 500 patients with NSCLC.

Although the trial is not directly comparing the type of radiation treatment used, it should still be possible to retrospectively analyze the results to determine the individual effects of the radiation modalities used at each participating center, Dr. Komaki noted.

"When we started this trial, it was not acquiring patients because some of the radiation and medical oncologists said that it was obvious that patients given 60 Gy would do worse compared to 74 Gy," she added in the interview. "When we included cetuximab based on the results of the RTOG 0324 trial, however, recruitment started to rocket." The RTOG 0324 trial showed the feasibility of combining cetuximab with chemoradiation in NSCLC (J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 May 9 [Epub ahead of print, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.7875]).

Discussing the downsides of proton beam therapy vs. IMRT, Dr. Komaki conceded that the newer method involved a lot more sophisticated planning and was more expensive. There is also concern that the sharp drop-off of radiation received with proton beam therapy might mean that important areas of the tumor are missed – although this may explain the lower rate of side effects seen with PBT to date. "There is no give," Dr. Komaki said.

As relatively few proton beam facilities are in operation, large cooperative trials are difficult to perform. The prospective phase II trial comparing proton beam therapy and IMRT now being conducted at M.D. Anderson and the Massachusetts General Hospital will be the proof that such trials are possible, and provide valuable information on the comparative safety and efficacy of the two procedures.

Dr. Komaki and Dr. Gomez said they had no financial conflicts of interest.



Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Fewer Side Effects From Proton Therapy in NSCLC
Display Headline
Fewer Side Effects From Proton Therapy in NSCLC
Legacy Keywords
oncology
Legacy Keywords
oncology
Article Source

FROM THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR THERAPEUTIC RADIATION ONCOLOGY ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Major Finding: PBT resulted in significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher esophagitis (P less than .0001), pneumonitis (P less than .002), hematologic toxicities (P less than .0001 for neutrophil toxicity and P less than .001 for hemoglobin and white blood cell toxicities), and fatigue (P less than .0001) than IMRT.

Data Source: Two retrospective studies: one involving 135 patients with NSCLC treated with concurrent chemoradiation (PBT, IMRT) and one involving 678 patients with NSCLC treated with concurrent chemoradiation between 1999 and 2008.

Disclosures: Dr. Komaki and Dr. Gomez said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

EDs Look to Hospitalists to Solve Crowding

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
EDs Look to Hospitalists to Solve Crowding

GRAPEVINE, Texas–ED crowding may not seem like the hospitalist's purview, but an HM leader speaking at HM11 says think again.

Boarding, the term for admitted patients who are held in the ED, makes the issue particularly relevant to HM, says Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and director of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center's HM division.

"Almost everyone is equating boarding of admitted patients now with ED crowding," says Dr. Howell, an SHM board member. "And who do you think they're going to come to for help with all the boarded patients? They're going to come to you."

Dr. Howell says that although HM leaders might think of bed management mostly as a discharge issue, hospitalists would be well served to work with their respective ED colleagues to manage emergency throughput better. He suggests two initial approaches:

1. Round on boarders. In some practices, including at Johns Hopkins Bayview, a hospitalist can be dedicated to the practice of seeing admitted patients held in the ED. If a dedicated staffer is unavailable, group members can rotate the service.

2. Add capacity. Virtual capacity can be added by initiatives that lower LOS and therefore effectively create more bed space. Capacity can be added physically via something as ambitious as the creation of a unit, or techniques as simple as placing admitted patients in hallways.

"Targeting the ED alone doesn’t work," Dr. Howell says. "Patients boarding in the ED needs to be solved. … People are looking for good hospitalists to solve the problem."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

GRAPEVINE, Texas–ED crowding may not seem like the hospitalist's purview, but an HM leader speaking at HM11 says think again.

Boarding, the term for admitted patients who are held in the ED, makes the issue particularly relevant to HM, says Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and director of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center's HM division.

"Almost everyone is equating boarding of admitted patients now with ED crowding," says Dr. Howell, an SHM board member. "And who do you think they're going to come to for help with all the boarded patients? They're going to come to you."

Dr. Howell says that although HM leaders might think of bed management mostly as a discharge issue, hospitalists would be well served to work with their respective ED colleagues to manage emergency throughput better. He suggests two initial approaches:

1. Round on boarders. In some practices, including at Johns Hopkins Bayview, a hospitalist can be dedicated to the practice of seeing admitted patients held in the ED. If a dedicated staffer is unavailable, group members can rotate the service.

2. Add capacity. Virtual capacity can be added by initiatives that lower LOS and therefore effectively create more bed space. Capacity can be added physically via something as ambitious as the creation of a unit, or techniques as simple as placing admitted patients in hallways.

"Targeting the ED alone doesn’t work," Dr. Howell says. "Patients boarding in the ED needs to be solved. … People are looking for good hospitalists to solve the problem."

GRAPEVINE, Texas–ED crowding may not seem like the hospitalist's purview, but an HM leader speaking at HM11 says think again.

Boarding, the term for admitted patients who are held in the ED, makes the issue particularly relevant to HM, says Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and director of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center's HM division.

"Almost everyone is equating boarding of admitted patients now with ED crowding," says Dr. Howell, an SHM board member. "And who do you think they're going to come to for help with all the boarded patients? They're going to come to you."

Dr. Howell says that although HM leaders might think of bed management mostly as a discharge issue, hospitalists would be well served to work with their respective ED colleagues to manage emergency throughput better. He suggests two initial approaches:

1. Round on boarders. In some practices, including at Johns Hopkins Bayview, a hospitalist can be dedicated to the practice of seeing admitted patients held in the ED. If a dedicated staffer is unavailable, group members can rotate the service.

2. Add capacity. Virtual capacity can be added by initiatives that lower LOS and therefore effectively create more bed space. Capacity can be added physically via something as ambitious as the creation of a unit, or techniques as simple as placing admitted patients in hallways.

"Targeting the ED alone doesn’t work," Dr. Howell says. "Patients boarding in the ED needs to be solved. … People are looking for good hospitalists to solve the problem."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
EDs Look to Hospitalists to Solve Crowding
Display Headline
EDs Look to Hospitalists to Solve Crowding
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Infectious-Disease Cases Require Patience

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Infectious-Disease Cases Require Patience

Take your time, gather pertinent data, and know what you are dealing with before making kneejerk decisions, a national infectious-disease expert told hundreds of hospitalists this morning at HM11.

Shanta Zimmer, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the internal-medicine residency program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School walked hospitalists through a half dozen common and uncommon patients, cases ranging from Staphylococcus aureus to Candida albicans to zygomycosis.

Her main message to hospitalists:

  • Not all fevers are infectious.
  • Get or repeat blood cultures before starting antibiotics, because although administering antibiotics might be the right thing to do, the effects of the drugs makes it difficult to determine the origin. “Then you have to play the guessing game whether or not to treat,” she said. “There also is a lot of morbidity associated with long-term antibiotic therapy.”
  • Remove lines when you are able to do so.
  • Hold off on antibiotics when a patient is stable and infectious ediology is unknown.
  • Take your time, as “very few things in medicine are an emergency; we often have time to think and make a decision,” she said.
  • Narrow antibiotic coverage, when possible.

Dr. Zimmer also warned hospitalists to respect S. aureus, which she says remains a large percentage of her caseload. “It never ceases to amaze me how virulent and aggressive it can be,” she said. “It frightens me."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

Take your time, gather pertinent data, and know what you are dealing with before making kneejerk decisions, a national infectious-disease expert told hundreds of hospitalists this morning at HM11.

Shanta Zimmer, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the internal-medicine residency program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School walked hospitalists through a half dozen common and uncommon patients, cases ranging from Staphylococcus aureus to Candida albicans to zygomycosis.

Her main message to hospitalists:

  • Not all fevers are infectious.
  • Get or repeat blood cultures before starting antibiotics, because although administering antibiotics might be the right thing to do, the effects of the drugs makes it difficult to determine the origin. “Then you have to play the guessing game whether or not to treat,” she said. “There also is a lot of morbidity associated with long-term antibiotic therapy.”
  • Remove lines when you are able to do so.
  • Hold off on antibiotics when a patient is stable and infectious ediology is unknown.
  • Take your time, as “very few things in medicine are an emergency; we often have time to think and make a decision,” she said.
  • Narrow antibiotic coverage, when possible.

Dr. Zimmer also warned hospitalists to respect S. aureus, which she says remains a large percentage of her caseload. “It never ceases to amaze me how virulent and aggressive it can be,” she said. “It frightens me."

Take your time, gather pertinent data, and know what you are dealing with before making kneejerk decisions, a national infectious-disease expert told hundreds of hospitalists this morning at HM11.

Shanta Zimmer, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the internal-medicine residency program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School walked hospitalists through a half dozen common and uncommon patients, cases ranging from Staphylococcus aureus to Candida albicans to zygomycosis.

Her main message to hospitalists:

  • Not all fevers are infectious.
  • Get or repeat blood cultures before starting antibiotics, because although administering antibiotics might be the right thing to do, the effects of the drugs makes it difficult to determine the origin. “Then you have to play the guessing game whether or not to treat,” she said. “There also is a lot of morbidity associated with long-term antibiotic therapy.”
  • Remove lines when you are able to do so.
  • Hold off on antibiotics when a patient is stable and infectious ediology is unknown.
  • Take your time, as “very few things in medicine are an emergency; we often have time to think and make a decision,” she said.
  • Narrow antibiotic coverage, when possible.

Dr. Zimmer also warned hospitalists to respect S. aureus, which she says remains a large percentage of her caseload. “It never ceases to amaze me how virulent and aggressive it can be,” she said. “It frightens me."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Infectious-Disease Cases Require Patience
Display Headline
Infectious-Disease Cases Require Patience
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

New President Expects 'Laser Focus'

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
New President Expects 'Laser Focus'

GRAPEVINE, Texas – SHM's new president has kept his first promise to the constituency: He ended his morning address to HM11 attendees here on time.

Now comes the more difficult part, as Joseph Li, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the hospital medicine division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, leads the 10,000-member society through the next year. Dr. Li replaces outgoing president Jeff Wiese, MD, FACP, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans.

"We're really only at the very beginning," Dr. Li says. "All of hospital medicine only started 10, 15 years ago. For some folks, they believe that's a long time. But this really is the very beginning of this movement."

Dr. Li wants the society to apply a "laser focus" on patient care, both inside the hospital and outside at such places as discharge clinics. He wants more hospitalists to take advantage of training opportunities that the society sponsors for clinical care, transitions of care and leadership skills. Lastly, Dr. Li wants to make sure that as the first generation of hospitalists approaches the end of their careers, SHM is recruiting and retaining the next cohort.

"You have to have the right people on the bus. We need to continue to get the best people out of residency classes to come into hospital medicine," he adds. "We need to reach forward into medical schools and help them understand why they should choose hospital medicine as opposed to any other field in medicine. Take the highest-quality people and then we need to train them."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

GRAPEVINE, Texas – SHM's new president has kept his first promise to the constituency: He ended his morning address to HM11 attendees here on time.

Now comes the more difficult part, as Joseph Li, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the hospital medicine division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, leads the 10,000-member society through the next year. Dr. Li replaces outgoing president Jeff Wiese, MD, FACP, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans.

"We're really only at the very beginning," Dr. Li says. "All of hospital medicine only started 10, 15 years ago. For some folks, they believe that's a long time. But this really is the very beginning of this movement."

Dr. Li wants the society to apply a "laser focus" on patient care, both inside the hospital and outside at such places as discharge clinics. He wants more hospitalists to take advantage of training opportunities that the society sponsors for clinical care, transitions of care and leadership skills. Lastly, Dr. Li wants to make sure that as the first generation of hospitalists approaches the end of their careers, SHM is recruiting and retaining the next cohort.

"You have to have the right people on the bus. We need to continue to get the best people out of residency classes to come into hospital medicine," he adds. "We need to reach forward into medical schools and help them understand why they should choose hospital medicine as opposed to any other field in medicine. Take the highest-quality people and then we need to train them."

GRAPEVINE, Texas – SHM's new president has kept his first promise to the constituency: He ended his morning address to HM11 attendees here on time.

Now comes the more difficult part, as Joseph Li, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the hospital medicine division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, leads the 10,000-member society through the next year. Dr. Li replaces outgoing president Jeff Wiese, MD, FACP, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans.

"We're really only at the very beginning," Dr. Li says. "All of hospital medicine only started 10, 15 years ago. For some folks, they believe that's a long time. But this really is the very beginning of this movement."

Dr. Li wants the society to apply a "laser focus" on patient care, both inside the hospital and outside at such places as discharge clinics. He wants more hospitalists to take advantage of training opportunities that the society sponsors for clinical care, transitions of care and leadership skills. Lastly, Dr. Li wants to make sure that as the first generation of hospitalists approaches the end of their careers, SHM is recruiting and retaining the next cohort.

"You have to have the right people on the bus. We need to continue to get the best people out of residency classes to come into hospital medicine," he adds. "We need to reach forward into medical schools and help them understand why they should choose hospital medicine as opposed to any other field in medicine. Take the highest-quality people and then we need to train them."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
New President Expects 'Laser Focus'
Display Headline
New President Expects 'Laser Focus'
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

SHM Doles Out Annual Awards

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
SHM Doles Out Annual Awards

Dozens of hospitalists were honored this morning by SHM for outstanding clinical practice, research, teaching, and teamwork.

Luke Hansen, MD, and Keiki Hinami, MD, of Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, are this year’s winners of the Young Researcher Award. Each was given a two-year, $50,000 grant to continue HM-related investigations

“It’s wonderful to be recognized by your peers and your mentors, as producing good work,” says Dr. Hansen, whose research focuses on geriatric patient rehospitalizations. "It also reflects something that I think is important in HM, as a growing specialty, that the society is committing resources to my development and other investigators.”

Dr. Hinami's research looks at perioperative care for medically complex surgical patients during and after hospitalization.

The 2011 SHM Awards of Excellence went to:

Award for Clinical Excellence: John Delgelau, MD, MS-HSRPPA, chief of hospital medicine for HealthPartners at North Memorial Medical Center and medical director of care transitions

Award for Excellence in Research: Raj Srivastava, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at University of Utah

Award for Excellence in Teaching: Dan Hunt, MD, associate physician at MGH and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School

Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine: Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, director of hospital medicine and associate professor at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Award for Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement:Cleveland Clinic’s Blood Management team, led by Ajay Kumar, MD, FACP, SFHM

Award for Excellence in Hospital Medicine: Ryan Genzink, MS, PA-C, Hospitalists of West Michigan

Also announced were winners in the 2011 Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes competition:

Best Research Poster:Association between Hospital Noise Levels and Inpatient Sleep Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Far From a Quiet Night; Jordan Yoder, Arshiya Fazal, Paul Staisiusas, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, Kristen Knutson, PhD, Eve Van Cauter, PhD, Vineet Arora, MD, MA, University of Chicago

Best Innovations Poster: Purposeful Visits for Hospitalized Elderly Patients: Program Impact on Orientation, Agitation, and Mood; Ethan Cumbler, MD, William Mramor, Jan Hagman, RN, Deborah Ford, RN, University of Colorado Denver

Best Adult Vignette Poster:Vitamin D Toxicity: Rare or Underdetected? Dahlia Rizk, DO, Carla Romero, MD, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York City

Best Pediatric Vignette Poster: Occam’s Razor Revisited; Kimberly Tartaglia, MD, Bret Betz, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

Dozens of hospitalists were honored this morning by SHM for outstanding clinical practice, research, teaching, and teamwork.

Luke Hansen, MD, and Keiki Hinami, MD, of Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, are this year’s winners of the Young Researcher Award. Each was given a two-year, $50,000 grant to continue HM-related investigations

“It’s wonderful to be recognized by your peers and your mentors, as producing good work,” says Dr. Hansen, whose research focuses on geriatric patient rehospitalizations. "It also reflects something that I think is important in HM, as a growing specialty, that the society is committing resources to my development and other investigators.”

Dr. Hinami's research looks at perioperative care for medically complex surgical patients during and after hospitalization.

The 2011 SHM Awards of Excellence went to:

Award for Clinical Excellence: John Delgelau, MD, MS-HSRPPA, chief of hospital medicine for HealthPartners at North Memorial Medical Center and medical director of care transitions

Award for Excellence in Research: Raj Srivastava, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at University of Utah

Award for Excellence in Teaching: Dan Hunt, MD, associate physician at MGH and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School

Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine: Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, director of hospital medicine and associate professor at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Award for Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement:Cleveland Clinic’s Blood Management team, led by Ajay Kumar, MD, FACP, SFHM

Award for Excellence in Hospital Medicine: Ryan Genzink, MS, PA-C, Hospitalists of West Michigan

Also announced were winners in the 2011 Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes competition:

Best Research Poster:Association between Hospital Noise Levels and Inpatient Sleep Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Far From a Quiet Night; Jordan Yoder, Arshiya Fazal, Paul Staisiusas, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, Kristen Knutson, PhD, Eve Van Cauter, PhD, Vineet Arora, MD, MA, University of Chicago

Best Innovations Poster: Purposeful Visits for Hospitalized Elderly Patients: Program Impact on Orientation, Agitation, and Mood; Ethan Cumbler, MD, William Mramor, Jan Hagman, RN, Deborah Ford, RN, University of Colorado Denver

Best Adult Vignette Poster:Vitamin D Toxicity: Rare or Underdetected? Dahlia Rizk, DO, Carla Romero, MD, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York City

Best Pediatric Vignette Poster: Occam’s Razor Revisited; Kimberly Tartaglia, MD, Bret Betz, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus

Dozens of hospitalists were honored this morning by SHM for outstanding clinical practice, research, teaching, and teamwork.

Luke Hansen, MD, and Keiki Hinami, MD, of Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, are this year’s winners of the Young Researcher Award. Each was given a two-year, $50,000 grant to continue HM-related investigations

“It’s wonderful to be recognized by your peers and your mentors, as producing good work,” says Dr. Hansen, whose research focuses on geriatric patient rehospitalizations. "It also reflects something that I think is important in HM, as a growing specialty, that the society is committing resources to my development and other investigators.”

Dr. Hinami's research looks at perioperative care for medically complex surgical patients during and after hospitalization.

The 2011 SHM Awards of Excellence went to:

Award for Clinical Excellence: John Delgelau, MD, MS-HSRPPA, chief of hospital medicine for HealthPartners at North Memorial Medical Center and medical director of care transitions

Award for Excellence in Research: Raj Srivastava, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at University of Utah

Award for Excellence in Teaching: Dan Hunt, MD, associate physician at MGH and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School

Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine: Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, director of hospital medicine and associate professor at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Award for Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement:Cleveland Clinic’s Blood Management team, led by Ajay Kumar, MD, FACP, SFHM

Award for Excellence in Hospital Medicine: Ryan Genzink, MS, PA-C, Hospitalists of West Michigan

Also announced were winners in the 2011 Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes competition:

Best Research Poster:Association between Hospital Noise Levels and Inpatient Sleep Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Far From a Quiet Night; Jordan Yoder, Arshiya Fazal, Paul Staisiusas, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, Kristen Knutson, PhD, Eve Van Cauter, PhD, Vineet Arora, MD, MA, University of Chicago

Best Innovations Poster: Purposeful Visits for Hospitalized Elderly Patients: Program Impact on Orientation, Agitation, and Mood; Ethan Cumbler, MD, William Mramor, Jan Hagman, RN, Deborah Ford, RN, University of Colorado Denver

Best Adult Vignette Poster:Vitamin D Toxicity: Rare or Underdetected? Dahlia Rizk, DO, Carla Romero, MD, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York City

Best Pediatric Vignette Poster: Occam’s Razor Revisited; Kimberly Tartaglia, MD, Bret Betz, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
SHM Doles Out Annual Awards
Display Headline
SHM Doles Out Annual Awards
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

HM Is Ground Zero

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
HM Is Ground Zero

GRAPEVINE, Texas—The president of the AMA told a packed house at HM11 this morning that pressure points on healthcare—physician shortages, rising medical school costs, and the impending addition of some 30 million-plus insured patients to the system – should spur doctors collaborate more to prevent mistakes and add efficiency.

And hospitalists can be right in the middle of it.

In an interview after his formal remarks, Cecil Wilson, MD, says that hospitalists are a key player, particularly in the workforce issues plaguing primary care physicians (PCP).

“Hospitalists are primary care physicians, the vast majority of them are general internists,” he says. “… so when we say that the number of people who are going into primary care, particularly general internal medicine, is reducing, that reduces not only the pool of physicians in the community, but also the hospitalist pool. We’re in that boat together.”

Dr. Wilson’s address, “A National Perspective for Hospitalists,” kicked off the official first day of SHM’s annual meeting with a global perspective of healthcare reform. The comments were followed by a detailed history of the healthcare debate that led to the Affordable Care Act last year, presented by Robert Kocher, MD, a former special assistant to President Obama and now the director of the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Kocher says hospitalists can help healthcare deal with the reforms in four broad ways: push hospitals to increase labor productivity, shift compensation models from “selling work RVUs to selling years of health,” use data to drive decision-making and use technology to lower delivery costs.

With hospitalists’ “understanding of clinical medicine in a patient … you’ll be able to help them solve problems they never even imagined.”

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

GRAPEVINE, Texas—The president of the AMA told a packed house at HM11 this morning that pressure points on healthcare—physician shortages, rising medical school costs, and the impending addition of some 30 million-plus insured patients to the system – should spur doctors collaborate more to prevent mistakes and add efficiency.

And hospitalists can be right in the middle of it.

In an interview after his formal remarks, Cecil Wilson, MD, says that hospitalists are a key player, particularly in the workforce issues plaguing primary care physicians (PCP).

“Hospitalists are primary care physicians, the vast majority of them are general internists,” he says. “… so when we say that the number of people who are going into primary care, particularly general internal medicine, is reducing, that reduces not only the pool of physicians in the community, but also the hospitalist pool. We’re in that boat together.”

Dr. Wilson’s address, “A National Perspective for Hospitalists,” kicked off the official first day of SHM’s annual meeting with a global perspective of healthcare reform. The comments were followed by a detailed history of the healthcare debate that led to the Affordable Care Act last year, presented by Robert Kocher, MD, a former special assistant to President Obama and now the director of the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Kocher says hospitalists can help healthcare deal with the reforms in four broad ways: push hospitals to increase labor productivity, shift compensation models from “selling work RVUs to selling years of health,” use data to drive decision-making and use technology to lower delivery costs.

With hospitalists’ “understanding of clinical medicine in a patient … you’ll be able to help them solve problems they never even imagined.”

GRAPEVINE, Texas—The president of the AMA told a packed house at HM11 this morning that pressure points on healthcare—physician shortages, rising medical school costs, and the impending addition of some 30 million-plus insured patients to the system – should spur doctors collaborate more to prevent mistakes and add efficiency.

And hospitalists can be right in the middle of it.

In an interview after his formal remarks, Cecil Wilson, MD, says that hospitalists are a key player, particularly in the workforce issues plaguing primary care physicians (PCP).

“Hospitalists are primary care physicians, the vast majority of them are general internists,” he says. “… so when we say that the number of people who are going into primary care, particularly general internal medicine, is reducing, that reduces not only the pool of physicians in the community, but also the hospitalist pool. We’re in that boat together.”

Dr. Wilson’s address, “A National Perspective for Hospitalists,” kicked off the official first day of SHM’s annual meeting with a global perspective of healthcare reform. The comments were followed by a detailed history of the healthcare debate that led to the Affordable Care Act last year, presented by Robert Kocher, MD, a former special assistant to President Obama and now the director of the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Kocher says hospitalists can help healthcare deal with the reforms in four broad ways: push hospitals to increase labor productivity, shift compensation models from “selling work RVUs to selling years of health,” use data to drive decision-making and use technology to lower delivery costs.

With hospitalists’ “understanding of clinical medicine in a patient … you’ll be able to help them solve problems they never even imagined.”

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
HM Is Ground Zero
Display Headline
HM Is Ground Zero
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Project BOOST Shows Significant LOS Reduction

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Project BOOST Shows Significant LOS Reduction

GRAPEVINE, Texas—Preliminary data released today shows SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) quality improvement (QI) program offers statistically significant decreases in patient length of stay, according to the principal investigator of SHM’s quality improvement project targeting transitions of care.

“When we deliver a coordinated approach to the discharge process, LOS went down,” Mark Williams, MD, SFHM, told more than 150 hospitalists at HM11. He also said that the data from 12 BOOST sites shows no reduction in 30-day readmissions, which is similar to previously published national data.

Dr. Williams, CMS’ Linda Magno, and Jeffrey Greenwald, MD, SFHM, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, agreed that implementing QI is “difficult” and barriers to national initiatives to improve those quality issues still exist, however, “we’re noticing a significant change,” Dr. Williams says. “I think healthcare reform is changing that.”

With CMS looking to reduce readmissions by 20% in 10 years and the pool of hospitalized patients expected to grow exponentially in the next decade, Magno detailed how HM groups can partner with hospitals and community organizations to take part in the recently announced Community-Based Care Transitions Program, a $500 million project to incentivize continuity of care. She said the application process has no deadline, that CMS is interested in quality applications, and that 300-500 hospitals will participate.

”Many organizations will be interested in this, but some will need to take some time to prepare and work toward organizational readiness,” she says.

Dr. Greenwald explained Project BOOST is one of the select QI programs on the CCTP short list, and that BOOST mentors can help HM groups with the CCTP application process.

For more information on Project BOOST, check out the SHM website.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

GRAPEVINE, Texas—Preliminary data released today shows SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) quality improvement (QI) program offers statistically significant decreases in patient length of stay, according to the principal investigator of SHM’s quality improvement project targeting transitions of care.

“When we deliver a coordinated approach to the discharge process, LOS went down,” Mark Williams, MD, SFHM, told more than 150 hospitalists at HM11. He also said that the data from 12 BOOST sites shows no reduction in 30-day readmissions, which is similar to previously published national data.

Dr. Williams, CMS’ Linda Magno, and Jeffrey Greenwald, MD, SFHM, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, agreed that implementing QI is “difficult” and barriers to national initiatives to improve those quality issues still exist, however, “we’re noticing a significant change,” Dr. Williams says. “I think healthcare reform is changing that.”

With CMS looking to reduce readmissions by 20% in 10 years and the pool of hospitalized patients expected to grow exponentially in the next decade, Magno detailed how HM groups can partner with hospitals and community organizations to take part in the recently announced Community-Based Care Transitions Program, a $500 million project to incentivize continuity of care. She said the application process has no deadline, that CMS is interested in quality applications, and that 300-500 hospitals will participate.

”Many organizations will be interested in this, but some will need to take some time to prepare and work toward organizational readiness,” she says.

Dr. Greenwald explained Project BOOST is one of the select QI programs on the CCTP short list, and that BOOST mentors can help HM groups with the CCTP application process.

For more information on Project BOOST, check out the SHM website.

GRAPEVINE, Texas—Preliminary data released today shows SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) quality improvement (QI) program offers statistically significant decreases in patient length of stay, according to the principal investigator of SHM’s quality improvement project targeting transitions of care.

“When we deliver a coordinated approach to the discharge process, LOS went down,” Mark Williams, MD, SFHM, told more than 150 hospitalists at HM11. He also said that the data from 12 BOOST sites shows no reduction in 30-day readmissions, which is similar to previously published national data.

Dr. Williams, CMS’ Linda Magno, and Jeffrey Greenwald, MD, SFHM, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, agreed that implementing QI is “difficult” and barriers to national initiatives to improve those quality issues still exist, however, “we’re noticing a significant change,” Dr. Williams says. “I think healthcare reform is changing that.”

With CMS looking to reduce readmissions by 20% in 10 years and the pool of hospitalized patients expected to grow exponentially in the next decade, Magno detailed how HM groups can partner with hospitals and community organizations to take part in the recently announced Community-Based Care Transitions Program, a $500 million project to incentivize continuity of care. She said the application process has no deadline, that CMS is interested in quality applications, and that 300-500 hospitals will participate.

”Many organizations will be interested in this, but some will need to take some time to prepare and work toward organizational readiness,” she says.

Dr. Greenwald explained Project BOOST is one of the select QI programs on the CCTP short list, and that BOOST mentors can help HM groups with the CCTP application process.

For more information on Project BOOST, check out the SHM website.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Project BOOST Shows Significant LOS Reduction
Display Headline
Project BOOST Shows Significant LOS Reduction
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Learning to Share

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Learning to Share

GRAPEVINE, Texas — Sitting in the third row of a large meeting room, Robin Buckley, MD, FHM, was soaking in the morning portion of the "ABIM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Learning Session" pre-course, clicking her keypad with answers to questions and making mental notes this morning at HM11.

Dr. Buckley, medical director of hospitalist services at 72-bed Scott & White Healthcare in Round Rock, Texas, has to recertify in 2012, so she is getting an early start. One of nine pre-courses held annually, the learning session offers 6.5 CME credits.

"I'm really excited about sharing the information with my group, especially the questions focused on quality," says Dr. Buckley, who has been a hospitalist since 2004 and joined her expanding HM group in 2008. "I want to apply the information to our clinical practice, because I think it’s going to make us better."

She's also considering the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) pathway, and used the pre-course to understand the specialized MOC pathway better. The main concerns, she says, are the added cost and the every-three-year requirement of the Performance Improvement Modules (PIM).

"The three-year PIM cycle makes a lot of sense," Dr. Buckley says, noting she is "encouraged" to learn ABIM has approved three of SHM's quality projects to count toward the MOC requirement. Although she might still recertify through the traditional internal-medicine MOC next year, she definitely has the FPHM on the radar.

"Maybe in a couple years," Dr. Buckley says. "The PIM templates will be extremely helpful and encourage me to do it even more. The FPHM shows dedication to the field."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

GRAPEVINE, Texas — Sitting in the third row of a large meeting room, Robin Buckley, MD, FHM, was soaking in the morning portion of the "ABIM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Learning Session" pre-course, clicking her keypad with answers to questions and making mental notes this morning at HM11.

Dr. Buckley, medical director of hospitalist services at 72-bed Scott & White Healthcare in Round Rock, Texas, has to recertify in 2012, so she is getting an early start. One of nine pre-courses held annually, the learning session offers 6.5 CME credits.

"I'm really excited about sharing the information with my group, especially the questions focused on quality," says Dr. Buckley, who has been a hospitalist since 2004 and joined her expanding HM group in 2008. "I want to apply the information to our clinical practice, because I think it’s going to make us better."

She's also considering the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) pathway, and used the pre-course to understand the specialized MOC pathway better. The main concerns, she says, are the added cost and the every-three-year requirement of the Performance Improvement Modules (PIM).

"The three-year PIM cycle makes a lot of sense," Dr. Buckley says, noting she is "encouraged" to learn ABIM has approved three of SHM's quality projects to count toward the MOC requirement. Although she might still recertify through the traditional internal-medicine MOC next year, she definitely has the FPHM on the radar.

"Maybe in a couple years," Dr. Buckley says. "The PIM templates will be extremely helpful and encourage me to do it even more. The FPHM shows dedication to the field."

GRAPEVINE, Texas — Sitting in the third row of a large meeting room, Robin Buckley, MD, FHM, was soaking in the morning portion of the "ABIM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Learning Session" pre-course, clicking her keypad with answers to questions and making mental notes this morning at HM11.

Dr. Buckley, medical director of hospitalist services at 72-bed Scott & White Healthcare in Round Rock, Texas, has to recertify in 2012, so she is getting an early start. One of nine pre-courses held annually, the learning session offers 6.5 CME credits.

"I'm really excited about sharing the information with my group, especially the questions focused on quality," says Dr. Buckley, who has been a hospitalist since 2004 and joined her expanding HM group in 2008. "I want to apply the information to our clinical practice, because I think it’s going to make us better."

She's also considering the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) pathway, and used the pre-course to understand the specialized MOC pathway better. The main concerns, she says, are the added cost and the every-three-year requirement of the Performance Improvement Modules (PIM).

"The three-year PIM cycle makes a lot of sense," Dr. Buckley says, noting she is "encouraged" to learn ABIM has approved three of SHM's quality projects to count toward the MOC requirement. Although she might still recertify through the traditional internal-medicine MOC next year, she definitely has the FPHM on the radar.

"Maybe in a couple years," Dr. Buckley says. "The PIM templates will be extremely helpful and encourage me to do it even more. The FPHM shows dedication to the field."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Learning to Share
Display Headline
Learning to Share
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Critical Lessons in Care

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Critical Lessons in Care

GRAPEVINE, Texas – Hospitalist Gilbert Asomaning, MB, ChB, walked into a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) this morning and was confronted with a 55-year-old male in shock. The monitor presented a myriad of issues: He was making lactate, had trouble urinating–and the familiar PACU beeping was incessant.

But no one knew why. Colleagues screamed out questions: Is he responsive? How are his extremities? Is he on oxygen? Still, the cause of what turned out to be hypovolemic shock was a mystery until someone said it: a pinned iliac artery. The case wasn't real; it was a simulation that was part of an HM11 pre-course at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center. But the value of the daylong session, "Advanced Interactive Critical Care," was quite real.

"This is a great session...it seems like the real thing, but here you know, you are hear to learn," says Dr. Asomaning, who has been to previous SHM meetings, but this year trekked out a day early from Capital Medical Center in Olympia, Wash., specifically to attend the critical care pre-course. "You go through it and when you make your mistakes, you are corrected. And then you sort of reorganize things in your mind again and you are more prepared when the real thing happens."

The simulation was led by course co-director Kevin Felner, MD, of New York University School of Medicine, who says supplementing lectures with hands-on situations is key to increased comprehension.

"Most people are learners by doing…and learn more from doing something than 45 minutes of lecture with a chalkboard," he says. "We push people, take them out of their comfort zone. That’s how you learn."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Sections

GRAPEVINE, Texas – Hospitalist Gilbert Asomaning, MB, ChB, walked into a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) this morning and was confronted with a 55-year-old male in shock. The monitor presented a myriad of issues: He was making lactate, had trouble urinating–and the familiar PACU beeping was incessant.

But no one knew why. Colleagues screamed out questions: Is he responsive? How are his extremities? Is he on oxygen? Still, the cause of what turned out to be hypovolemic shock was a mystery until someone said it: a pinned iliac artery. The case wasn't real; it was a simulation that was part of an HM11 pre-course at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center. But the value of the daylong session, "Advanced Interactive Critical Care," was quite real.

"This is a great session...it seems like the real thing, but here you know, you are hear to learn," says Dr. Asomaning, who has been to previous SHM meetings, but this year trekked out a day early from Capital Medical Center in Olympia, Wash., specifically to attend the critical care pre-course. "You go through it and when you make your mistakes, you are corrected. And then you sort of reorganize things in your mind again and you are more prepared when the real thing happens."

The simulation was led by course co-director Kevin Felner, MD, of New York University School of Medicine, who says supplementing lectures with hands-on situations is key to increased comprehension.

"Most people are learners by doing…and learn more from doing something than 45 minutes of lecture with a chalkboard," he says. "We push people, take them out of their comfort zone. That’s how you learn."

GRAPEVINE, Texas – Hospitalist Gilbert Asomaning, MB, ChB, walked into a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) this morning and was confronted with a 55-year-old male in shock. The monitor presented a myriad of issues: He was making lactate, had trouble urinating–and the familiar PACU beeping was incessant.

But no one knew why. Colleagues screamed out questions: Is he responsive? How are his extremities? Is he on oxygen? Still, the cause of what turned out to be hypovolemic shock was a mystery until someone said it: a pinned iliac artery. The case wasn't real; it was a simulation that was part of an HM11 pre-course at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center. But the value of the daylong session, "Advanced Interactive Critical Care," was quite real.

"This is a great session...it seems like the real thing, but here you know, you are hear to learn," says Dr. Asomaning, who has been to previous SHM meetings, but this year trekked out a day early from Capital Medical Center in Olympia, Wash., specifically to attend the critical care pre-course. "You go through it and when you make your mistakes, you are corrected. And then you sort of reorganize things in your mind again and you are more prepared when the real thing happens."

The simulation was led by course co-director Kevin Felner, MD, of New York University School of Medicine, who says supplementing lectures with hands-on situations is key to increased comprehension.

"Most people are learners by doing…and learn more from doing something than 45 minutes of lecture with a chalkboard," he says. "We push people, take them out of their comfort zone. That’s how you learn."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(05)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Critical Lessons in Care
Display Headline
Critical Lessons in Care
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Facilitating Hospice Discussions: A Six-Step Roadmap

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Facilitating Hospice Discussions: A Six-Step Roadmap

How we do it

Facilitating Hospice Discussions: A Six-Step Roadmap

Jennifer Shin MD

,
and David Casarett MD, MA   [Author vitae]

Received 28 December 2010; 

accepted 18 March 2011. 

Available online 10 May 2011.

Abstract

Hospice programs provide comprehensive, compassionate care to dying patients and their families. However, many patients do not enroll in hospice, and those who do generally receive hospice care only in the last weeks of life. Although patients and families rely on their physicians to discuss hospice, there is often inadequate communication between patients and physicians about end-of-life issues. We describe a Six-Step Roadmap for navigating discussions about hospice adapted from the SPIKES protocol for delivering bad news: setting up the discussion, assessing the patient’s perception, inviting a patient to discuss individual goals and needs, sharing knowledge, empathizing with the patient’s emotions, and summarizing and strategizing the next steps.

Article Outline

Case

Introduction

When Is a Hospice Discussion Appropriate?

A Six-Step Roadmap
Step 1: Set Up the Discussion About Hospice
Step 2: Assess the Patient's Perception
Step 3: Invite the Patient to Discuss Goals of Care and Needs for Care
Step 4: Share Knowledge
Step 5: Empathize With the Patient's Emotion
Step 6: Summarize the Discussion and Strategize Next Steps

Conclusion

References

Vitae

Case

Mr. C is a 54-year-old man with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who presented 1 year ago with multiple lung nodules and hepatic metastases. His tumor responded to initial treatment with four cycles of carboplatin and pemetrexed, and he was treated with maintenance pemetrexed for 5 months before his liver lesions progressed. Despite treatment with docetaxel and then erlotinib, his liver and lung tumors progressed rapidly. He has lost 10 pounds in the last few weeks and is now so fatigued that he spends most of his day resting in his recliner. He has been admitted to the hospital twice in the last month for worsening dyspnea in the setting of progressive pulmonary metastases.

Introduction

Hospice programs provide high-quality, compassionate care to dying patients and their families through an interdisciplinary team specializing in pain and symptom management.[1] and [2] These patients also receive medications and supplies, durable medical equipment, and home health aide services. Patients and their families receive support from a chaplain, social worker, physician, nurse, and volunteer. Families are offered bereavement services for at least 13 months following the patient's death (Table 1).3

Table 1. Hospice Services and Team Members

Services
• Pain and symptom management
• 24-hour telephone access to a clinician
• Assistance with personal care needs
• Help with errands and light housework
• Spiritual support
• Companionship for the patient and family
• Bereavement counseling before and after the patient's death
• Patient and family education and counseling
• Case management and coordination
• Advance care planning
• Medications and supplies related to the hospice diagnosis
• Durable medical equipment
• Child bereavement services
• Respite services (up to 5 consecutive days of inpatient care to allow families a needed break)
• Inpatient hospice (for treatment of severe symptoms that cannot be managed at home)
Team members
• Physician
• Nurse
• Social worker
• Home health aide
• Chaplain
• Bereavement counselor
• Physical therapist
• Occupational therapist
• Volunteer

National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America.3

Families report high levels of satisfaction with hospice and are more likely to describe high-quality care.1 Despite this, only 40% of people in the United States die while receiving hospice care.3 Although longer hospice stays are associated with better quality of life in patients and less depression in bereaved family members,[4] and [5] many patients enroll very late in the course of illness. In fact, the median length of stay is just over 3 weeks, and a third of patients die or are discharged within 1 week of hospice enrollment.3 The result is that brief exposures to hospice at the end of life do not allow patients and families to take full advantage of the benefits.6

There are several explanations for why people enroll in hospice so late. The Medicare Hospice Benefit requires hospice patients to choose a plan of comfort care, which means that they must usually forgo disease-directed therapies unless they provide a specific palliative benefit. Furthermore, the financial per diem payment structure of hospice means that patients may need to forgo palliative treatments that cannot be covered under the typical hospice reimbursement (approximately $150/day for routine home care). Patients may not be willing to give up these therapies or may be reluctant to transition from a model of care focusing on disease-directed therapies to one with palliation as the goal.

Patients may also enroll in hospice later if their physicians do not discuss hospice or if they have these discussions in the last few weeks of the patient's life.[7] and [8] Physicians may delay hospice discussions because they are unsure of the patient's prognosis,9 although the disease trajectory in patients with cancer is often more straightforward than in patients with non-oncologic diagnoses. Studies have documented deficiencies in doctor–patient communication regarding prognosis and end-of-life issues,10 and patients report inadequate communication with physicians about shared decision making at the end of life.1 Another study found that about half of patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer reported not having discussed hospice with a provider within 4–7 months after diagnosis.11

Although these discussions may be delayed or avoided altogether, seriously ill patients value the ability to prepare for the end of life.[12] and [13] Patients rely on their physicians to discuss hospice and other end-of-life care options. Furthermore, most family caregivers report that communication with their oncologists was important in helping them to understand the patient's prognosis and to see the role that hospice could play as a treatment alternative.7

These conversations are often difficult for patients and families and can also be challenging for physicians. Nevertheless, communication skills in discussing transitions to palliative care can be learned.[14] and [15] Although these discussions are not nearly as straightforward as a medical or surgical procedure, one can approach them with the same methodical preparation and careful consideration of the steps involved.

When Is a Hospice Discussion Appropriate?

To be eligible for the Medicare Hospice Benefit, a patient must have a prognosis of 6 months or less if his or her illness runs its usual course; also, the patient needs to be willing to accept the hospice philosophy of comfort care. This second criterion is not formally defined but is generally accepted to mean that the patient must be willing to forgo disease-directed therapies related to the hospice admitting diagnosis.

These eligibility criteria should not be used to define the patients for whom a hospice discussion is appropriate however. When a patient's goals and values reflect a desire to focus on palliation, it is time for the physician to initiate a hospice discussion. Other triggers for early hospice discussions can include a change in clinical status, recent hospitalization, decline in performance status, new weight loss, or complication of treatment. Although these factors may prompt a discussion of options for care, including hospice,[16] and [17] not all discussions will lead to a hospice enrollment decision. Nevertheless, earlier discussions that prompt conversations about a patient's needs, goals, and preferences can facilitate later decisions about hospice and other treatment options.

A Six-Step Roadmap

We provide a Six-Step Roadmap for navigating discussions about hospice adapted from the SPIKES protocol for delivering bad news.18 This strategy is comprised of six communication steps that can be remembered by using the mnemonic SPIKES: setting up the discussion, assessing the patient's perception, inviting a patient to discuss individual goals and needs, sharing knowledge, empathizing with the patient's emotions, and summarizing and strategizing the next steps.

Step 1: Set Up the Discussion About Hospice

Before discussing hospice with a patient and family, it is important to communicate with other members of the medical team to ensure an understanding of the patient's prognosis and treatment options. It is also helpful to find out what the patient and family may have expressed to other providers regarding these issues and how they have been coping. Any provider who has been in contact with the patient may be able to contribute to this consensus, including the medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, palliative care physician, primary care physician, home nurse, and social worker. A clear, unified message from the team decreases confusion for the patient and family.

Once a common agreement has been established regarding the patient's prognosis and treatment options, physicians can schedule a time and arrange for a place to allow for an uninterrupted conversation. Scheduling a patient at the end of a clinic day or visiting a patient in the hospital during an admission are potential ways to do this. Before scheduling a meeting, however, it is essential to know who the patient would like to be present at the meeting. One approach may be to tell the patient that there are important options to discuss regarding the next steps in his or her care and find out who may be able to help the patient with such decisions (Table 2). Additionally, a palliative care physician may cofacilitate these discussions. If the patient already has a palliative care physician, it may be helpful to have him or her involved in the meeting. If the patient has not yet been evaluated by a palliative care team, it may be possible to consult a palliative care specialist who can attend the meeting or follow up with the patient afterward.

 

 

Table 2. Useful Language for Hospice Discussions

Adapted from Cassett et al8 and Baille et al15

Invite other decision makers“Who do you usually rely on to help you make important decisions?”
“When we discuss your results, who would you like to be present?”
Assess understanding of prognosis“Tell me about your understanding of the most recent tests/studies.”
“Can you share with me what you think is happening with your cancer and the treatments?”
Identify goals of care“What is most important to you right now?”
“What are your biggest concerns right now?”
“What are your hopes for the coming weeks/months?”
“What do you enjoy doing now?”
“What is most important to you now?”
“What are you worried about now? In the future?”
Reframe goals (“wish” statements)“I wish I could promise you that you will be able to make it to your daughter's wedding, but unfortunately I can't. What do you think about writing a letter for her to read on her wedding day? We can also think about other ways to let her know that you will always be with her, even if you cannot physically be there.”
“I wish that we could find a new chemotherapy that could cure your cancer. Even though cure is not possible, I think that we can meet some of your other goals, like staying at home to spend time with your children.”
Identify needs for care“What has been hard for you and your family?”
“What is your life like when you are at home? How are you and your family managing?”
“Are you experiencing pain or other symptoms that are bothering you?”
“Have you been feeling sad or anxious lately?”
“Would it be helpful to have a visiting nurse come to your home to assist you with your medications?”
Introduce hospice“One of the best ways to give you the help that you need to stay at home is through hospice.”
“The hospice team specializes in caring for seriously ill patients at home.”
“Hospice can provide you and your family with more services and support.”
Recommend hospice“From what you have shared with me today, I recommend hospice as a way of helping you meet the goals that are important to you.”
“I feel that hospice is the best option for you and your family. I know this is a big decision, and I want you to know that the decision is yours.”

Mr. C's medical oncologist, Dr. A, contacted Mr. C's radiation oncologist as well as his primary care physician. They all agreed that his prognosis could be measured in weeks to months and that his performance status precluded any further chemotherapy. Dr. A also spoke with the hospital social worker who met Mr. C and his wife during his most recent hospitalization. The social worker said that Mr. C's wife has been very distressed, particularly about his increasing debility and her difficulty in caring for him at home. When Dr. A visited Mr. C during his hospitalization, Dr. A explained to Mr. C that they would be making some decisions about the next steps in his care and asked who might be able to help with these decisions. When Mr. C said his wife would be this person, Dr. A asked that she come to his next visit. Dr. A decided to schedule Mr. C for an appointment at the end of his clinic session the following week.

Step 2: Assess the Patient's Perception

The physician can begin this discussion by asking the patient to describe his or her current medical situation (Table 2). Although the physician may have provided this information on prior occasions, it is important to hear the patient's perception of the diagnosis and prognosis. Patients with advanced cancer often overestimate their prognosis and are more likely to favor life-extending therapies over hospice.19 These questions provide an opportunity to address any misconceptions or gaps in understanding that the patient may have. When the physician, patient, and family are in agreement with the patient's current medical situation it allows for further exploration of the patient's hopes and concerns.

This part of the discussion should rely on open-ended questions designed to elicit the patient's perspective. In particular, an invitation to “tell me more” encourages patients to explore how they are thinking or feeling and can yield more information than closed-ended or leading questions. This phrase can also help redirect the conversation when necessary (“You mentioned before that you are worried that the chemotherapy is not working anymore. Tell me more about your concerns.”).

Dr. A asked Mr. C how he was doing overall and to describe his understanding of whether the erlotinib had been working. In response, Mr. C expressed his concern about his recent weight loss and lethargy. Dr. A asked Mr. C to tell him more about these concerns, and Mr. C said that he thought his symptoms were a sign that the erlotinib was not helping him. He said he knew that the CT scans showed progression of disease, and he wondered whether chemotherapy could help. Dr. A confirmed there was progression of cancer in his lungs and liver. Dr. A also expressed his concern that more chemotherapy would not provide additional benefit for him and may harm him. Mr. C and his wife were tearful and agreed that he was too weak for more chemotherapy. Dr. A acknowledged that the disease had progressed quickly and must be very upsetting to them.

Step 3: Invite the Patient to Discuss Goals of Care and Needs for Care

Before sharing information about hospice with a patient, it is important to understand the patient's hopes and fears about the future, goals of care, and needs for care. It is helpful to start with learning about the patient's perspectives on the future and linking that to the patient's goals of care. Once the goals are clear, it is easier to match the patient's needs with his or her goals.

One way to elicit patients' goals of care is by asking them to describe their hopes and fears about their cancer in the context of their life (Table 2). Patients may volunteer information about their hopes (eg, attending their daughter's wedding) or fears (eg, worrying about pain) that provide insight into their more global goals of care. Again, the “tell me more” phrase can be helpful (“Tell me more about what you mean when you say you are a burden on your family.”).

Once the patient and family express their thoughts, it is useful to restate the patient's goals by asking a question that summarizes the patient's statements (“From what you and your family have just shared with me, I hear that the most important thing to you is … . Did I understand you correctly?”). It is often challenging for patients to specifically articulate their goals of care. Asking a question allows the patient and family the chance to elaborate or offer corrections.

If a patient expresses unrealistic expectations (eg, a cure, years of life), “wish” statements can be helpful in providing gentle redirection. These statements express empathy while also communicating that the wished-for outcome is unlikely (“I wish that we could guarantee that … but unfortunately we can't.”). These statements can explain the reality of the situation in a compassionate manner (Table 2). Patients and families who have unrealistic goals of care may need time to readjust their expectations, and in these cases it may be prudent to revisit the discussion of hospice at a later date.

Once the goals of care have been established, it is important to further explore the needs for care. Although some of these needs may have been mentioned during the goals discussion, it is helpful to directly ask the patient and family about their needs. General questions about what has been hard for the patient and the family can be useful in eliciting needs, as are questions about what life has been like at home and how they are managing (Table 2). It is also important to ask more specific questions that pertain to the patient's symptoms such as pain or depression and those that address the family's needs for help around the house (Table 2). Once this information has been shared, it is often useful to repeat a summary back to the patient and family (“From what we have just discussed, it may be helpful to have a visiting nurse to assist with his medications and a home health aide to dress and bathe him … . Does it sound like this could be helpful to you?”). Often, these needs can be addressed by the multidisciplinary hospice team, and it is important to understand what needs exist in preparation for a discussion about how hospice might be helpful.

Mr. C shares with you that his two hospitalizations for dyspnea have been frustrating because he feels that they have prevented him from spending quality time with his daughters. Although he did not want to be admitted to the hospital, he tearfully expressed that he was worried about “suffocating to death” and did not want to die at home in front of his wife and children. Mr. C's wife also shares that it has been harder to bathe and dress him because he is becoming so weak. Mr. and Mrs. C agree that it would be helpful to have the support of a visiting nurse and a home health aide.

Step 4: Share Knowledge

Once the patient's goals and needs for care have been clarified, physicians can introduce hospice as a way of achieving their goals and meeting their needs. In presenting hospice in this transparent manner, patients and families can better understand how hospice is part of a plan of care that addresses their individualized goals and needs. Most family caregivers report that communication with their oncologists was critical in their understanding the patient's prognosis and hospice as a treatment alternative.7 In one survey, the majority of caregivers did not realize that their loved ones could benefit from hospice until their physicians first discussed it with them.7

A discussion of hospice should offer concrete information about the services provided to patients and their families (Table 1). Many patients and families do not understand the benefits, such as a visiting nurse for frequent symptom management or a home health aide to assist with daily patient care, until after enrollment. Many say they wish they had known sooner.20 By providing this information earlier, patients and families may make more informed decisions about hospice. This description also makes clear to the patient and family that hospice is not simply a generic recommendation but rather the physician's recommendation of a program that is the best fit for their specific goals and needs.

Given the emotional nature of these discussions and the large amount of information involved, it is important to ask the patient to explain in his or her own words how hospice could help (“To make sure I did a good job of explaining things, can you tell me what we just talked about in your own words?” and “How do you think hospice might help you?”). This provides the opportunity to assess understanding and clarify any confusion.

Since not all patients are best served by hospice, the discussion may also be expanded to include other options for palliative care. For example, hospice is not equipped to care for debilitated patients at home who do not have a caretaker, nor is it usually able to absorb the costs of expensive palliative treatments. Sometimes, larger hospices may be able to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but it is helpful to be aware of other options for palliative care like bridge-to-hospice home care and outpatient palliative care programs.

Dr. A explained that hospice could provide intensive management of his dyspnea with the assistance of a visiting nurse and a 24-hour phone line to call for assistance. With these measures in place, Dr. A said that he hoped hospitalizations could be avoided, allowing him more time at home with his family. Dr. A addressed Mr. C's concern about dying at home and shared with him that he could be transferred to an inpatient hospice if death seemed imminent. Dr. A shared with Mrs. C that hospice could provide the services of a home health aide, which seemed to reduce her concerns about being able to care for her husband as he became weaker.

Step 5: Empathize With the Patient's Emotion

In discussions regarding end-of-life care, patients and families value empathy, compassion, and honesty balanced with sensitivity and hope.21 Throughout the conversation, it is likely that the patient and family will express a range of emotions. Rather than providing immediate reassurance or trying to “fix” the emotion, it can be helpful to use an empathic statement to let the patient know that his or her emotions are recognized.15 Empathic responses address and validate a patient's emotions and encourage further disclosure.22 The NURSE mnemonic summarizes ways in which to respond to emotions: naming, understanding, respecting, supporting, and exploring the feelings the patient has shared (Table 3).[15] and [23]

 

 

Table 3. NURSE Statements for Expressing Empathy

Adapted from Back et al[15] and [23]

N = Naming“It sounds like you are worried about how fast the cancer has been progressing.”
“Some people in this situation would feel frustrated.”
U = Understanding“My understanding of what you have told me is that you are worried about being able to live independently at home.”
“I can see how difficult this has been for you and your family.”
R = Respecting“It is very clear to me how supportive your family has been.”
“I can see how hard you have worked to understand the treatment options for your cancer.”
S = Supporting“I will support the decisions that you make, no matter what you decide.”
“I will always be your doctor.”
E = Exploring“Could you tell me more about what you mean when you say that you don't want to give up?”
“I sense that you may be feeling anxious about stopping chemotherapy. Can you share with me what you are feeling?”

Some of the emotions arising during a hospice discussion may stem from preconceived notions or a prior experience. Therefore, it may be helpful to specifically ask patients and families about these perceptions and experiences. Common misperceptions may include the concern that hospice hastens death. Other patients view hospice as “giving up” and worry about being abandoned by their physicians. A hospice discussion provides the opportunity to directly address these concerns and provide clarification (“No, hospice does not hasten death. Hospice helps you have the best quality of life for whatever time you have.”).

Ultimately, some patients and families may decide that hospice is not the right choice for them. It is important to recognize that the time invested has not been wasted. Instead, if done well, these discussions offer an opportunity for the physician to align his or her goals and understanding with those of the patient and family. Specifically, these discussions are a chance to demonstrate a desire to understand the patient's individualized goals and to share concerns about disease progression. In essence, it is a valuable opportunity to establish a collective understanding about the patient's current situation while also laying important groundwork for future discussions.

Mr. C tearfully shared his concern about being a burden to his wife and about how his daughters would handle his progressive decline. Dr. A sat quietly, allowed Mr. C to fully detail his worries, and then said, “I can see how worried you are about your family and understand that you want to make sure that their needs are also addressed.”

Step 6: Summarize the Discussion and Strategize Next Steps

In all stages of cancer, patients and families rely on their oncologist for information about treatment options. This is particularly important when a patient's cancer has progressed despite therapy and when the focus of care may be shifting from disease-directed therapies to palliation. Just as a physician may have previously recommended a chemotherapeutic option for a patient, so should he or she recommend the therapeutic option of focusing on quality of life. If hospice appears consistent with the patient's and family's goals and needs, the physician should make this recommendation. It may be helpful for the patient and family to hear a summary of how hospice will meet their needs. If the patient is amenable to learning more about hospice but is not yet ready to enroll, the physician can arrange for an informational visit with the hospice team.

Dr. A recommends hospice and emphasizes that hospice would provide services that meet Mr. C's goals of symptom management, avoiding hospitalizations, and providing support for his family. Mr. C and his wife agree that hospice is the best option for them. They would like to enroll after they have spoken with their children about their decision.

Conclusion

Discussions about goals of care and hospice are not easy. They are rarely as straightforward as presented in this case, and an oncologist may face numerous barriers when attempting to have these discussions. For instance, treating physicians may have differing opinions on therapeutic options. Patients and family members may have different goals and may be in different stages of accepting a life-limiting cancer diagnosis. Additionally, these discussions take preparation, time, and skill. Although there are no easy solutions to these issues, the general guidance provided in this article focuses on suggesting tools and techniques that can make these discussions easier for oncologists, patients, and families. By increasing our competence and comfort with these conversations, we can reduce delays in offering patients the benefits of hospice as they near the end of life.

Although no algorithm will fully address the complexities and nuances of these conversations, this approach provides a general framework and offers tools to use while speaking with patients and families. Conversations about hospice do not begin with the recommendation of hospice but rather with an honest discussion of the goals and needs of a patient and family. If these goals and needs can be met with the services that hospice can provide, the physician has the opportunity to educate the patient and to make the recommendation as they would for any other therapeutic option.

Patients and families consider communication to be one of the most important facets of end-of-life care.24 Seriously ill patients value being able to prepare for death,13 and physicians have the duty to help patients and families prepare for the end of life.25 Physicians can help increase the time patients have to plan for the last phase of their lives by having honest and open discussions about hospice and other alternatives. Oncologists have the responsibility to present patients with the benefits and burdens of therapies throughout the trajectory of their illness, and it is critically important during the transition from disease-directed to palliative care. By exploring the option of hospice, patients and families can make informed decisions about whether hospice may meet their needs. Equally important, patients are given the control to choose how they would like to live the final phase of their lives.

 

 

References1

1 J.M. Teno, B.R. Clarridge, V. Casey, L.C. Welch, T. Wetle, R. Shield and V. Mor, Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care, JAMA 291 (1) (2004), pp. 88–93. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (411)

2 S.C. Miller, V. Mor and J. Teno, Hospice enrollment and pain assessment and management in nursing homes, J Pain Symptom Manage 26 (3) (2003), pp. 791–799. Article |

PDF (106 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (67)

3 National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America www.nhpco.org/files/public/Statistics_Research/Hospice_Facts_Figures_Oct-2010.pdf+NHPCO+Facts+and+Figures:+Hospice+Care+in+America.+National+Hospice+and+Palliative+Care+Organization&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgPEeCPa2C7KZ3zQT0yldBWHrCAHY4UemVw6R1Odl2VxMKsjrMnNridOO3qiHrvN9cAfwCzkIY3Mc28JRgBLdvCaN3nQXt7EUNL6H-PTkYYaVAl4-VECDAsh16DvmofChWiLRfa&sig=AHIEtbTMY3LallQ5V2Ceyd_ACIQfUh-ggA (2010).

4 A.A. Wright, B. Zhang, A. Ray, J.W. Mack, E. Trice, T. Balboni, S.L. Mitchell, V.A. Jackson, S.D. Block, P.K. Maciejewski and H.G. Prigerson, Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment, JAMA 300 (14) (2008), pp. 1665–1673. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (131)

5 E.H. Bradley, H. Prigerson, M.D.A. Carlson, E. Cherlin, R. Johnson-Hurzeler and S.V. Kasl, Depression among surviving caregivers: does length of hospice enrollment matter?, Am J Psychiatry 161 (12) (2004), pp. 2257–2262. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)

6 I.R. Byock, W.B. Forman and M. Appleton, Academy of hospice physicians' position statement on access to hospice and palliative care, J Pain Symptom Manage 11 (2) (1996), pp. 69–70. Article |

PDF (131 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)

7 E. Cherlin, T. Fried, H.G. Prigerson, D. Schulman-Green, R. Johnson-Hurzeler and E.H. Bradley, Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: when do discussions occur and what is said?, J Palliat Med 8 (6) (2005), pp. 1176–1185. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (51)

8 D.J. Casarett and T.E. Quill, “I'm not ready for hospice”: strategies for timely and effective hospice discussions, Ann Intern Med 146 (6) (2007), pp. 443–449. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (36)

9 E.B. Lamont and N.A. Christakis, Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer near the end of life, Ann Intern Med 134 (12) (2001), pp. 1096–1105. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (166)

10 M. Gysels, A. Richardson and I.J. Higginson, Communication training for health professionals who care for patients with cancer: a systematic review of effectiveness, Support Care Cancer 12 (10) (2004), pp. 692–700. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (41)

11 H.A. Huskamp, N.L. Keating, J.L. Malin, A.M. Zaslavsky, J.C. Weeks, C.C. Earle, J.M. Teno, B.A. Virnig, K.L. Kahn, Y. He and J.Z. Ayanian, Discussions with physicians about hospice among patients with metastatic lung cancer, Arch Intern Med 169 (10) (2009), pp. 954–962. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

12 K.E. Steinhauser, N.A. Christakis, E.C. Clipp, M. McNeilly, S. Grambow, J. Parker and J.A. Tulsky, Preparing for the end of life: preferences of patients, families, physicians, and other care providers, J Pain Symptom Manage 22 (3) (2001), pp. 727–737. Article |

PDF (78 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (120)

13 K.E. Steinhauser, N.A. Christakis, E.C. Clipp, M. McNeilly, L. McIntyre and J.A. Tulsky, Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers, JAMA 284 (19) (2000), pp. 2476–2482. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (615)

14 A.L. Back, R.M. Arnold, W.F. Baile, K.A. Fryer-Edwards, S.C. Alexander, G.E. Barley, T.A. Gooley and J.A. Tulsky, Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care, Arch Intern Med 167 (5) (2007), pp. 453–460. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (94)

15 A.L. Back, R.M. Arnold, W.F. Baile, J.A. Tulsky and K. Fryer-Edwards, Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology, CA Cancer J Clin 55 (3) (2005), pp. 164–177. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (103)

16 C. Conill, E. Verger and M. Salamero, Performance status assessment in cancer patients, Cancer 65 (8) (1990), pp. 1864–1866. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (81)

17 V. Mor, L. Laliberte, J.N. Morris and M. Wiemann, The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale: An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting, Cancer 53 (9) (1984), pp. 2002–2007. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (314)

18 W.F. Baile, R. Buckman, R. Lenzi, G. Glober, E.A. Beale and A.P. Kudelka, SPIKES—a six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer, Oncologist 5 (4) (2000), pp. 302–311. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (293)

19 J.C. Weeks, E.F. Cook, S.J. O'Day, L.M. Peterson, N. Wenger, D. Reding, F.E. Harrell, P. Kussin, N.V. Dawson, A.F. Connors, J. Lynn and R.S. Phillips, Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences, JAMA 279 (21) (1998), pp. 1709–1714. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (350)

20 D.J. Casarett, R.L. Crowley and K.B. Hirschman, How should clinicians describe hospice to patients and families?, J Am Geriatr Soc 52 (11) (2004), pp. 1923–1928. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (46)

21 S.M. Parker, J.M. Clayton, K. Hancock, S. Walder, P.N. Butow, S. Carrick, D. Currow, D. Ghersi, P. Glare, R. Hagerty and M.H. Tattersall, A systematic review of prognostic/end-of-life communication with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: patient/caregiver preferences for the content, style, and timing of information, J Pain Symptom Manage 34 (1) (2007), pp. 81–93. Article |

PDF (166 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (44)

22 K.I. Pollak, R.M. Arnold, A.S. Jeffreys, S.C. Alexander, M.K. Olsen, A.P. Abernethy, C. Sugg Skinner, K.L. Rodriguez and J.A. Tulsky, Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer, J Clin Oncol 25 (36) (2007), pp. 5748–5752. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (47)

23 A.L. Back, W.G. Anderson, L. Bunch, L.A. Marr, J.A. Wallace, H.B. Yang and R.M. Arnold, Communication about cancer near the end of life, Cancer 113 (suppl 7) (2008), pp. 1897–1910. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)

24 M.D. Wenrich, J.R. Curtis, S.E. Shannon, J.D. Carline, D.M. Ambrozy and P.G. Ramsey, Communicating with dying patients within the spectrum of medical care from terminal diagnosis to death, Arch Intern Med 161 (6) (2001), pp. 868–874. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (114)

25 J. Lynn, Perspectives on care at the close of life: Serving patients who may die soon and their families: the role of hospice and other services, JAMA 285 (7) (2001), pp. 925–932. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (124)

 

 

Dr. Casarett's research is funded by grants from the Commonwealth Fund, the Greenwall Foundation, the VistaCare Foundation, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Dr. Shin has nothing to disclose.

Correspondence to: Jennifer Shin, MD, Division of Hematology–Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104


1 PubMed ID in brackets

Vitae

Dr. Shin is from the Division of Hematology–Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia

Dr. Casarett is from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and the Penn-Wissahickon Hospice, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia


Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

How we do it

Facilitating Hospice Discussions: A Six-Step Roadmap

Jennifer Shin MD

,
and David Casarett MD, MA   [Author vitae]

Received 28 December 2010; 

accepted 18 March 2011. 

Available online 10 May 2011.

Abstract

Hospice programs provide comprehensive, compassionate care to dying patients and their families. However, many patients do not enroll in hospice, and those who do generally receive hospice care only in the last weeks of life. Although patients and families rely on their physicians to discuss hospice, there is often inadequate communication between patients and physicians about end-of-life issues. We describe a Six-Step Roadmap for navigating discussions about hospice adapted from the SPIKES protocol for delivering bad news: setting up the discussion, assessing the patient’s perception, inviting a patient to discuss individual goals and needs, sharing knowledge, empathizing with the patient’s emotions, and summarizing and strategizing the next steps.

Article Outline

Case

Introduction

When Is a Hospice Discussion Appropriate?

A Six-Step Roadmap
Step 1: Set Up the Discussion About Hospice
Step 2: Assess the Patient's Perception
Step 3: Invite the Patient to Discuss Goals of Care and Needs for Care
Step 4: Share Knowledge
Step 5: Empathize With the Patient's Emotion
Step 6: Summarize the Discussion and Strategize Next Steps

Conclusion

References

Vitae

Case

Mr. C is a 54-year-old man with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who presented 1 year ago with multiple lung nodules and hepatic metastases. His tumor responded to initial treatment with four cycles of carboplatin and pemetrexed, and he was treated with maintenance pemetrexed for 5 months before his liver lesions progressed. Despite treatment with docetaxel and then erlotinib, his liver and lung tumors progressed rapidly. He has lost 10 pounds in the last few weeks and is now so fatigued that he spends most of his day resting in his recliner. He has been admitted to the hospital twice in the last month for worsening dyspnea in the setting of progressive pulmonary metastases.

Introduction

Hospice programs provide high-quality, compassionate care to dying patients and their families through an interdisciplinary team specializing in pain and symptom management.[1] and [2] These patients also receive medications and supplies, durable medical equipment, and home health aide services. Patients and their families receive support from a chaplain, social worker, physician, nurse, and volunteer. Families are offered bereavement services for at least 13 months following the patient's death (Table 1).3

Table 1. Hospice Services and Team Members

Services
• Pain and symptom management
• 24-hour telephone access to a clinician
• Assistance with personal care needs
• Help with errands and light housework
• Spiritual support
• Companionship for the patient and family
• Bereavement counseling before and after the patient's death
• Patient and family education and counseling
• Case management and coordination
• Advance care planning
• Medications and supplies related to the hospice diagnosis
• Durable medical equipment
• Child bereavement services
• Respite services (up to 5 consecutive days of inpatient care to allow families a needed break)
• Inpatient hospice (for treatment of severe symptoms that cannot be managed at home)
Team members
• Physician
• Nurse
• Social worker
• Home health aide
• Chaplain
• Bereavement counselor
• Physical therapist
• Occupational therapist
• Volunteer

National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America.3

Families report high levels of satisfaction with hospice and are more likely to describe high-quality care.1 Despite this, only 40% of people in the United States die while receiving hospice care.3 Although longer hospice stays are associated with better quality of life in patients and less depression in bereaved family members,[4] and [5] many patients enroll very late in the course of illness. In fact, the median length of stay is just over 3 weeks, and a third of patients die or are discharged within 1 week of hospice enrollment.3 The result is that brief exposures to hospice at the end of life do not allow patients and families to take full advantage of the benefits.6

There are several explanations for why people enroll in hospice so late. The Medicare Hospice Benefit requires hospice patients to choose a plan of comfort care, which means that they must usually forgo disease-directed therapies unless they provide a specific palliative benefit. Furthermore, the financial per diem payment structure of hospice means that patients may need to forgo palliative treatments that cannot be covered under the typical hospice reimbursement (approximately $150/day for routine home care). Patients may not be willing to give up these therapies or may be reluctant to transition from a model of care focusing on disease-directed therapies to one with palliation as the goal.

Patients may also enroll in hospice later if their physicians do not discuss hospice or if they have these discussions in the last few weeks of the patient's life.[7] and [8] Physicians may delay hospice discussions because they are unsure of the patient's prognosis,9 although the disease trajectory in patients with cancer is often more straightforward than in patients with non-oncologic diagnoses. Studies have documented deficiencies in doctor–patient communication regarding prognosis and end-of-life issues,10 and patients report inadequate communication with physicians about shared decision making at the end of life.1 Another study found that about half of patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer reported not having discussed hospice with a provider within 4–7 months after diagnosis.11

Although these discussions may be delayed or avoided altogether, seriously ill patients value the ability to prepare for the end of life.[12] and [13] Patients rely on their physicians to discuss hospice and other end-of-life care options. Furthermore, most family caregivers report that communication with their oncologists was important in helping them to understand the patient's prognosis and to see the role that hospice could play as a treatment alternative.7

These conversations are often difficult for patients and families and can also be challenging for physicians. Nevertheless, communication skills in discussing transitions to palliative care can be learned.[14] and [15] Although these discussions are not nearly as straightforward as a medical or surgical procedure, one can approach them with the same methodical preparation and careful consideration of the steps involved.

When Is a Hospice Discussion Appropriate?

To be eligible for the Medicare Hospice Benefit, a patient must have a prognosis of 6 months or less if his or her illness runs its usual course; also, the patient needs to be willing to accept the hospice philosophy of comfort care. This second criterion is not formally defined but is generally accepted to mean that the patient must be willing to forgo disease-directed therapies related to the hospice admitting diagnosis.

These eligibility criteria should not be used to define the patients for whom a hospice discussion is appropriate however. When a patient's goals and values reflect a desire to focus on palliation, it is time for the physician to initiate a hospice discussion. Other triggers for early hospice discussions can include a change in clinical status, recent hospitalization, decline in performance status, new weight loss, or complication of treatment. Although these factors may prompt a discussion of options for care, including hospice,[16] and [17] not all discussions will lead to a hospice enrollment decision. Nevertheless, earlier discussions that prompt conversations about a patient's needs, goals, and preferences can facilitate later decisions about hospice and other treatment options.

A Six-Step Roadmap

We provide a Six-Step Roadmap for navigating discussions about hospice adapted from the SPIKES protocol for delivering bad news.18 This strategy is comprised of six communication steps that can be remembered by using the mnemonic SPIKES: setting up the discussion, assessing the patient's perception, inviting a patient to discuss individual goals and needs, sharing knowledge, empathizing with the patient's emotions, and summarizing and strategizing the next steps.

Step 1: Set Up the Discussion About Hospice

Before discussing hospice with a patient and family, it is important to communicate with other members of the medical team to ensure an understanding of the patient's prognosis and treatment options. It is also helpful to find out what the patient and family may have expressed to other providers regarding these issues and how they have been coping. Any provider who has been in contact with the patient may be able to contribute to this consensus, including the medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, palliative care physician, primary care physician, home nurse, and social worker. A clear, unified message from the team decreases confusion for the patient and family.

Once a common agreement has been established regarding the patient's prognosis and treatment options, physicians can schedule a time and arrange for a place to allow for an uninterrupted conversation. Scheduling a patient at the end of a clinic day or visiting a patient in the hospital during an admission are potential ways to do this. Before scheduling a meeting, however, it is essential to know who the patient would like to be present at the meeting. One approach may be to tell the patient that there are important options to discuss regarding the next steps in his or her care and find out who may be able to help the patient with such decisions (Table 2). Additionally, a palliative care physician may cofacilitate these discussions. If the patient already has a palliative care physician, it may be helpful to have him or her involved in the meeting. If the patient has not yet been evaluated by a palliative care team, it may be possible to consult a palliative care specialist who can attend the meeting or follow up with the patient afterward.

 

 

Table 2. Useful Language for Hospice Discussions

Adapted from Cassett et al8 and Baille et al15

Invite other decision makers“Who do you usually rely on to help you make important decisions?”
“When we discuss your results, who would you like to be present?”
Assess understanding of prognosis“Tell me about your understanding of the most recent tests/studies.”
“Can you share with me what you think is happening with your cancer and the treatments?”
Identify goals of care“What is most important to you right now?”
“What are your biggest concerns right now?”
“What are your hopes for the coming weeks/months?”
“What do you enjoy doing now?”
“What is most important to you now?”
“What are you worried about now? In the future?”
Reframe goals (“wish” statements)“I wish I could promise you that you will be able to make it to your daughter's wedding, but unfortunately I can't. What do you think about writing a letter for her to read on her wedding day? We can also think about other ways to let her know that you will always be with her, even if you cannot physically be there.”
“I wish that we could find a new chemotherapy that could cure your cancer. Even though cure is not possible, I think that we can meet some of your other goals, like staying at home to spend time with your children.”
Identify needs for care“What has been hard for you and your family?”
“What is your life like when you are at home? How are you and your family managing?”
“Are you experiencing pain or other symptoms that are bothering you?”
“Have you been feeling sad or anxious lately?”
“Would it be helpful to have a visiting nurse come to your home to assist you with your medications?”
Introduce hospice“One of the best ways to give you the help that you need to stay at home is through hospice.”
“The hospice team specializes in caring for seriously ill patients at home.”
“Hospice can provide you and your family with more services and support.”
Recommend hospice“From what you have shared with me today, I recommend hospice as a way of helping you meet the goals that are important to you.”
“I feel that hospice is the best option for you and your family. I know this is a big decision, and I want you to know that the decision is yours.”

Mr. C's medical oncologist, Dr. A, contacted Mr. C's radiation oncologist as well as his primary care physician. They all agreed that his prognosis could be measured in weeks to months and that his performance status precluded any further chemotherapy. Dr. A also spoke with the hospital social worker who met Mr. C and his wife during his most recent hospitalization. The social worker said that Mr. C's wife has been very distressed, particularly about his increasing debility and her difficulty in caring for him at home. When Dr. A visited Mr. C during his hospitalization, Dr. A explained to Mr. C that they would be making some decisions about the next steps in his care and asked who might be able to help with these decisions. When Mr. C said his wife would be this person, Dr. A asked that she come to his next visit. Dr. A decided to schedule Mr. C for an appointment at the end of his clinic session the following week.

Step 2: Assess the Patient's Perception

The physician can begin this discussion by asking the patient to describe his or her current medical situation (Table 2). Although the physician may have provided this information on prior occasions, it is important to hear the patient's perception of the diagnosis and prognosis. Patients with advanced cancer often overestimate their prognosis and are more likely to favor life-extending therapies over hospice.19 These questions provide an opportunity to address any misconceptions or gaps in understanding that the patient may have. When the physician, patient, and family are in agreement with the patient's current medical situation it allows for further exploration of the patient's hopes and concerns.

This part of the discussion should rely on open-ended questions designed to elicit the patient's perspective. In particular, an invitation to “tell me more” encourages patients to explore how they are thinking or feeling and can yield more information than closed-ended or leading questions. This phrase can also help redirect the conversation when necessary (“You mentioned before that you are worried that the chemotherapy is not working anymore. Tell me more about your concerns.”).

Dr. A asked Mr. C how he was doing overall and to describe his understanding of whether the erlotinib had been working. In response, Mr. C expressed his concern about his recent weight loss and lethargy. Dr. A asked Mr. C to tell him more about these concerns, and Mr. C said that he thought his symptoms were a sign that the erlotinib was not helping him. He said he knew that the CT scans showed progression of disease, and he wondered whether chemotherapy could help. Dr. A confirmed there was progression of cancer in his lungs and liver. Dr. A also expressed his concern that more chemotherapy would not provide additional benefit for him and may harm him. Mr. C and his wife were tearful and agreed that he was too weak for more chemotherapy. Dr. A acknowledged that the disease had progressed quickly and must be very upsetting to them.

Step 3: Invite the Patient to Discuss Goals of Care and Needs for Care

Before sharing information about hospice with a patient, it is important to understand the patient's hopes and fears about the future, goals of care, and needs for care. It is helpful to start with learning about the patient's perspectives on the future and linking that to the patient's goals of care. Once the goals are clear, it is easier to match the patient's needs with his or her goals.

One way to elicit patients' goals of care is by asking them to describe their hopes and fears about their cancer in the context of their life (Table 2). Patients may volunteer information about their hopes (eg, attending their daughter's wedding) or fears (eg, worrying about pain) that provide insight into their more global goals of care. Again, the “tell me more” phrase can be helpful (“Tell me more about what you mean when you say you are a burden on your family.”).

Once the patient and family express their thoughts, it is useful to restate the patient's goals by asking a question that summarizes the patient's statements (“From what you and your family have just shared with me, I hear that the most important thing to you is … . Did I understand you correctly?”). It is often challenging for patients to specifically articulate their goals of care. Asking a question allows the patient and family the chance to elaborate or offer corrections.

If a patient expresses unrealistic expectations (eg, a cure, years of life), “wish” statements can be helpful in providing gentle redirection. These statements express empathy while also communicating that the wished-for outcome is unlikely (“I wish that we could guarantee that … but unfortunately we can't.”). These statements can explain the reality of the situation in a compassionate manner (Table 2). Patients and families who have unrealistic goals of care may need time to readjust their expectations, and in these cases it may be prudent to revisit the discussion of hospice at a later date.

Once the goals of care have been established, it is important to further explore the needs for care. Although some of these needs may have been mentioned during the goals discussion, it is helpful to directly ask the patient and family about their needs. General questions about what has been hard for the patient and the family can be useful in eliciting needs, as are questions about what life has been like at home and how they are managing (Table 2). It is also important to ask more specific questions that pertain to the patient's symptoms such as pain or depression and those that address the family's needs for help around the house (Table 2). Once this information has been shared, it is often useful to repeat a summary back to the patient and family (“From what we have just discussed, it may be helpful to have a visiting nurse to assist with his medications and a home health aide to dress and bathe him … . Does it sound like this could be helpful to you?”). Often, these needs can be addressed by the multidisciplinary hospice team, and it is important to understand what needs exist in preparation for a discussion about how hospice might be helpful.

Mr. C shares with you that his two hospitalizations for dyspnea have been frustrating because he feels that they have prevented him from spending quality time with his daughters. Although he did not want to be admitted to the hospital, he tearfully expressed that he was worried about “suffocating to death” and did not want to die at home in front of his wife and children. Mr. C's wife also shares that it has been harder to bathe and dress him because he is becoming so weak. Mr. and Mrs. C agree that it would be helpful to have the support of a visiting nurse and a home health aide.

Step 4: Share Knowledge

Once the patient's goals and needs for care have been clarified, physicians can introduce hospice as a way of achieving their goals and meeting their needs. In presenting hospice in this transparent manner, patients and families can better understand how hospice is part of a plan of care that addresses their individualized goals and needs. Most family caregivers report that communication with their oncologists was critical in their understanding the patient's prognosis and hospice as a treatment alternative.7 In one survey, the majority of caregivers did not realize that their loved ones could benefit from hospice until their physicians first discussed it with them.7

A discussion of hospice should offer concrete information about the services provided to patients and their families (Table 1). Many patients and families do not understand the benefits, such as a visiting nurse for frequent symptom management or a home health aide to assist with daily patient care, until after enrollment. Many say they wish they had known sooner.20 By providing this information earlier, patients and families may make more informed decisions about hospice. This description also makes clear to the patient and family that hospice is not simply a generic recommendation but rather the physician's recommendation of a program that is the best fit for their specific goals and needs.

Given the emotional nature of these discussions and the large amount of information involved, it is important to ask the patient to explain in his or her own words how hospice could help (“To make sure I did a good job of explaining things, can you tell me what we just talked about in your own words?” and “How do you think hospice might help you?”). This provides the opportunity to assess understanding and clarify any confusion.

Since not all patients are best served by hospice, the discussion may also be expanded to include other options for palliative care. For example, hospice is not equipped to care for debilitated patients at home who do not have a caretaker, nor is it usually able to absorb the costs of expensive palliative treatments. Sometimes, larger hospices may be able to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but it is helpful to be aware of other options for palliative care like bridge-to-hospice home care and outpatient palliative care programs.

Dr. A explained that hospice could provide intensive management of his dyspnea with the assistance of a visiting nurse and a 24-hour phone line to call for assistance. With these measures in place, Dr. A said that he hoped hospitalizations could be avoided, allowing him more time at home with his family. Dr. A addressed Mr. C's concern about dying at home and shared with him that he could be transferred to an inpatient hospice if death seemed imminent. Dr. A shared with Mrs. C that hospice could provide the services of a home health aide, which seemed to reduce her concerns about being able to care for her husband as he became weaker.

Step 5: Empathize With the Patient's Emotion

In discussions regarding end-of-life care, patients and families value empathy, compassion, and honesty balanced with sensitivity and hope.21 Throughout the conversation, it is likely that the patient and family will express a range of emotions. Rather than providing immediate reassurance or trying to “fix” the emotion, it can be helpful to use an empathic statement to let the patient know that his or her emotions are recognized.15 Empathic responses address and validate a patient's emotions and encourage further disclosure.22 The NURSE mnemonic summarizes ways in which to respond to emotions: naming, understanding, respecting, supporting, and exploring the feelings the patient has shared (Table 3).[15] and [23]

 

 

Table 3. NURSE Statements for Expressing Empathy

Adapted from Back et al[15] and [23]

N = Naming“It sounds like you are worried about how fast the cancer has been progressing.”
“Some people in this situation would feel frustrated.”
U = Understanding“My understanding of what you have told me is that you are worried about being able to live independently at home.”
“I can see how difficult this has been for you and your family.”
R = Respecting“It is very clear to me how supportive your family has been.”
“I can see how hard you have worked to understand the treatment options for your cancer.”
S = Supporting“I will support the decisions that you make, no matter what you decide.”
“I will always be your doctor.”
E = Exploring“Could you tell me more about what you mean when you say that you don't want to give up?”
“I sense that you may be feeling anxious about stopping chemotherapy. Can you share with me what you are feeling?”

Some of the emotions arising during a hospice discussion may stem from preconceived notions or a prior experience. Therefore, it may be helpful to specifically ask patients and families about these perceptions and experiences. Common misperceptions may include the concern that hospice hastens death. Other patients view hospice as “giving up” and worry about being abandoned by their physicians. A hospice discussion provides the opportunity to directly address these concerns and provide clarification (“No, hospice does not hasten death. Hospice helps you have the best quality of life for whatever time you have.”).

Ultimately, some patients and families may decide that hospice is not the right choice for them. It is important to recognize that the time invested has not been wasted. Instead, if done well, these discussions offer an opportunity for the physician to align his or her goals and understanding with those of the patient and family. Specifically, these discussions are a chance to demonstrate a desire to understand the patient's individualized goals and to share concerns about disease progression. In essence, it is a valuable opportunity to establish a collective understanding about the patient's current situation while also laying important groundwork for future discussions.

Mr. C tearfully shared his concern about being a burden to his wife and about how his daughters would handle his progressive decline. Dr. A sat quietly, allowed Mr. C to fully detail his worries, and then said, “I can see how worried you are about your family and understand that you want to make sure that their needs are also addressed.”

Step 6: Summarize the Discussion and Strategize Next Steps

In all stages of cancer, patients and families rely on their oncologist for information about treatment options. This is particularly important when a patient's cancer has progressed despite therapy and when the focus of care may be shifting from disease-directed therapies to palliation. Just as a physician may have previously recommended a chemotherapeutic option for a patient, so should he or she recommend the therapeutic option of focusing on quality of life. If hospice appears consistent with the patient's and family's goals and needs, the physician should make this recommendation. It may be helpful for the patient and family to hear a summary of how hospice will meet their needs. If the patient is amenable to learning more about hospice but is not yet ready to enroll, the physician can arrange for an informational visit with the hospice team.

Dr. A recommends hospice and emphasizes that hospice would provide services that meet Mr. C's goals of symptom management, avoiding hospitalizations, and providing support for his family. Mr. C and his wife agree that hospice is the best option for them. They would like to enroll after they have spoken with their children about their decision.

Conclusion

Discussions about goals of care and hospice are not easy. They are rarely as straightforward as presented in this case, and an oncologist may face numerous barriers when attempting to have these discussions. For instance, treating physicians may have differing opinions on therapeutic options. Patients and family members may have different goals and may be in different stages of accepting a life-limiting cancer diagnosis. Additionally, these discussions take preparation, time, and skill. Although there are no easy solutions to these issues, the general guidance provided in this article focuses on suggesting tools and techniques that can make these discussions easier for oncologists, patients, and families. By increasing our competence and comfort with these conversations, we can reduce delays in offering patients the benefits of hospice as they near the end of life.

Although no algorithm will fully address the complexities and nuances of these conversations, this approach provides a general framework and offers tools to use while speaking with patients and families. Conversations about hospice do not begin with the recommendation of hospice but rather with an honest discussion of the goals and needs of a patient and family. If these goals and needs can be met with the services that hospice can provide, the physician has the opportunity to educate the patient and to make the recommendation as they would for any other therapeutic option.

Patients and families consider communication to be one of the most important facets of end-of-life care.24 Seriously ill patients value being able to prepare for death,13 and physicians have the duty to help patients and families prepare for the end of life.25 Physicians can help increase the time patients have to plan for the last phase of their lives by having honest and open discussions about hospice and other alternatives. Oncologists have the responsibility to present patients with the benefits and burdens of therapies throughout the trajectory of their illness, and it is critically important during the transition from disease-directed to palliative care. By exploring the option of hospice, patients and families can make informed decisions about whether hospice may meet their needs. Equally important, patients are given the control to choose how they would like to live the final phase of their lives.

 

 

References1

1 J.M. Teno, B.R. Clarridge, V. Casey, L.C. Welch, T. Wetle, R. Shield and V. Mor, Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care, JAMA 291 (1) (2004), pp. 88–93. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (411)

2 S.C. Miller, V. Mor and J. Teno, Hospice enrollment and pain assessment and management in nursing homes, J Pain Symptom Manage 26 (3) (2003), pp. 791–799. Article |

PDF (106 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (67)

3 National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America www.nhpco.org/files/public/Statistics_Research/Hospice_Facts_Figures_Oct-2010.pdf+NHPCO+Facts+and+Figures:+Hospice+Care+in+America.+National+Hospice+and+Palliative+Care+Organization&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgPEeCPa2C7KZ3zQT0yldBWHrCAHY4UemVw6R1Odl2VxMKsjrMnNridOO3qiHrvN9cAfwCzkIY3Mc28JRgBLdvCaN3nQXt7EUNL6H-PTkYYaVAl4-VECDAsh16DvmofChWiLRfa&sig=AHIEtbTMY3LallQ5V2Ceyd_ACIQfUh-ggA (2010).

4 A.A. Wright, B. Zhang, A. Ray, J.W. Mack, E. Trice, T. Balboni, S.L. Mitchell, V.A. Jackson, S.D. Block, P.K. Maciejewski and H.G. Prigerson, Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment, JAMA 300 (14) (2008), pp. 1665–1673. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (131)

5 E.H. Bradley, H. Prigerson, M.D.A. Carlson, E. Cherlin, R. Johnson-Hurzeler and S.V. Kasl, Depression among surviving caregivers: does length of hospice enrollment matter?, Am J Psychiatry 161 (12) (2004), pp. 2257–2262. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)

6 I.R. Byock, W.B. Forman and M. Appleton, Academy of hospice physicians' position statement on access to hospice and palliative care, J Pain Symptom Manage 11 (2) (1996), pp. 69–70. Article |

PDF (131 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)

7 E. Cherlin, T. Fried, H.G. Prigerson, D. Schulman-Green, R. Johnson-Hurzeler and E.H. Bradley, Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: when do discussions occur and what is said?, J Palliat Med 8 (6) (2005), pp. 1176–1185. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (51)

8 D.J. Casarett and T.E. Quill, “I'm not ready for hospice”: strategies for timely and effective hospice discussions, Ann Intern Med 146 (6) (2007), pp. 443–449. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (36)

9 E.B. Lamont and N.A. Christakis, Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer near the end of life, Ann Intern Med 134 (12) (2001), pp. 1096–1105. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (166)

10 M. Gysels, A. Richardson and I.J. Higginson, Communication training for health professionals who care for patients with cancer: a systematic review of effectiveness, Support Care Cancer 12 (10) (2004), pp. 692–700. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (41)

11 H.A. Huskamp, N.L. Keating, J.L. Malin, A.M. Zaslavsky, J.C. Weeks, C.C. Earle, J.M. Teno, B.A. Virnig, K.L. Kahn, Y. He and J.Z. Ayanian, Discussions with physicians about hospice among patients with metastatic lung cancer, Arch Intern Med 169 (10) (2009), pp. 954–962. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

12 K.E. Steinhauser, N.A. Christakis, E.C. Clipp, M. McNeilly, S. Grambow, J. Parker and J.A. Tulsky, Preparing for the end of life: preferences of patients, families, physicians, and other care providers, J Pain Symptom Manage 22 (3) (2001), pp. 727–737. Article |

PDF (78 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (120)

13 K.E. Steinhauser, N.A. Christakis, E.C. Clipp, M. McNeilly, L. McIntyre and J.A. Tulsky, Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers, JAMA 284 (19) (2000), pp. 2476–2482. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (615)

14 A.L. Back, R.M. Arnold, W.F. Baile, K.A. Fryer-Edwards, S.C. Alexander, G.E. Barley, T.A. Gooley and J.A. Tulsky, Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care, Arch Intern Med 167 (5) (2007), pp. 453–460. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (94)

15 A.L. Back, R.M. Arnold, W.F. Baile, J.A. Tulsky and K. Fryer-Edwards, Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology, CA Cancer J Clin 55 (3) (2005), pp. 164–177. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (103)

16 C. Conill, E. Verger and M. Salamero, Performance status assessment in cancer patients, Cancer 65 (8) (1990), pp. 1864–1866. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (81)

17 V. Mor, L. Laliberte, J.N. Morris and M. Wiemann, The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale: An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting, Cancer 53 (9) (1984), pp. 2002–2007. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (314)

18 W.F. Baile, R. Buckman, R. Lenzi, G. Glober, E.A. Beale and A.P. Kudelka, SPIKES—a six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer, Oncologist 5 (4) (2000), pp. 302–311. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (293)

19 J.C. Weeks, E.F. Cook, S.J. O'Day, L.M. Peterson, N. Wenger, D. Reding, F.E. Harrell, P. Kussin, N.V. Dawson, A.F. Connors, J. Lynn and R.S. Phillips, Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences, JAMA 279 (21) (1998), pp. 1709–1714. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (350)

20 D.J. Casarett, R.L. Crowley and K.B. Hirschman, How should clinicians describe hospice to patients and families?, J Am Geriatr Soc 52 (11) (2004), pp. 1923–1928. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (46)

21 S.M. Parker, J.M. Clayton, K. Hancock, S. Walder, P.N. Butow, S. Carrick, D. Currow, D. Ghersi, P. Glare, R. Hagerty and M.H. Tattersall, A systematic review of prognostic/end-of-life communication with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: patient/caregiver preferences for the content, style, and timing of information, J Pain Symptom Manage 34 (1) (2007), pp. 81–93. Article |

PDF (166 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (44)

22 K.I. Pollak, R.M. Arnold, A.S. Jeffreys, S.C. Alexander, M.K. Olsen, A.P. Abernethy, C. Sugg Skinner, K.L. Rodriguez and J.A. Tulsky, Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer, J Clin Oncol 25 (36) (2007), pp. 5748–5752. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (47)

23 A.L. Back, W.G. Anderson, L. Bunch, L.A. Marr, J.A. Wallace, H.B. Yang and R.M. Arnold, Communication about cancer near the end of life, Cancer 113 (suppl 7) (2008), pp. 1897–1910. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)

24 M.D. Wenrich, J.R. Curtis, S.E. Shannon, J.D. Carline, D.M. Ambrozy and P.G. Ramsey, Communicating with dying patients within the spectrum of medical care from terminal diagnosis to death, Arch Intern Med 161 (6) (2001), pp. 868–874. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (114)

25 J. Lynn, Perspectives on care at the close of life: Serving patients who may die soon and their families: the role of hospice and other services, JAMA 285 (7) (2001), pp. 925–932. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (124)

 

 

Dr. Casarett's research is funded by grants from the Commonwealth Fund, the Greenwall Foundation, the VistaCare Foundation, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Dr. Shin has nothing to disclose.

Correspondence to: Jennifer Shin, MD, Division of Hematology–Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104


1 PubMed ID in brackets

Vitae

Dr. Shin is from the Division of Hematology–Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia

Dr. Casarett is from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and the Penn-Wissahickon Hospice, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia


How we do it

Facilitating Hospice Discussions: A Six-Step Roadmap

Jennifer Shin MD

,
and David Casarett MD, MA   [Author vitae]

Received 28 December 2010; 

accepted 18 March 2011. 

Available online 10 May 2011.

Abstract

Hospice programs provide comprehensive, compassionate care to dying patients and their families. However, many patients do not enroll in hospice, and those who do generally receive hospice care only in the last weeks of life. Although patients and families rely on their physicians to discuss hospice, there is often inadequate communication between patients and physicians about end-of-life issues. We describe a Six-Step Roadmap for navigating discussions about hospice adapted from the SPIKES protocol for delivering bad news: setting up the discussion, assessing the patient’s perception, inviting a patient to discuss individual goals and needs, sharing knowledge, empathizing with the patient’s emotions, and summarizing and strategizing the next steps.

Article Outline

Case

Introduction

When Is a Hospice Discussion Appropriate?

A Six-Step Roadmap
Step 1: Set Up the Discussion About Hospice
Step 2: Assess the Patient's Perception
Step 3: Invite the Patient to Discuss Goals of Care and Needs for Care
Step 4: Share Knowledge
Step 5: Empathize With the Patient's Emotion
Step 6: Summarize the Discussion and Strategize Next Steps

Conclusion

References

Vitae

Case

Mr. C is a 54-year-old man with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who presented 1 year ago with multiple lung nodules and hepatic metastases. His tumor responded to initial treatment with four cycles of carboplatin and pemetrexed, and he was treated with maintenance pemetrexed for 5 months before his liver lesions progressed. Despite treatment with docetaxel and then erlotinib, his liver and lung tumors progressed rapidly. He has lost 10 pounds in the last few weeks and is now so fatigued that he spends most of his day resting in his recliner. He has been admitted to the hospital twice in the last month for worsening dyspnea in the setting of progressive pulmonary metastases.

Introduction

Hospice programs provide high-quality, compassionate care to dying patients and their families through an interdisciplinary team specializing in pain and symptom management.[1] and [2] These patients also receive medications and supplies, durable medical equipment, and home health aide services. Patients and their families receive support from a chaplain, social worker, physician, nurse, and volunteer. Families are offered bereavement services for at least 13 months following the patient's death (Table 1).3

Table 1. Hospice Services and Team Members

Services
• Pain and symptom management
• 24-hour telephone access to a clinician
• Assistance with personal care needs
• Help with errands and light housework
• Spiritual support
• Companionship for the patient and family
• Bereavement counseling before and after the patient's death
• Patient and family education and counseling
• Case management and coordination
• Advance care planning
• Medications and supplies related to the hospice diagnosis
• Durable medical equipment
• Child bereavement services
• Respite services (up to 5 consecutive days of inpatient care to allow families a needed break)
• Inpatient hospice (for treatment of severe symptoms that cannot be managed at home)
Team members
• Physician
• Nurse
• Social worker
• Home health aide
• Chaplain
• Bereavement counselor
• Physical therapist
• Occupational therapist
• Volunteer

National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America.3

Families report high levels of satisfaction with hospice and are more likely to describe high-quality care.1 Despite this, only 40% of people in the United States die while receiving hospice care.3 Although longer hospice stays are associated with better quality of life in patients and less depression in bereaved family members,[4] and [5] many patients enroll very late in the course of illness. In fact, the median length of stay is just over 3 weeks, and a third of patients die or are discharged within 1 week of hospice enrollment.3 The result is that brief exposures to hospice at the end of life do not allow patients and families to take full advantage of the benefits.6

There are several explanations for why people enroll in hospice so late. The Medicare Hospice Benefit requires hospice patients to choose a plan of comfort care, which means that they must usually forgo disease-directed therapies unless they provide a specific palliative benefit. Furthermore, the financial per diem payment structure of hospice means that patients may need to forgo palliative treatments that cannot be covered under the typical hospice reimbursement (approximately $150/day for routine home care). Patients may not be willing to give up these therapies or may be reluctant to transition from a model of care focusing on disease-directed therapies to one with palliation as the goal.

Patients may also enroll in hospice later if their physicians do not discuss hospice or if they have these discussions in the last few weeks of the patient's life.[7] and [8] Physicians may delay hospice discussions because they are unsure of the patient's prognosis,9 although the disease trajectory in patients with cancer is often more straightforward than in patients with non-oncologic diagnoses. Studies have documented deficiencies in doctor–patient communication regarding prognosis and end-of-life issues,10 and patients report inadequate communication with physicians about shared decision making at the end of life.1 Another study found that about half of patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer reported not having discussed hospice with a provider within 4–7 months after diagnosis.11

Although these discussions may be delayed or avoided altogether, seriously ill patients value the ability to prepare for the end of life.[12] and [13] Patients rely on their physicians to discuss hospice and other end-of-life care options. Furthermore, most family caregivers report that communication with their oncologists was important in helping them to understand the patient's prognosis and to see the role that hospice could play as a treatment alternative.7

These conversations are often difficult for patients and families and can also be challenging for physicians. Nevertheless, communication skills in discussing transitions to palliative care can be learned.[14] and [15] Although these discussions are not nearly as straightforward as a medical or surgical procedure, one can approach them with the same methodical preparation and careful consideration of the steps involved.

When Is a Hospice Discussion Appropriate?

To be eligible for the Medicare Hospice Benefit, a patient must have a prognosis of 6 months or less if his or her illness runs its usual course; also, the patient needs to be willing to accept the hospice philosophy of comfort care. This second criterion is not formally defined but is generally accepted to mean that the patient must be willing to forgo disease-directed therapies related to the hospice admitting diagnosis.

These eligibility criteria should not be used to define the patients for whom a hospice discussion is appropriate however. When a patient's goals and values reflect a desire to focus on palliation, it is time for the physician to initiate a hospice discussion. Other triggers for early hospice discussions can include a change in clinical status, recent hospitalization, decline in performance status, new weight loss, or complication of treatment. Although these factors may prompt a discussion of options for care, including hospice,[16] and [17] not all discussions will lead to a hospice enrollment decision. Nevertheless, earlier discussions that prompt conversations about a patient's needs, goals, and preferences can facilitate later decisions about hospice and other treatment options.

A Six-Step Roadmap

We provide a Six-Step Roadmap for navigating discussions about hospice adapted from the SPIKES protocol for delivering bad news.18 This strategy is comprised of six communication steps that can be remembered by using the mnemonic SPIKES: setting up the discussion, assessing the patient's perception, inviting a patient to discuss individual goals and needs, sharing knowledge, empathizing with the patient's emotions, and summarizing and strategizing the next steps.

Step 1: Set Up the Discussion About Hospice

Before discussing hospice with a patient and family, it is important to communicate with other members of the medical team to ensure an understanding of the patient's prognosis and treatment options. It is also helpful to find out what the patient and family may have expressed to other providers regarding these issues and how they have been coping. Any provider who has been in contact with the patient may be able to contribute to this consensus, including the medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, palliative care physician, primary care physician, home nurse, and social worker. A clear, unified message from the team decreases confusion for the patient and family.

Once a common agreement has been established regarding the patient's prognosis and treatment options, physicians can schedule a time and arrange for a place to allow for an uninterrupted conversation. Scheduling a patient at the end of a clinic day or visiting a patient in the hospital during an admission are potential ways to do this. Before scheduling a meeting, however, it is essential to know who the patient would like to be present at the meeting. One approach may be to tell the patient that there are important options to discuss regarding the next steps in his or her care and find out who may be able to help the patient with such decisions (Table 2). Additionally, a palliative care physician may cofacilitate these discussions. If the patient already has a palliative care physician, it may be helpful to have him or her involved in the meeting. If the patient has not yet been evaluated by a palliative care team, it may be possible to consult a palliative care specialist who can attend the meeting or follow up with the patient afterward.

 

 

Table 2. Useful Language for Hospice Discussions

Adapted from Cassett et al8 and Baille et al15

Invite other decision makers“Who do you usually rely on to help you make important decisions?”
“When we discuss your results, who would you like to be present?”
Assess understanding of prognosis“Tell me about your understanding of the most recent tests/studies.”
“Can you share with me what you think is happening with your cancer and the treatments?”
Identify goals of care“What is most important to you right now?”
“What are your biggest concerns right now?”
“What are your hopes for the coming weeks/months?”
“What do you enjoy doing now?”
“What is most important to you now?”
“What are you worried about now? In the future?”
Reframe goals (“wish” statements)“I wish I could promise you that you will be able to make it to your daughter's wedding, but unfortunately I can't. What do you think about writing a letter for her to read on her wedding day? We can also think about other ways to let her know that you will always be with her, even if you cannot physically be there.”
“I wish that we could find a new chemotherapy that could cure your cancer. Even though cure is not possible, I think that we can meet some of your other goals, like staying at home to spend time with your children.”
Identify needs for care“What has been hard for you and your family?”
“What is your life like when you are at home? How are you and your family managing?”
“Are you experiencing pain or other symptoms that are bothering you?”
“Have you been feeling sad or anxious lately?”
“Would it be helpful to have a visiting nurse come to your home to assist you with your medications?”
Introduce hospice“One of the best ways to give you the help that you need to stay at home is through hospice.”
“The hospice team specializes in caring for seriously ill patients at home.”
“Hospice can provide you and your family with more services and support.”
Recommend hospice“From what you have shared with me today, I recommend hospice as a way of helping you meet the goals that are important to you.”
“I feel that hospice is the best option for you and your family. I know this is a big decision, and I want you to know that the decision is yours.”

Mr. C's medical oncologist, Dr. A, contacted Mr. C's radiation oncologist as well as his primary care physician. They all agreed that his prognosis could be measured in weeks to months and that his performance status precluded any further chemotherapy. Dr. A also spoke with the hospital social worker who met Mr. C and his wife during his most recent hospitalization. The social worker said that Mr. C's wife has been very distressed, particularly about his increasing debility and her difficulty in caring for him at home. When Dr. A visited Mr. C during his hospitalization, Dr. A explained to Mr. C that they would be making some decisions about the next steps in his care and asked who might be able to help with these decisions. When Mr. C said his wife would be this person, Dr. A asked that she come to his next visit. Dr. A decided to schedule Mr. C for an appointment at the end of his clinic session the following week.

Step 2: Assess the Patient's Perception

The physician can begin this discussion by asking the patient to describe his or her current medical situation (Table 2). Although the physician may have provided this information on prior occasions, it is important to hear the patient's perception of the diagnosis and prognosis. Patients with advanced cancer often overestimate their prognosis and are more likely to favor life-extending therapies over hospice.19 These questions provide an opportunity to address any misconceptions or gaps in understanding that the patient may have. When the physician, patient, and family are in agreement with the patient's current medical situation it allows for further exploration of the patient's hopes and concerns.

This part of the discussion should rely on open-ended questions designed to elicit the patient's perspective. In particular, an invitation to “tell me more” encourages patients to explore how they are thinking or feeling and can yield more information than closed-ended or leading questions. This phrase can also help redirect the conversation when necessary (“You mentioned before that you are worried that the chemotherapy is not working anymore. Tell me more about your concerns.”).

Dr. A asked Mr. C how he was doing overall and to describe his understanding of whether the erlotinib had been working. In response, Mr. C expressed his concern about his recent weight loss and lethargy. Dr. A asked Mr. C to tell him more about these concerns, and Mr. C said that he thought his symptoms were a sign that the erlotinib was not helping him. He said he knew that the CT scans showed progression of disease, and he wondered whether chemotherapy could help. Dr. A confirmed there was progression of cancer in his lungs and liver. Dr. A also expressed his concern that more chemotherapy would not provide additional benefit for him and may harm him. Mr. C and his wife were tearful and agreed that he was too weak for more chemotherapy. Dr. A acknowledged that the disease had progressed quickly and must be very upsetting to them.

Step 3: Invite the Patient to Discuss Goals of Care and Needs for Care

Before sharing information about hospice with a patient, it is important to understand the patient's hopes and fears about the future, goals of care, and needs for care. It is helpful to start with learning about the patient's perspectives on the future and linking that to the patient's goals of care. Once the goals are clear, it is easier to match the patient's needs with his or her goals.

One way to elicit patients' goals of care is by asking them to describe their hopes and fears about their cancer in the context of their life (Table 2). Patients may volunteer information about their hopes (eg, attending their daughter's wedding) or fears (eg, worrying about pain) that provide insight into their more global goals of care. Again, the “tell me more” phrase can be helpful (“Tell me more about what you mean when you say you are a burden on your family.”).

Once the patient and family express their thoughts, it is useful to restate the patient's goals by asking a question that summarizes the patient's statements (“From what you and your family have just shared with me, I hear that the most important thing to you is … . Did I understand you correctly?”). It is often challenging for patients to specifically articulate their goals of care. Asking a question allows the patient and family the chance to elaborate or offer corrections.

If a patient expresses unrealistic expectations (eg, a cure, years of life), “wish” statements can be helpful in providing gentle redirection. These statements express empathy while also communicating that the wished-for outcome is unlikely (“I wish that we could guarantee that … but unfortunately we can't.”). These statements can explain the reality of the situation in a compassionate manner (Table 2). Patients and families who have unrealistic goals of care may need time to readjust their expectations, and in these cases it may be prudent to revisit the discussion of hospice at a later date.

Once the goals of care have been established, it is important to further explore the needs for care. Although some of these needs may have been mentioned during the goals discussion, it is helpful to directly ask the patient and family about their needs. General questions about what has been hard for the patient and the family can be useful in eliciting needs, as are questions about what life has been like at home and how they are managing (Table 2). It is also important to ask more specific questions that pertain to the patient's symptoms such as pain or depression and those that address the family's needs for help around the house (Table 2). Once this information has been shared, it is often useful to repeat a summary back to the patient and family (“From what we have just discussed, it may be helpful to have a visiting nurse to assist with his medications and a home health aide to dress and bathe him … . Does it sound like this could be helpful to you?”). Often, these needs can be addressed by the multidisciplinary hospice team, and it is important to understand what needs exist in preparation for a discussion about how hospice might be helpful.

Mr. C shares with you that his two hospitalizations for dyspnea have been frustrating because he feels that they have prevented him from spending quality time with his daughters. Although he did not want to be admitted to the hospital, he tearfully expressed that he was worried about “suffocating to death” and did not want to die at home in front of his wife and children. Mr. C's wife also shares that it has been harder to bathe and dress him because he is becoming so weak. Mr. and Mrs. C agree that it would be helpful to have the support of a visiting nurse and a home health aide.

Step 4: Share Knowledge

Once the patient's goals and needs for care have been clarified, physicians can introduce hospice as a way of achieving their goals and meeting their needs. In presenting hospice in this transparent manner, patients and families can better understand how hospice is part of a plan of care that addresses their individualized goals and needs. Most family caregivers report that communication with their oncologists was critical in their understanding the patient's prognosis and hospice as a treatment alternative.7 In one survey, the majority of caregivers did not realize that their loved ones could benefit from hospice until their physicians first discussed it with them.7

A discussion of hospice should offer concrete information about the services provided to patients and their families (Table 1). Many patients and families do not understand the benefits, such as a visiting nurse for frequent symptom management or a home health aide to assist with daily patient care, until after enrollment. Many say they wish they had known sooner.20 By providing this information earlier, patients and families may make more informed decisions about hospice. This description also makes clear to the patient and family that hospice is not simply a generic recommendation but rather the physician's recommendation of a program that is the best fit for their specific goals and needs.

Given the emotional nature of these discussions and the large amount of information involved, it is important to ask the patient to explain in his or her own words how hospice could help (“To make sure I did a good job of explaining things, can you tell me what we just talked about in your own words?” and “How do you think hospice might help you?”). This provides the opportunity to assess understanding and clarify any confusion.

Since not all patients are best served by hospice, the discussion may also be expanded to include other options for palliative care. For example, hospice is not equipped to care for debilitated patients at home who do not have a caretaker, nor is it usually able to absorb the costs of expensive palliative treatments. Sometimes, larger hospices may be able to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but it is helpful to be aware of other options for palliative care like bridge-to-hospice home care and outpatient palliative care programs.

Dr. A explained that hospice could provide intensive management of his dyspnea with the assistance of a visiting nurse and a 24-hour phone line to call for assistance. With these measures in place, Dr. A said that he hoped hospitalizations could be avoided, allowing him more time at home with his family. Dr. A addressed Mr. C's concern about dying at home and shared with him that he could be transferred to an inpatient hospice if death seemed imminent. Dr. A shared with Mrs. C that hospice could provide the services of a home health aide, which seemed to reduce her concerns about being able to care for her husband as he became weaker.

Step 5: Empathize With the Patient's Emotion

In discussions regarding end-of-life care, patients and families value empathy, compassion, and honesty balanced with sensitivity and hope.21 Throughout the conversation, it is likely that the patient and family will express a range of emotions. Rather than providing immediate reassurance or trying to “fix” the emotion, it can be helpful to use an empathic statement to let the patient know that his or her emotions are recognized.15 Empathic responses address and validate a patient's emotions and encourage further disclosure.22 The NURSE mnemonic summarizes ways in which to respond to emotions: naming, understanding, respecting, supporting, and exploring the feelings the patient has shared (Table 3).[15] and [23]

 

 

Table 3. NURSE Statements for Expressing Empathy

Adapted from Back et al[15] and [23]

N = Naming“It sounds like you are worried about how fast the cancer has been progressing.”
“Some people in this situation would feel frustrated.”
U = Understanding“My understanding of what you have told me is that you are worried about being able to live independently at home.”
“I can see how difficult this has been for you and your family.”
R = Respecting“It is very clear to me how supportive your family has been.”
“I can see how hard you have worked to understand the treatment options for your cancer.”
S = Supporting“I will support the decisions that you make, no matter what you decide.”
“I will always be your doctor.”
E = Exploring“Could you tell me more about what you mean when you say that you don't want to give up?”
“I sense that you may be feeling anxious about stopping chemotherapy. Can you share with me what you are feeling?”

Some of the emotions arising during a hospice discussion may stem from preconceived notions or a prior experience. Therefore, it may be helpful to specifically ask patients and families about these perceptions and experiences. Common misperceptions may include the concern that hospice hastens death. Other patients view hospice as “giving up” and worry about being abandoned by their physicians. A hospice discussion provides the opportunity to directly address these concerns and provide clarification (“No, hospice does not hasten death. Hospice helps you have the best quality of life for whatever time you have.”).

Ultimately, some patients and families may decide that hospice is not the right choice for them. It is important to recognize that the time invested has not been wasted. Instead, if done well, these discussions offer an opportunity for the physician to align his or her goals and understanding with those of the patient and family. Specifically, these discussions are a chance to demonstrate a desire to understand the patient's individualized goals and to share concerns about disease progression. In essence, it is a valuable opportunity to establish a collective understanding about the patient's current situation while also laying important groundwork for future discussions.

Mr. C tearfully shared his concern about being a burden to his wife and about how his daughters would handle his progressive decline. Dr. A sat quietly, allowed Mr. C to fully detail his worries, and then said, “I can see how worried you are about your family and understand that you want to make sure that their needs are also addressed.”

Step 6: Summarize the Discussion and Strategize Next Steps

In all stages of cancer, patients and families rely on their oncologist for information about treatment options. This is particularly important when a patient's cancer has progressed despite therapy and when the focus of care may be shifting from disease-directed therapies to palliation. Just as a physician may have previously recommended a chemotherapeutic option for a patient, so should he or she recommend the therapeutic option of focusing on quality of life. If hospice appears consistent with the patient's and family's goals and needs, the physician should make this recommendation. It may be helpful for the patient and family to hear a summary of how hospice will meet their needs. If the patient is amenable to learning more about hospice but is not yet ready to enroll, the physician can arrange for an informational visit with the hospice team.

Dr. A recommends hospice and emphasizes that hospice would provide services that meet Mr. C's goals of symptom management, avoiding hospitalizations, and providing support for his family. Mr. C and his wife agree that hospice is the best option for them. They would like to enroll after they have spoken with their children about their decision.

Conclusion

Discussions about goals of care and hospice are not easy. They are rarely as straightforward as presented in this case, and an oncologist may face numerous barriers when attempting to have these discussions. For instance, treating physicians may have differing opinions on therapeutic options. Patients and family members may have different goals and may be in different stages of accepting a life-limiting cancer diagnosis. Additionally, these discussions take preparation, time, and skill. Although there are no easy solutions to these issues, the general guidance provided in this article focuses on suggesting tools and techniques that can make these discussions easier for oncologists, patients, and families. By increasing our competence and comfort with these conversations, we can reduce delays in offering patients the benefits of hospice as they near the end of life.

Although no algorithm will fully address the complexities and nuances of these conversations, this approach provides a general framework and offers tools to use while speaking with patients and families. Conversations about hospice do not begin with the recommendation of hospice but rather with an honest discussion of the goals and needs of a patient and family. If these goals and needs can be met with the services that hospice can provide, the physician has the opportunity to educate the patient and to make the recommendation as they would for any other therapeutic option.

Patients and families consider communication to be one of the most important facets of end-of-life care.24 Seriously ill patients value being able to prepare for death,13 and physicians have the duty to help patients and families prepare for the end of life.25 Physicians can help increase the time patients have to plan for the last phase of their lives by having honest and open discussions about hospice and other alternatives. Oncologists have the responsibility to present patients with the benefits and burdens of therapies throughout the trajectory of their illness, and it is critically important during the transition from disease-directed to palliative care. By exploring the option of hospice, patients and families can make informed decisions about whether hospice may meet their needs. Equally important, patients are given the control to choose how they would like to live the final phase of their lives.

 

 

References1

1 J.M. Teno, B.R. Clarridge, V. Casey, L.C. Welch, T. Wetle, R. Shield and V. Mor, Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care, JAMA 291 (1) (2004), pp. 88–93. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (411)

2 S.C. Miller, V. Mor and J. Teno, Hospice enrollment and pain assessment and management in nursing homes, J Pain Symptom Manage 26 (3) (2003), pp. 791–799. Article |

PDF (106 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (67)

3 National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America www.nhpco.org/files/public/Statistics_Research/Hospice_Facts_Figures_Oct-2010.pdf+NHPCO+Facts+and+Figures:+Hospice+Care+in+America.+National+Hospice+and+Palliative+Care+Organization&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgPEeCPa2C7KZ3zQT0yldBWHrCAHY4UemVw6R1Odl2VxMKsjrMnNridOO3qiHrvN9cAfwCzkIY3Mc28JRgBLdvCaN3nQXt7EUNL6H-PTkYYaVAl4-VECDAsh16DvmofChWiLRfa&sig=AHIEtbTMY3LallQ5V2Ceyd_ACIQfUh-ggA (2010).

4 A.A. Wright, B. Zhang, A. Ray, J.W. Mack, E. Trice, T. Balboni, S.L. Mitchell, V.A. Jackson, S.D. Block, P.K. Maciejewski and H.G. Prigerson, Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment, JAMA 300 (14) (2008), pp. 1665–1673. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (131)

5 E.H. Bradley, H. Prigerson, M.D.A. Carlson, E. Cherlin, R. Johnson-Hurzeler and S.V. Kasl, Depression among surviving caregivers: does length of hospice enrollment matter?, Am J Psychiatry 161 (12) (2004), pp. 2257–2262. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)

6 I.R. Byock, W.B. Forman and M. Appleton, Academy of hospice physicians' position statement on access to hospice and palliative care, J Pain Symptom Manage 11 (2) (1996), pp. 69–70. Article |

PDF (131 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)

7 E. Cherlin, T. Fried, H.G. Prigerson, D. Schulman-Green, R. Johnson-Hurzeler and E.H. Bradley, Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: when do discussions occur and what is said?, J Palliat Med 8 (6) (2005), pp. 1176–1185. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (51)

8 D.J. Casarett and T.E. Quill, “I'm not ready for hospice”: strategies for timely and effective hospice discussions, Ann Intern Med 146 (6) (2007), pp. 443–449. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (36)

9 E.B. Lamont and N.A. Christakis, Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer near the end of life, Ann Intern Med 134 (12) (2001), pp. 1096–1105. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (166)

10 M. Gysels, A. Richardson and I.J. Higginson, Communication training for health professionals who care for patients with cancer: a systematic review of effectiveness, Support Care Cancer 12 (10) (2004), pp. 692–700. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (41)

11 H.A. Huskamp, N.L. Keating, J.L. Malin, A.M. Zaslavsky, J.C. Weeks, C.C. Earle, J.M. Teno, B.A. Virnig, K.L. Kahn, Y. He and J.Z. Ayanian, Discussions with physicians about hospice among patients with metastatic lung cancer, Arch Intern Med 169 (10) (2009), pp. 954–962. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

12 K.E. Steinhauser, N.A. Christakis, E.C. Clipp, M. McNeilly, S. Grambow, J. Parker and J.A. Tulsky, Preparing for the end of life: preferences of patients, families, physicians, and other care providers, J Pain Symptom Manage 22 (3) (2001), pp. 727–737. Article |

PDF (78 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (120)

13 K.E. Steinhauser, N.A. Christakis, E.C. Clipp, M. McNeilly, L. McIntyre and J.A. Tulsky, Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers, JAMA 284 (19) (2000), pp. 2476–2482. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (615)

14 A.L. Back, R.M. Arnold, W.F. Baile, K.A. Fryer-Edwards, S.C. Alexander, G.E. Barley, T.A. Gooley and J.A. Tulsky, Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care, Arch Intern Med 167 (5) (2007), pp. 453–460. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (94)

15 A.L. Back, R.M. Arnold, W.F. Baile, J.A. Tulsky and K. Fryer-Edwards, Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology, CA Cancer J Clin 55 (3) (2005), pp. 164–177. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (103)

16 C. Conill, E. Verger and M. Salamero, Performance status assessment in cancer patients, Cancer 65 (8) (1990), pp. 1864–1866. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (81)

17 V. Mor, L. Laliberte, J.N. Morris and M. Wiemann, The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale: An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting, Cancer 53 (9) (1984), pp. 2002–2007. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (314)

18 W.F. Baile, R. Buckman, R. Lenzi, G. Glober, E.A. Beale and A.P. Kudelka, SPIKES—a six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer, Oncologist 5 (4) (2000), pp. 302–311. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (293)

19 J.C. Weeks, E.F. Cook, S.J. O'Day, L.M. Peterson, N. Wenger, D. Reding, F.E. Harrell, P. Kussin, N.V. Dawson, A.F. Connors, J. Lynn and R.S. Phillips, Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences, JAMA 279 (21) (1998), pp. 1709–1714. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (350)

20 D.J. Casarett, R.L. Crowley and K.B. Hirschman, How should clinicians describe hospice to patients and families?, J Am Geriatr Soc 52 (11) (2004), pp. 1923–1928. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (46)

21 S.M. Parker, J.M. Clayton, K. Hancock, S. Walder, P.N. Butow, S. Carrick, D. Currow, D. Ghersi, P. Glare, R. Hagerty and M.H. Tattersall, A systematic review of prognostic/end-of-life communication with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: patient/caregiver preferences for the content, style, and timing of information, J Pain Symptom Manage 34 (1) (2007), pp. 81–93. Article |

PDF (166 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (44)

22 K.I. Pollak, R.M. Arnold, A.S. Jeffreys, S.C. Alexander, M.K. Olsen, A.P. Abernethy, C. Sugg Skinner, K.L. Rodriguez and J.A. Tulsky, Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer, J Clin Oncol 25 (36) (2007), pp. 5748–5752. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (47)

23 A.L. Back, W.G. Anderson, L. Bunch, L.A. Marr, J.A. Wallace, H.B. Yang and R.M. Arnold, Communication about cancer near the end of life, Cancer 113 (suppl 7) (2008), pp. 1897–1910. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)

24 M.D. Wenrich, J.R. Curtis, S.E. Shannon, J.D. Carline, D.M. Ambrozy and P.G. Ramsey, Communicating with dying patients within the spectrum of medical care from terminal diagnosis to death, Arch Intern Med 161 (6) (2001), pp. 868–874. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (114)

25 J. Lynn, Perspectives on care at the close of life: Serving patients who may die soon and their families: the role of hospice and other services, JAMA 285 (7) (2001), pp. 925–932. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (124)

 

 

Dr. Casarett's research is funded by grants from the Commonwealth Fund, the Greenwall Foundation, the VistaCare Foundation, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Dr. Shin has nothing to disclose.

Correspondence to: Jennifer Shin, MD, Division of Hematology–Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104


1 PubMed ID in brackets

Vitae

Dr. Shin is from the Division of Hematology–Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia

Dr. Casarett is from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and the Penn-Wissahickon Hospice, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia


Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Facilitating Hospice Discussions: A Six-Step Roadmap
Display Headline
Facilitating Hospice Discussions: A Six-Step Roadmap
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article