Hospice & Palliative Medicine

In a position statement published online ahead of print Jan. 2 in Neurology, the American Academy of Neurology urges uniformity in the laws, policies, and practices related to brain death. Such uniformity would reduce uncertainty and improve patient care, according to the authors. The statement, which was drafted by the AAN’s Brain Death Working Group, also supports the development of uniform policies regarding brain death and its determination within American medical institutions. Finally, the document provides neurologists with guidance for responding to requests for accommodation, including objections to the determination of brain death and to the withdrawal of organ-sustaining technology.

The AAN defines brain death as death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the entire brain. The Uniform Determination of Death Act of 1981 held that brain death and circulatory death (that is, death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the circulatory system) are equivalent, and the AAN acknowledges this equivalence.

The two current medical standards for brain death are the AAN’s 2010 Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults and the 2011 Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children, which was published by the pediatric section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the sections of neurology and critical care of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Neurology Society. “The AAN is unaware of any cases in which compliant application of the brain death guidelines led to inaccurate determination of death with return of any brain function, including consciousness, brainstem reflexes, or ventilatory effort,” according to their 2019 statement.

The only jurisdiction with laws that specifically defer to these standards, however, is Nevada. The vagueness of most states’ laws has contributed to divergent legal interpretations and idiosyncratic standards for determining brain death, according to the statement.

“The AAN believes that a specific, uniform standard for the determination of brain death is critically important to provide the highest quality patient-centered neurologic and end-of-life care,” said James Russell, DO, MS, a neurologist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass., and lead author of the position statement. “The AAN supports the development of legislation in every state modeled after the Nevada statute, which specifically defers to these current adult and pediatric brain death guidelines and any future updates.”

In addition to uniform institutional policies for determining brain death within U.S. medical facilities, the AAN calls for the development of training programs and credentialing mechanisms for physicians who determine brain death, regardless of their specialties. The association also supports research that enhances understanding of brain death and enhanced professional and public education.

While expressing respect and sympathy for requests for limited accommodation, the AAN asserts that these requests “must be based on the values of the patient, and not those of loved ones or other surrogate decision makers.” The association further observes that physicians have no ethical obligation to provide medical treatment to a deceased patient. New Jersey is the only state that legally obliges physicians to provide indefinite accommodation and continued application of organ-sustaining technology.

“The AAN believes that its members have both the moral authority and professional responsibility, when lawful, to perform a brain death evaluation, including apnea testing, after informing a patient’s loved ones or lawful surrogates of that intention, but without obligation to obtain informed consent,” according to the statement. “This position is analogous to the authority and responsibility historically granted to the medical profession to determine circulatory death without the requirement for additional informed consent.”

If a dispute about indefinite accommodation cannot be resolved, it is acceptable for a physician to withdraw organ-sustaining technology unilaterally over the objection of loved ones when legally permitted, according to the AAN. Such unilateral action is a measure of last resort and does not apply when the patient is a pregnant woman, said the authors. In the latter case, the ethical analysis should focus mainly on the welfare of the fetus.

The AAN provided financial support for the Brain Death Working Group’s efforts. The statement’s authors reported no relevant disclosures. The American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society have endorsed the AAN’s position statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Russell JA et al. Neurology. 2018 Jan 2. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750.
 

In a position statement published online ahead of print Jan. 2 in Neurology, the American Academy of Neurology urges uniformity in the laws, policies, and practices related to brain death. Such uniformity would reduce uncertainty and improve patient care, according to the authors. The statement, which was drafted by the AAN’s Brain Death Working Group, also supports the development of uniform policies regarding brain death and its determination within American medical institutions. Finally, the document provides neurologists with guidance for responding to requests for accommodation, including objections to the determination of brain death and to the withdrawal of organ-sustaining technology.

The AAN defines brain death as death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the entire brain. The Uniform Determination of Death Act of 1981 held that brain death and circulatory death (that is, death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the circulatory system) are equivalent, and the AAN acknowledges this equivalence.

The two current medical standards for brain death are the AAN’s 2010 Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults and the 2011 Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children, which was published by the pediatric section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the sections of neurology and critical care of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Neurology Society. “The AAN is unaware of any cases in which compliant application of the brain death guidelines led to inaccurate determination of death with return of any brain function, including consciousness, brainstem reflexes, or ventilatory effort,” according to their 2019 statement.

The only jurisdiction with laws that specifically defer to these standards, however, is Nevada. The vagueness of most states’ laws has contributed to divergent legal interpretations and idiosyncratic standards for determining brain death, according to the statement.

“The AAN believes that a specific, uniform standard for the determination of brain death is critically important to provide the highest quality patient-centered neurologic and end-of-life care,” said James Russell, DO, MS, a neurologist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass., and lead author of the position statement. “The AAN supports the development of legislation in every state modeled after the Nevada statute, which specifically defers to these current adult and pediatric brain death guidelines and any future updates.”

In addition to uniform institutional policies for determining brain death within U.S. medical facilities, the AAN calls for the development of training programs and credentialing mechanisms for physicians who determine brain death, regardless of their specialties. The association also supports research that enhances understanding of brain death and enhanced professional and public education.

While expressing respect and sympathy for requests for limited accommodation, the AAN asserts that these requests “must be based on the values of the patient, and not those of loved ones or other surrogate decision makers.” The association further observes that physicians have no ethical obligation to provide medical treatment to a deceased patient. New Jersey is the only state that legally obliges physicians to provide indefinite accommodation and continued application of organ-sustaining technology.

“The AAN believes that its members have both the moral authority and professional responsibility, when lawful, to perform a brain death evaluation, including apnea testing, after informing a patient’s loved ones or lawful surrogates of that intention, but without obligation to obtain informed consent,” according to the statement. “This position is analogous to the authority and responsibility historically granted to the medical profession to determine circulatory death without the requirement for additional informed consent.”

If a dispute about indefinite accommodation cannot be resolved, it is acceptable for a physician to withdraw organ-sustaining technology unilaterally over the objection of loved ones when legally permitted, according to the AAN. Such unilateral action is a measure of last resort and does not apply when the patient is a pregnant woman, said the authors. In the latter case, the ethical analysis should focus mainly on the welfare of the fetus.

The AAN provided financial support for the Brain Death Working Group’s efforts. The statement’s authors reported no relevant disclosures. The American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society have endorsed the AAN’s position statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Russell JA et al. Neurology. 2018 Jan 2. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750.
 

In a position statement published online ahead of print Jan. 2 in Neurology, the American Academy of Neurology urges uniformity in the laws, policies, and practices related to brain death. Such uniformity would reduce uncertainty and improve patient care, according to the authors. The statement, which was drafted by the AAN’s Brain Death Working Group, also supports the development of uniform policies regarding brain death and its determination within American medical institutions. Finally, the document provides neurologists with guidance for responding to requests for accommodation, including objections to the determination of brain death and to the withdrawal of organ-sustaining technology.

The AAN defines brain death as death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the entire brain. The Uniform Determination of Death Act of 1981 held that brain death and circulatory death (that is, death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the circulatory system) are equivalent, and the AAN acknowledges this equivalence.

The two current medical standards for brain death are the AAN’s 2010 Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults and the 2011 Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children, which was published by the pediatric section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the sections of neurology and critical care of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Neurology Society. “The AAN is unaware of any cases in which compliant application of the brain death guidelines led to inaccurate determination of death with return of any brain function, including consciousness, brainstem reflexes, or ventilatory effort,” according to their 2019 statement.

The only jurisdiction with laws that specifically defer to these standards, however, is Nevada. The vagueness of most states’ laws has contributed to divergent legal interpretations and idiosyncratic standards for determining brain death, according to the statement.

“The AAN believes that a specific, uniform standard for the determination of brain death is critically important to provide the highest quality patient-centered neurologic and end-of-life care,” said James Russell, DO, MS, a neurologist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass., and lead author of the position statement. “The AAN supports the development of legislation in every state modeled after the Nevada statute, which specifically defers to these current adult and pediatric brain death guidelines and any future updates.”

In addition to uniform institutional policies for determining brain death within U.S. medical facilities, the AAN calls for the development of training programs and credentialing mechanisms for physicians who determine brain death, regardless of their specialties. The association also supports research that enhances understanding of brain death and enhanced professional and public education.

While expressing respect and sympathy for requests for limited accommodation, the AAN asserts that these requests “must be based on the values of the patient, and not those of loved ones or other surrogate decision makers.” The association further observes that physicians have no ethical obligation to provide medical treatment to a deceased patient. New Jersey is the only state that legally obliges physicians to provide indefinite accommodation and continued application of organ-sustaining technology.

“The AAN believes that its members have both the moral authority and professional responsibility, when lawful, to perform a brain death evaluation, including apnea testing, after informing a patient’s loved ones or lawful surrogates of that intention, but without obligation to obtain informed consent,” according to the statement. “This position is analogous to the authority and responsibility historically granted to the medical profession to determine circulatory death without the requirement for additional informed consent.”

If a dispute about indefinite accommodation cannot be resolved, it is acceptable for a physician to withdraw organ-sustaining technology unilaterally over the objection of loved ones when legally permitted, according to the AAN. Such unilateral action is a measure of last resort and does not apply when the patient is a pregnant woman, said the authors. In the latter case, the ethical analysis should focus mainly on the welfare of the fetus.

The AAN provided financial support for the Brain Death Working Group’s efforts. The statement’s authors reported no relevant disclosures. The American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society have endorsed the AAN’s position statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Russell JA et al. Neurology. 2018 Jan 2. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750.
 

Question: Hospice liability may exist in which of the following?

A. False claims in violation of Medicare rules regarding eligible beneficiaries.

B. False claims for continuous home care services.

C. Negligent billing practices.

D. Only A and B are correct.

E. A, B, and C are correct.

Answer: D. With an aging population and better end-of-life care, the United States has in the last decade witnessed about a 50% increase in the number of hospices. Hospice care is a Medicare-covered benefit, and most hospices operate on a for-profit basis. Although occasionally institution based, services are more often offered as an outpatient or home-care option. In 2016, hospice care reached 1.4 million beneficiaries, with total Medicare expenditure of $16.7 billion.¹

There are two broad categories of legal jeopardy that hospices face: Medicare fraud and malpractice lawsuits. This article will address these two issues. In addition, hospices, like all health care institutions, face numerous other liabilities, such as negligent hiring, breach of confidentiality, premise liability, HIPAA violations, sexual harassment, vicarious liability, and many others.

Medicare fraud

The False Claims Act (FCA) is an old law enacted by Congress way back in 1863. It imposes liability for submitting a payment demand to the federal government where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the claim is false.²

Intent to defraud is not a required element. But knowing or reckless disregard of the truth or material misrepresentation are required, although negligence is insufficient to constitute a violation. Penalties include treble damages, costs and attorney fees, and fines of $11,000 per false claim – as well as possible imprisonment. The FCA is the most prominent health care antifraud statute.³ Two others are the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law.

A recent example of hospice fraud involved Ohio’s Chemed and Vitas Hospice Services, which were accused of knowingly billing for hospice-ineligible patients and inflated levels of care.⁴

The government alleged that the defendants rewarded employees with bonuses based on the number of patients receiving hospice services, irrespective of whether they were actually terminally ill or needed continuous home care services (CHCS). CHCS commands the highest Medicare daily rate and is meant only for the temporary treatment of acute symptoms constituting a medical crisis.

According to the complaint, the defendants set aggressive billing goals for CHCS without regard to whether the patients actually required such a level of service. The defendants agreed to pay $75 million to settle the lawsuit, the largest in the history of hospice false-claim settlements.

Can an alleged wrong prognosis regarding life expectancy amount to a false claim? Under Medicare rules, a physician certifying that a patient is eligible for hospice care must attest that the condition is terminal, with death expected within 6 months.

AseraCare, a hospice company, was accused of knowingly submitting false claims to Medicare by certifying patients as eligible for hospice. The government claimed that the medical records of the 123 patients at issue did not contain clinical information and other documentation that supported the medical prognosis, and thus, AseraCare’s claims for those patients were false.

AseraCare won a summary judgment defending against the $200 million lawsuit in a federal district court in Alabama. The court opined that, when hospice-certifying physicians and government medical experts look at the very same medical records and disagree about eligibility, the opinion of one medical expert alone cannot prove falsity without further evidence of an objective falsehood.⁵ The government, however, has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Malpractice

Hospices have their share of malpractice litigation, and judgments may be substantial because of noneconomic losses such as pain and suffering, not to mention punitive damages.

For example, in 2013a Maryland jury awarded more than $950,000 to a family that alleged that the decedent’s death was caused by the excessive use of morphine and oxycodone in treating her infected ulcers. Such treatment was deemed suitable for a hospice-type situation, but in fact, the patient was not expected to die within 6 months.

Her husband and two children argued successfully that the hospital committed malpractice by misdiagnosing her need for hospice care and by performing unnecessary surgery. The bulk of the judgment was for pain and suffering and other noneconomic damages.

In another negligence suit, a 66-year-old woman died in a hospice after receiving an overdose of Dilaudid for pancreatic cancer, which an autopsy revealed she did not have. In that case, the plaintiffs were awarded $4.5 million in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Hospice Ministries and its medical director. The jury awarded the family $4 million in monetary compensation and $500,000 in punitive damages.

The case of McGregor v. Hospice Care of Louisiana is illustrative of a malpractice action with a focus on expert testimony.⁶ The issue in this case was whether the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, Bruce Samuels, MD, was admissible and whether it correctly addressed the requisite standard of care.

The decedent had terminal metastatic prostate cancer and was under the care of an oncologist. He eventually enrolled as a patient of Hospice of Baton Rouge, whose nurses visited him in his home several times a week. They reported their findings to the attending oncologist, who prescribed a total of 40 morphine suppositories to be administered 1-2 per hour as needed for pain. However, the prescription noted that only half – that is, 20 suppositories – were to be filled, and stipulated when the remaining 20 suppositories could be released.

Believing that his father was in pain, the patient’s son demanded the early release of the remaining 20 morphine suppositories; he also refused to allow the nurse to assess the patient and exhibited threatening behavior toward her. After conferring with the oncologist on call, the hospice discharged the patient from its care. An ambulance later took the patient to a hospital, where he died that evening.

The family filed a lawsuit against the hospice, alleging negligence in failing to release the remaining 20 morphine suppositories and in abandoning the patient by discharging him. At trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the hospice, after the court excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert as being outside his expertise. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in excluding his testimony.

On remand, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the burden of proof showing negligence. It found that the expert, Dr. Samuels, admitted he had never written a partial-fill prescription before and that he did not know who had the authority to authorize the pharmacist to release the remainder of the partial fill prescription in this case.

In addition, Dr. Samuels acknowledged that a nurse has the obligation to assess a patient and report her findings to the physician and follow any orders of the physician. Further, the nurse indicated that the doctor had instructed her to discharge the patient, not from the doctor’s care, but for treatment to be continued at the hospital.

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the materials have been taken from earlier columns in Internal Medicine News. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. “Medicare’s most indefensible fraud hotspot: Hospice care.” CNBC, Modern Medicine, Aug. 3, 2018.

2. 31 U.S. Code, Section 3729(a)(1)(A).

3. Tan SY. “Update on the False Claims Act.” Internal Medicine News, April 5, 2017.

4. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Oct. 30, 2017.

5. U.S. ex rel. Paradies et al. v. AseraCare Inc. et al., case number 2:12-CV-245-KOB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, March 31, 2016.

6. McGregor v. Hospice Care of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, LLC, No. 2013 CA 1979R, consolidated with No. 2013 CA 1980R. Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit, judgment rendered Sept. 21, 2015.

Question: Hospice liability may exist in which of the following?

A. False claims in violation of Medicare rules regarding eligible beneficiaries.

B. False claims for continuous home care services.

C. Negligent billing practices.

D. Only A and B are correct.

E. A, B, and C are correct.

Answer: D. With an aging population and better end-of-life care, the United States has in the last decade witnessed about a 50% increase in the number of hospices. Hospice care is a Medicare-covered benefit, and most hospices operate on a for-profit basis. Although occasionally institution based, services are more often offered as an outpatient or home-care option. In 2016, hospice care reached 1.4 million beneficiaries, with total Medicare expenditure of $16.7 billion.¹

There are two broad categories of legal jeopardy that hospices face: Medicare fraud and malpractice lawsuits. This article will address these two issues. In addition, hospices, like all health care institutions, face numerous other liabilities, such as negligent hiring, breach of confidentiality, premise liability, HIPAA violations, sexual harassment, vicarious liability, and many others.

Medicare fraud

The False Claims Act (FCA) is an old law enacted by Congress way back in 1863. It imposes liability for submitting a payment demand to the federal government where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the claim is false.²

Intent to defraud is not a required element. But knowing or reckless disregard of the truth or material misrepresentation are required, although negligence is insufficient to constitute a violation. Penalties include treble damages, costs and attorney fees, and fines of $11,000 per false claim – as well as possible imprisonment. The FCA is the most prominent health care antifraud statute.³ Two others are the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law.

A recent example of hospice fraud involved Ohio’s Chemed and Vitas Hospice Services, which were accused of knowingly billing for hospice-ineligible patients and inflated levels of care.⁴

The government alleged that the defendants rewarded employees with bonuses based on the number of patients receiving hospice services, irrespective of whether they were actually terminally ill or needed continuous home care services (CHCS). CHCS commands the highest Medicare daily rate and is meant only for the temporary treatment of acute symptoms constituting a medical crisis.

According to the complaint, the defendants set aggressive billing goals for CHCS without regard to whether the patients actually required such a level of service. The defendants agreed to pay $75 million to settle the lawsuit, the largest in the history of hospice false-claim settlements.

Can an alleged wrong prognosis regarding life expectancy amount to a false claim? Under Medicare rules, a physician certifying that a patient is eligible for hospice care must attest that the condition is terminal, with death expected within 6 months.

AseraCare, a hospice company, was accused of knowingly submitting false claims to Medicare by certifying patients as eligible for hospice. The government claimed that the medical records of the 123 patients at issue did not contain clinical information and other documentation that supported the medical prognosis, and thus, AseraCare’s claims for those patients were false.

AseraCare won a summary judgment defending against the $200 million lawsuit in a federal district court in Alabama. The court opined that, when hospice-certifying physicians and government medical experts look at the very same medical records and disagree about eligibility, the opinion of one medical expert alone cannot prove falsity without further evidence of an objective falsehood.⁵ The government, however, has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Malpractice

Hospices have their share of malpractice litigation, and judgments may be substantial because of noneconomic losses such as pain and suffering, not to mention punitive damages.

For example, in 2013a Maryland jury awarded more than $950,000 to a family that alleged that the decedent’s death was caused by the excessive use of morphine and oxycodone in treating her infected ulcers. Such treatment was deemed suitable for a hospice-type situation, but in fact, the patient was not expected to die within 6 months.

Her husband and two children argued successfully that the hospital committed malpractice by misdiagnosing her need for hospice care and by performing unnecessary surgery. The bulk of the judgment was for pain and suffering and other noneconomic damages.

In another negligence suit, a 66-year-old woman died in a hospice after receiving an overdose of Dilaudid for pancreatic cancer, which an autopsy revealed she did not have. In that case, the plaintiffs were awarded $4.5 million in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Hospice Ministries and its medical director. The jury awarded the family $4 million in monetary compensation and $500,000 in punitive damages.

The case of McGregor v. Hospice Care of Louisiana is illustrative of a malpractice action with a focus on expert testimony.⁶ The issue in this case was whether the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, Bruce Samuels, MD, was admissible and whether it correctly addressed the requisite standard of care.

The decedent had terminal metastatic prostate cancer and was under the care of an oncologist. He eventually enrolled as a patient of Hospice of Baton Rouge, whose nurses visited him in his home several times a week. They reported their findings to the attending oncologist, who prescribed a total of 40 morphine suppositories to be administered 1-2 per hour as needed for pain. However, the prescription noted that only half – that is, 20 suppositories – were to be filled, and stipulated when the remaining 20 suppositories could be released.

Believing that his father was in pain, the patient’s son demanded the early release of the remaining 20 morphine suppositories; he also refused to allow the nurse to assess the patient and exhibited threatening behavior toward her. After conferring with the oncologist on call, the hospice discharged the patient from its care. An ambulance later took the patient to a hospital, where he died that evening.

The family filed a lawsuit against the hospice, alleging negligence in failing to release the remaining 20 morphine suppositories and in abandoning the patient by discharging him. At trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the hospice, after the court excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert as being outside his expertise. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in excluding his testimony.

On remand, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the burden of proof showing negligence. It found that the expert, Dr. Samuels, admitted he had never written a partial-fill prescription before and that he did not know who had the authority to authorize the pharmacist to release the remainder of the partial fill prescription in this case.

In addition, Dr. Samuels acknowledged that a nurse has the obligation to assess a patient and report her findings to the physician and follow any orders of the physician. Further, the nurse indicated that the doctor had instructed her to discharge the patient, not from the doctor’s care, but for treatment to be continued at the hospital.

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the materials have been taken from earlier columns in Internal Medicine News. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. “Medicare’s most indefensible fraud hotspot: Hospice care.” CNBC, Modern Medicine, Aug. 3, 2018.

2. 31 U.S. Code, Section 3729(a)(1)(A).

3. Tan SY. “Update on the False Claims Act.” Internal Medicine News, April 5, 2017.

4. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Oct. 30, 2017.

5. U.S. ex rel. Paradies et al. v. AseraCare Inc. et al., case number 2:12-CV-245-KOB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, March 31, 2016.

6. McGregor v. Hospice Care of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, LLC, No. 2013 CA 1979R, consolidated with No. 2013 CA 1980R. Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit, judgment rendered Sept. 21, 2015.

Question: Hospice liability may exist in which of the following?

A. False claims in violation of Medicare rules regarding eligible beneficiaries.

B. False claims for continuous home care services.

C. Negligent billing practices.

D. Only A and B are correct.

E. A, B, and C are correct.

Answer: D. With an aging population and better end-of-life care, the United States has in the last decade witnessed about a 50% increase in the number of hospices. Hospice care is a Medicare-covered benefit, and most hospices operate on a for-profit basis. Although occasionally institution based, services are more often offered as an outpatient or home-care option. In 2016, hospice care reached 1.4 million beneficiaries, with total Medicare expenditure of $16.7 billion.¹

There are two broad categories of legal jeopardy that hospices face: Medicare fraud and malpractice lawsuits. This article will address these two issues. In addition, hospices, like all health care institutions, face numerous other liabilities, such as negligent hiring, breach of confidentiality, premise liability, HIPAA violations, sexual harassment, vicarious liability, and many others.

Medicare fraud

The False Claims Act (FCA) is an old law enacted by Congress way back in 1863. It imposes liability for submitting a payment demand to the federal government where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the claim is false.²

Intent to defraud is not a required element. But knowing or reckless disregard of the truth or material misrepresentation are required, although negligence is insufficient to constitute a violation. Penalties include treble damages, costs and attorney fees, and fines of $11,000 per false claim – as well as possible imprisonment. The FCA is the most prominent health care antifraud statute.³ Two others are the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law.

A recent example of hospice fraud involved Ohio’s Chemed and Vitas Hospice Services, which were accused of knowingly billing for hospice-ineligible patients and inflated levels of care.⁴

The government alleged that the defendants rewarded employees with bonuses based on the number of patients receiving hospice services, irrespective of whether they were actually terminally ill or needed continuous home care services (CHCS). CHCS commands the highest Medicare daily rate and is meant only for the temporary treatment of acute symptoms constituting a medical crisis.

According to the complaint, the defendants set aggressive billing goals for CHCS without regard to whether the patients actually required such a level of service. The defendants agreed to pay $75 million to settle the lawsuit, the largest in the history of hospice false-claim settlements.

Can an alleged wrong prognosis regarding life expectancy amount to a false claim? Under Medicare rules, a physician certifying that a patient is eligible for hospice care must attest that the condition is terminal, with death expected within 6 months.

AseraCare, a hospice company, was accused of knowingly submitting false claims to Medicare by certifying patients as eligible for hospice. The government claimed that the medical records of the 123 patients at issue did not contain clinical information and other documentation that supported the medical prognosis, and thus, AseraCare’s claims for those patients were false.

AseraCare won a summary judgment defending against the $200 million lawsuit in a federal district court in Alabama. The court opined that, when hospice-certifying physicians and government medical experts look at the very same medical records and disagree about eligibility, the opinion of one medical expert alone cannot prove falsity without further evidence of an objective falsehood.⁵ The government, however, has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Malpractice

Hospices have their share of malpractice litigation, and judgments may be substantial because of noneconomic losses such as pain and suffering, not to mention punitive damages.

For example, in 2013a Maryland jury awarded more than $950,000 to a family that alleged that the decedent’s death was caused by the excessive use of morphine and oxycodone in treating her infected ulcers. Such treatment was deemed suitable for a hospice-type situation, but in fact, the patient was not expected to die within 6 months.

Her husband and two children argued successfully that the hospital committed malpractice by misdiagnosing her need for hospice care and by performing unnecessary surgery. The bulk of the judgment was for pain and suffering and other noneconomic damages.

In another negligence suit, a 66-year-old woman died in a hospice after receiving an overdose of Dilaudid for pancreatic cancer, which an autopsy revealed she did not have. In that case, the plaintiffs were awarded $4.5 million in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Hospice Ministries and its medical director. The jury awarded the family $4 million in monetary compensation and $500,000 in punitive damages.

The case of McGregor v. Hospice Care of Louisiana is illustrative of a malpractice action with a focus on expert testimony.⁶ The issue in this case was whether the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, Bruce Samuels, MD, was admissible and whether it correctly addressed the requisite standard of care.

The decedent had terminal metastatic prostate cancer and was under the care of an oncologist. He eventually enrolled as a patient of Hospice of Baton Rouge, whose nurses visited him in his home several times a week. They reported their findings to the attending oncologist, who prescribed a total of 40 morphine suppositories to be administered 1-2 per hour as needed for pain. However, the prescription noted that only half – that is, 20 suppositories – were to be filled, and stipulated when the remaining 20 suppositories could be released.

Believing that his father was in pain, the patient’s son demanded the early release of the remaining 20 morphine suppositories; he also refused to allow the nurse to assess the patient and exhibited threatening behavior toward her. After conferring with the oncologist on call, the hospice discharged the patient from its care. An ambulance later took the patient to a hospital, where he died that evening.

The family filed a lawsuit against the hospice, alleging negligence in failing to release the remaining 20 morphine suppositories and in abandoning the patient by discharging him. At trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the hospice, after the court excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert as being outside his expertise. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in excluding his testimony.

On remand, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the burden of proof showing negligence. It found that the expert, Dr. Samuels, admitted he had never written a partial-fill prescription before and that he did not know who had the authority to authorize the pharmacist to release the remainder of the partial fill prescription in this case.

In addition, Dr. Samuels acknowledged that a nurse has the obligation to assess a patient and report her findings to the physician and follow any orders of the physician. Further, the nurse indicated that the doctor had instructed her to discharge the patient, not from the doctor’s care, but for treatment to be continued at the hospital.

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the materials have been taken from earlier columns in Internal Medicine News. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. “Medicare’s most indefensible fraud hotspot: Hospice care.” CNBC, Modern Medicine, Aug. 3, 2018.

2. 31 U.S. Code, Section 3729(a)(1)(A).

3. Tan SY. “Update on the False Claims Act.” Internal Medicine News, April 5, 2017.

4. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Oct. 30, 2017.

5. U.S. ex rel. Paradies et al. v. AseraCare Inc. et al., case number 2:12-CV-245-KOB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, March 31, 2016.

6. McGregor v. Hospice Care of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, LLC, No. 2013 CA 1979R, consolidated with No. 2013 CA 1980R. Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit, judgment rendered Sept. 21, 2015.

Only 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care. Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Only 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care. Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

Only 15% of U.S. physician practices report using telemedicine for patient care. Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
 

As I write this last installment of “The Right Choice?” for ACS Surgery News, a number of different emotions are going through my mind all at the same time. I am surprised at how quickly the time has passed since I wrote my first surgical ethics column for SN in 2011. In the 33 columns that I have written since then, I have tried to focus on aspects of surgical practice that emphasize the ethical dimension. I have tried to write columns that would be of interest to practicing surgeons in any setting and not only to academic surgeons that practice in urban environments such as I practice in. This is the last column and thus the end of a chapter of my life and the beginning of a new one.

Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, chief of endocrine surgery, and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.

As I write this last installment of “The Right Choice?” for ACS Surgery News, a number of different emotions are going through my mind all at the same time. I am surprised at how quickly the time has passed since I wrote my first surgical ethics column for SN in 2011. In the 33 columns that I have written since then, I have tried to focus on aspects of surgical practice that emphasize the ethical dimension. I have tried to write columns that would be of interest to practicing surgeons in any setting and not only to academic surgeons that practice in urban environments such as I practice in. This is the last column and thus the end of a chapter of my life and the beginning of a new one.

Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, chief of endocrine surgery, and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.

As I write this last installment of “The Right Choice?” for ACS Surgery News, a number of different emotions are going through my mind all at the same time. I am surprised at how quickly the time has passed since I wrote my first surgical ethics column for SN in 2011. In the 33 columns that I have written since then, I have tried to focus on aspects of surgical practice that emphasize the ethical dimension. I have tried to write columns that would be of interest to practicing surgeons in any setting and not only to academic surgeons that practice in urban environments such as I practice in. This is the last column and thus the end of a chapter of my life and the beginning of a new one.

Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, chief of endocrine surgery, and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.

Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, gave me this advice early in my palliative medicine career: “Never stop thanking those who help you along.” There are many to thank and much to be thankful for since the palliative care series in ACS Surgery News commenced in September 2012. The series proposal was enthusiastically endorsed by the then Editor, Layton F. Rikkers, and promptly launched owing to the personal interest of the first series editor, Elizabeth Wood. Their strong advocacy continues with the current co-editors, Karen Deveney and Tyler Hughes and the ever-watchful eye and assistance of managing editor, Therese Borden.

The purpose of the series was to keep the concept of surgical palliative care visible to the Fellowship through the reflections of surgeons and surgeons in training, while commenting on timely issues relevant to palliative care. We were fortunate to be coupled with Peter Angelos’s astute, widely read series on ethics. Our respective areas of interest widely overlap and have come into sharper focus for the surgical community over roughly the same period of time.

It was my hope that our contributions on palliative care would emulate the qualities and quality of Dr. Angelos’s articles – commentaries that would be of interest to the entire spectrum of surgical specialties and venues of practice. While the ethics column focused on doing the right thing, we would be focused on how to do the right thing in our response to suffering. Thanks are due to ACS Surgery News for its consistent representation of the new specialty of surgical palliative care on a par with other surgical specialties. It is culturally significant that this advocacy included strong support from laypeople.

I have been gratified and am thankful for the frequent uplifting discussions and debates triggered by palliative care columns in well-thumbed copies of ACS Surgery News in our OR lounge.

I didn’t have to look far to find inspiration and direction for the advocacy of palliative care in surgical practice. My father, David D. Dunn, MD, FACS, who represented everything noble, humane, and sensible in surgery, was a community-based general surgeon practicing in an era when the “general surgeon” performed thoracic, vascular, trauma, pediatric, and plastic surgery in addition to abdominal surgery. He had extensive experience with responding to suffering in a fundamentally affirmative way. He founded the first hospice in our community to meet the needs of a proud, cantankerous, elderly man septic with a gangrenous leg who declined amputation. He also witnessed mass suffering when he commanded a field hospital tasked with the resuscitation of survivors of a liberated Nazi concentration camp. The experience could have easily destroyed him from the resulting cynicism about humanity or PTSD. But instead he claimed he learned the first step in responding to mass calamity is the resuscitation of hope. He recalled a rescued physician who was given a clean lab coat and a stethoscope even before he was given his first real meal in years. He believed the hallmarks of steadfastness and non-abandonment are the core of the surgical persona. Late in his long life that ended just before this series launched, he observed, “It’s all palliative when you get right down to it. You [meaning the next generation] have to figure out the details and do your bit.”

The future is bright to “figure out the details and do your bit” for surgeons interested in palliative care. A number of young surgeons and surgeons in training, some who have done fellowships and become ABS certified in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, have had the opportunity to be heard and their specialty field be recognized by the greater surgical community because of ACS Surgery News.

I once asked a physically and emotionally exhausted family member of an “ICU to nowhere” patient why he thought patients get “stuck” in the ICU. He answered eloquently, “People just don’t think they should die.” The prevailing biophysical and increasingly “corporate” framework for care of the seriously ill is handicapped by its inability to effectively respond to the psychological and spiritual questions raised by this comment. Inability of surgeons to reconcile personal moral imperatives with big data and corporate medicine may be contributing to burnout, one of the most frequently acknowledged problems for surgeons today. Disease management alone, even if completely evidence-based, will not break this type of gridlock nor leave patients, families, and practitioners with a lasting sense of support. We will always need a broader framework that gives us a lens through which we can see and a voice with which we can answer the serious concerns that trouble our seriously ill patients and their families. I thank ACS Surgery News for conscientiously providing us a lens and a voice over the past 7 years.

Dr. Dunn was formerly the medical director of the palliative care consultation service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot in Erie, Pa., and Chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.

Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, gave me this advice early in my palliative medicine career: “Never stop thanking those who help you along.” There are many to thank and much to be thankful for since the palliative care series in ACS Surgery News commenced in September 2012. The series proposal was enthusiastically endorsed by the then Editor, Layton F. Rikkers, and promptly launched owing to the personal interest of the first series editor, Elizabeth Wood. Their strong advocacy continues with the current co-editors, Karen Deveney and Tyler Hughes and the ever-watchful eye and assistance of managing editor, Therese Borden.

The purpose of the series was to keep the concept of surgical palliative care visible to the Fellowship through the reflections of surgeons and surgeons in training, while commenting on timely issues relevant to palliative care. We were fortunate to be coupled with Peter Angelos’s astute, widely read series on ethics. Our respective areas of interest widely overlap and have come into sharper focus for the surgical community over roughly the same period of time.

It was my hope that our contributions on palliative care would emulate the qualities and quality of Dr. Angelos’s articles – commentaries that would be of interest to the entire spectrum of surgical specialties and venues of practice. While the ethics column focused on doing the right thing, we would be focused on how to do the right thing in our response to suffering. Thanks are due to ACS Surgery News for its consistent representation of the new specialty of surgical palliative care on a par with other surgical specialties. It is culturally significant that this advocacy included strong support from laypeople.

I have been gratified and am thankful for the frequent uplifting discussions and debates triggered by palliative care columns in well-thumbed copies of ACS Surgery News in our OR lounge.

I didn’t have to look far to find inspiration and direction for the advocacy of palliative care in surgical practice. My father, David D. Dunn, MD, FACS, who represented everything noble, humane, and sensible in surgery, was a community-based general surgeon practicing in an era when the “general surgeon” performed thoracic, vascular, trauma, pediatric, and plastic surgery in addition to abdominal surgery. He had extensive experience with responding to suffering in a fundamentally affirmative way. He founded the first hospice in our community to meet the needs of a proud, cantankerous, elderly man septic with a gangrenous leg who declined amputation. He also witnessed mass suffering when he commanded a field hospital tasked with the resuscitation of survivors of a liberated Nazi concentration camp. The experience could have easily destroyed him from the resulting cynicism about humanity or PTSD. But instead he claimed he learned the first step in responding to mass calamity is the resuscitation of hope. He recalled a rescued physician who was given a clean lab coat and a stethoscope even before he was given his first real meal in years. He believed the hallmarks of steadfastness and non-abandonment are the core of the surgical persona. Late in his long life that ended just before this series launched, he observed, “It’s all palliative when you get right down to it. You [meaning the next generation] have to figure out the details and do your bit.”

The future is bright to “figure out the details and do your bit” for surgeons interested in palliative care. A number of young surgeons and surgeons in training, some who have done fellowships and become ABS certified in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, have had the opportunity to be heard and their specialty field be recognized by the greater surgical community because of ACS Surgery News.

I once asked a physically and emotionally exhausted family member of an “ICU to nowhere” patient why he thought patients get “stuck” in the ICU. He answered eloquently, “People just don’t think they should die.” The prevailing biophysical and increasingly “corporate” framework for care of the seriously ill is handicapped by its inability to effectively respond to the psychological and spiritual questions raised by this comment. Inability of surgeons to reconcile personal moral imperatives with big data and corporate medicine may be contributing to burnout, one of the most frequently acknowledged problems for surgeons today. Disease management alone, even if completely evidence-based, will not break this type of gridlock nor leave patients, families, and practitioners with a lasting sense of support. We will always need a broader framework that gives us a lens through which we can see and a voice with which we can answer the serious concerns that trouble our seriously ill patients and their families. I thank ACS Surgery News for conscientiously providing us a lens and a voice over the past 7 years.

Dr. Dunn was formerly the medical director of the palliative care consultation service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot in Erie, Pa., and Chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.

Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, gave me this advice early in my palliative medicine career: “Never stop thanking those who help you along.” There are many to thank and much to be thankful for since the palliative care series in ACS Surgery News commenced in September 2012. The series proposal was enthusiastically endorsed by the then Editor, Layton F. Rikkers, and promptly launched owing to the personal interest of the first series editor, Elizabeth Wood. Their strong advocacy continues with the current co-editors, Karen Deveney and Tyler Hughes and the ever-watchful eye and assistance of managing editor, Therese Borden.

The purpose of the series was to keep the concept of surgical palliative care visible to the Fellowship through the reflections of surgeons and surgeons in training, while commenting on timely issues relevant to palliative care. We were fortunate to be coupled with Peter Angelos’s astute, widely read series on ethics. Our respective areas of interest widely overlap and have come into sharper focus for the surgical community over roughly the same period of time.

It was my hope that our contributions on palliative care would emulate the qualities and quality of Dr. Angelos’s articles – commentaries that would be of interest to the entire spectrum of surgical specialties and venues of practice. While the ethics column focused on doing the right thing, we would be focused on how to do the right thing in our response to suffering. Thanks are due to ACS Surgery News for its consistent representation of the new specialty of surgical palliative care on a par with other surgical specialties. It is culturally significant that this advocacy included strong support from laypeople.

I have been gratified and am thankful for the frequent uplifting discussions and debates triggered by palliative care columns in well-thumbed copies of ACS Surgery News in our OR lounge.

I didn’t have to look far to find inspiration and direction for the advocacy of palliative care in surgical practice. My father, David D. Dunn, MD, FACS, who represented everything noble, humane, and sensible in surgery, was a community-based general surgeon practicing in an era when the “general surgeon” performed thoracic, vascular, trauma, pediatric, and plastic surgery in addition to abdominal surgery. He had extensive experience with responding to suffering in a fundamentally affirmative way. He founded the first hospice in our community to meet the needs of a proud, cantankerous, elderly man septic with a gangrenous leg who declined amputation. He also witnessed mass suffering when he commanded a field hospital tasked with the resuscitation of survivors of a liberated Nazi concentration camp. The experience could have easily destroyed him from the resulting cynicism about humanity or PTSD. But instead he claimed he learned the first step in responding to mass calamity is the resuscitation of hope. He recalled a rescued physician who was given a clean lab coat and a stethoscope even before he was given his first real meal in years. He believed the hallmarks of steadfastness and non-abandonment are the core of the surgical persona. Late in his long life that ended just before this series launched, he observed, “It’s all palliative when you get right down to it. You [meaning the next generation] have to figure out the details and do your bit.”

The future is bright to “figure out the details and do your bit” for surgeons interested in palliative care. A number of young surgeons and surgeons in training, some who have done fellowships and become ABS certified in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, have had the opportunity to be heard and their specialty field be recognized by the greater surgical community because of ACS Surgery News.

I once asked a physically and emotionally exhausted family member of an “ICU to nowhere” patient why he thought patients get “stuck” in the ICU. He answered eloquently, “People just don’t think they should die.” The prevailing biophysical and increasingly “corporate” framework for care of the seriously ill is handicapped by its inability to effectively respond to the psychological and spiritual questions raised by this comment. Inability of surgeons to reconcile personal moral imperatives with big data and corporate medicine may be contributing to burnout, one of the most frequently acknowledged problems for surgeons today. Disease management alone, even if completely evidence-based, will not break this type of gridlock nor leave patients, families, and practitioners with a lasting sense of support. We will always need a broader framework that gives us a lens through which we can see and a voice with which we can answer the serious concerns that trouble our seriously ill patients and their families. I thank ACS Surgery News for conscientiously providing us a lens and a voice over the past 7 years.

Dr. Dunn was formerly the medical director of the palliative care consultation service at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot in Erie, Pa., and Chair of the ACS Committee on Surgical Palliative Care.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite the readiness of liver transplant candidates to engage in discussions about advance care planning, there are low rates of such conversations with clinicians, results from a single-center survey found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge Medical News

“Recent studies have shown that there have been low rates of these types of discussions in all areas of medicine, not just in liver transplantation per se,” Connie W. Wang, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “We were curious to see what it looked like in our practice setting.”

In an effort to evaluate current advanced care planning documentation practices in the liver transplantation setting, she and her colleagues reviewed the medical charts of 168 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation at the University of California, San Francisco, from January 2017 to June 2017. Next, to assess readiness to complete advanced care planning among liver transplant candidates, the researchers administered the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey to 41 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation from March 2018 to May 2018. The survey was scored on a Likert scale of 1-4, in which a score of 4 equaled “ready” or “confident,” and a score of 5 equaled “very ready” or “very confident.”

The mean age of the 168 transplant candidates was 53 years, 35% were female, and 52% were non-Hispanic white. Only 15 patients (9%) reported completing advanced care planning prior to their liver transplant evaluation and none had legal advance care planning forms scanned or end-of-life wishes documented in the medical record. Durable power of attorney for health care was discussed with 17 patients (10%). On logistic regression analysis, only white race was associated with completion of advanced care planning (OR 4.16; P = .03), but age, Child-Pugh score, and MELD-Na score were not.

The mean age of the 41 transplant candidates who completed the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey was 58 years, 39% were female, and 58% were non-Hispanic white. Nearly all respondents (93%) indicated that they were ready to appoint a durable power of attorney, 85% were ready to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% were ready to ask physicians questions about medical decisions. Similarly, 93% of patients felt confident to appoint a durable power of attorney, 88% felt confident to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% felt confident to ask physicians questions about medical decisions.

“It seems like from the patients’ perspective, they are very much open to having these conversations, but there hasn’t been [the right] environment or setting to have them,” said Dr. Wang, a third-year internal medicine resident at UCSF. “Or, there may be a barrier from the provider’s perspective. Clearly, there is a huge need that can be filled.” She noted that future research should focus on development of tools to facilitate discussions and documentation between transplant clinicians, patients, and their caregivers.

One of the study authors, Jennifer C. Lai, MD, reported being a consultant for Third Rock Ventures, LLC. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatol. 2018;68[S1]: Abstract 771.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite the readiness of liver transplant candidates to engage in discussions about advance care planning, there are low rates of such conversations with clinicians, results from a single-center survey found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge Medical News

“Recent studies have shown that there have been low rates of these types of discussions in all areas of medicine, not just in liver transplantation per se,” Connie W. Wang, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “We were curious to see what it looked like in our practice setting.”

In an effort to evaluate current advanced care planning documentation practices in the liver transplantation setting, she and her colleagues reviewed the medical charts of 168 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation at the University of California, San Francisco, from January 2017 to June 2017. Next, to assess readiness to complete advanced care planning among liver transplant candidates, the researchers administered the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey to 41 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation from March 2018 to May 2018. The survey was scored on a Likert scale of 1-4, in which a score of 4 equaled “ready” or “confident,” and a score of 5 equaled “very ready” or “very confident.”

The mean age of the 168 transplant candidates was 53 years, 35% were female, and 52% were non-Hispanic white. Only 15 patients (9%) reported completing advanced care planning prior to their liver transplant evaluation and none had legal advance care planning forms scanned or end-of-life wishes documented in the medical record. Durable power of attorney for health care was discussed with 17 patients (10%). On logistic regression analysis, only white race was associated with completion of advanced care planning (OR 4.16; P = .03), but age, Child-Pugh score, and MELD-Na score were not.

The mean age of the 41 transplant candidates who completed the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey was 58 years, 39% were female, and 58% were non-Hispanic white. Nearly all respondents (93%) indicated that they were ready to appoint a durable power of attorney, 85% were ready to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% were ready to ask physicians questions about medical decisions. Similarly, 93% of patients felt confident to appoint a durable power of attorney, 88% felt confident to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% felt confident to ask physicians questions about medical decisions.

“It seems like from the patients’ perspective, they are very much open to having these conversations, but there hasn’t been [the right] environment or setting to have them,” said Dr. Wang, a third-year internal medicine resident at UCSF. “Or, there may be a barrier from the provider’s perspective. Clearly, there is a huge need that can be filled.” She noted that future research should focus on development of tools to facilitate discussions and documentation between transplant clinicians, patients, and their caregivers.

One of the study authors, Jennifer C. Lai, MD, reported being a consultant for Third Rock Ventures, LLC. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatol. 2018;68[S1]: Abstract 771.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite the readiness of liver transplant candidates to engage in discussions about advance care planning, there are low rates of such conversations with clinicians, results from a single-center survey found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge Medical News

“Recent studies have shown that there have been low rates of these types of discussions in all areas of medicine, not just in liver transplantation per se,” Connie W. Wang, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “We were curious to see what it looked like in our practice setting.”

In an effort to evaluate current advanced care planning documentation practices in the liver transplantation setting, she and her colleagues reviewed the medical charts of 168 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation at the University of California, San Francisco, from January 2017 to June 2017. Next, to assess readiness to complete advanced care planning among liver transplant candidates, the researchers administered the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey to 41 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation from March 2018 to May 2018. The survey was scored on a Likert scale of 1-4, in which a score of 4 equaled “ready” or “confident,” and a score of 5 equaled “very ready” or “very confident.”

The mean age of the 168 transplant candidates was 53 years, 35% were female, and 52% were non-Hispanic white. Only 15 patients (9%) reported completing advanced care planning prior to their liver transplant evaluation and none had legal advance care planning forms scanned or end-of-life wishes documented in the medical record. Durable power of attorney for health care was discussed with 17 patients (10%). On logistic regression analysis, only white race was associated with completion of advanced care planning (OR 4.16; P = .03), but age, Child-Pugh score, and MELD-Na score were not.

The mean age of the 41 transplant candidates who completed the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey was 58 years, 39% were female, and 58% were non-Hispanic white. Nearly all respondents (93%) indicated that they were ready to appoint a durable power of attorney, 85% were ready to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% were ready to ask physicians questions about medical decisions. Similarly, 93% of patients felt confident to appoint a durable power of attorney, 88% felt confident to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% felt confident to ask physicians questions about medical decisions.

“It seems like from the patients’ perspective, they are very much open to having these conversations, but there hasn’t been [the right] environment or setting to have them,” said Dr. Wang, a third-year internal medicine resident at UCSF. “Or, there may be a barrier from the provider’s perspective. Clearly, there is a huge need that can be filled.” She noted that future research should focus on development of tools to facilitate discussions and documentation between transplant clinicians, patients, and their caregivers.

One of the study authors, Jennifer C. Lai, MD, reported being a consultant for Third Rock Ventures, LLC. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatol. 2018;68[S1]: Abstract 771.

SAN DIEGO – The wider picture of the patient’s health and prognosis, not just chronologic age, should enter into the clinical decision to initiate dialysis, according to Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir, MD, a palliative care physician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“People perceive they have no choice [but treatment], and we perceive we have to do things to them until everything is lost, then we expect them to do a 180 [degree turn],” she said in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

“A 90-year-old fit individual, with minimal comorbidity living independently, would absolutely be a good candidate for dialysis, while a 75-year-old patient with bad peripheral vascular disease and dementia, living in a nursing home, would be unlikely to live longer on dialysis than off dialysis,” she said. “We need to weigh the risks and benefits for each individual patient against their goals and values. We need to be honest about the lack of benefit for certain subgroups of patients and the heavy treatment burdens of dialysis. Age, comorbidity, and frailty all factor into these deliberations and prognosis.”

More than 107,000 people over age 75 in the United States received dialysis in 2015, according to statistics gathered by the National Kidney Foundation. Yet the survival advantage of dialysis is more limited in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, Dr. Thorsteinsdottir said. “It becomes important to think about the harms of treatment.”

A 2016 study from the Netherlands found no survival advantage to dialysis, compared with conservative management among kidney failure patients aged 80 and older. The survival advantage was limited with dialysis in patients aged 70 and older who also had multiple comorbidities. (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Apr;11(4):633-40)

In an interview, Dr. Thorsteinsdottir acknowledged that “determining who is unlikely to benefit from dialysis is complicated.” However, she said, “we know that the following comorbidities are the worst: dementia and peripheral vascular disease.”

“No one that I know of currently has an age cutoff for dialysis,” Dr. Thorsteinsdottir said in the interview, “and I do not believe the U.S. is ready for any kind of explicit limit setting by the government on dialysis treatment.”

“We must respond to legitimate concerns raised by recent studies that suggest that strong moral imperatives – to treat anyone we can treat – have created a situation where we are not pausing and asking hard questions about whether the patient in front of us is likely to benefit from dialysis,” she said in the interview. “Patients sense this and do not feel that they are given any alternatives to dialysis treatment. This needs to change.”

Dr. Thorsteinsdottir reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The wider picture of the patient’s health and prognosis, not just chronologic age, should enter into the clinical decision to initiate dialysis, according to Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir, MD, a palliative care physician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“People perceive they have no choice [but treatment], and we perceive we have to do things to them until everything is lost, then we expect them to do a 180 [degree turn],” she said in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

“A 90-year-old fit individual, with minimal comorbidity living independently, would absolutely be a good candidate for dialysis, while a 75-year-old patient with bad peripheral vascular disease and dementia, living in a nursing home, would be unlikely to live longer on dialysis than off dialysis,” she said. “We need to weigh the risks and benefits for each individual patient against their goals and values. We need to be honest about the lack of benefit for certain subgroups of patients and the heavy treatment burdens of dialysis. Age, comorbidity, and frailty all factor into these deliberations and prognosis.”

More than 107,000 people over age 75 in the United States received dialysis in 2015, according to statistics gathered by the National Kidney Foundation. Yet the survival advantage of dialysis is more limited in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, Dr. Thorsteinsdottir said. “It becomes important to think about the harms of treatment.”

A 2016 study from the Netherlands found no survival advantage to dialysis, compared with conservative management among kidney failure patients aged 80 and older. The survival advantage was limited with dialysis in patients aged 70 and older who also had multiple comorbidities. (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Apr;11(4):633-40)

In an interview, Dr. Thorsteinsdottir acknowledged that “determining who is unlikely to benefit from dialysis is complicated.” However, she said, “we know that the following comorbidities are the worst: dementia and peripheral vascular disease.”

“No one that I know of currently has an age cutoff for dialysis,” Dr. Thorsteinsdottir said in the interview, “and I do not believe the U.S. is ready for any kind of explicit limit setting by the government on dialysis treatment.”

“We must respond to legitimate concerns raised by recent studies that suggest that strong moral imperatives – to treat anyone we can treat – have created a situation where we are not pausing and asking hard questions about whether the patient in front of us is likely to benefit from dialysis,” she said in the interview. “Patients sense this and do not feel that they are given any alternatives to dialysis treatment. This needs to change.”

Dr. Thorsteinsdottir reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The wider picture of the patient’s health and prognosis, not just chronologic age, should enter into the clinical decision to initiate dialysis, according to Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir, MD, a palliative care physician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“People perceive they have no choice [but treatment], and we perceive we have to do things to them until everything is lost, then we expect them to do a 180 [degree turn],” she said in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

“A 90-year-old fit individual, with minimal comorbidity living independently, would absolutely be a good candidate for dialysis, while a 75-year-old patient with bad peripheral vascular disease and dementia, living in a nursing home, would be unlikely to live longer on dialysis than off dialysis,” she said. “We need to weigh the risks and benefits for each individual patient against their goals and values. We need to be honest about the lack of benefit for certain subgroups of patients and the heavy treatment burdens of dialysis. Age, comorbidity, and frailty all factor into these deliberations and prognosis.”

More than 107,000 people over age 75 in the United States received dialysis in 2015, according to statistics gathered by the National Kidney Foundation. Yet the survival advantage of dialysis is more limited in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, Dr. Thorsteinsdottir said. “It becomes important to think about the harms of treatment.”

A 2016 study from the Netherlands found no survival advantage to dialysis, compared with conservative management among kidney failure patients aged 80 and older. The survival advantage was limited with dialysis in patients aged 70 and older who also had multiple comorbidities. (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Apr;11(4):633-40)

In an interview, Dr. Thorsteinsdottir acknowledged that “determining who is unlikely to benefit from dialysis is complicated.” However, she said, “we know that the following comorbidities are the worst: dementia and peripheral vascular disease.”

“No one that I know of currently has an age cutoff for dialysis,” Dr. Thorsteinsdottir said in the interview, “and I do not believe the U.S. is ready for any kind of explicit limit setting by the government on dialysis treatment.”

“We must respond to legitimate concerns raised by recent studies that suggest that strong moral imperatives – to treat anyone we can treat – have created a situation where we are not pausing and asking hard questions about whether the patient in front of us is likely to benefit from dialysis,” she said in the interview. “Patients sense this and do not feel that they are given any alternatives to dialysis treatment. This needs to change.”

Dr. Thorsteinsdottir reported no relevant financial disclosures.

In 2015, 75% of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds had palliative care programs – a sharp increase from the 25% that had palliative care in 2000.

“The rapid adoption of this high-value program, which is voluntary and runs counter to the dominant culture in U.S. hospitals, was catalyzed by tens of millions of dollars in philanthropic support for innovation, dissemination, and professionalization in the palliative care field,” according to research published in Health Affairs.
 

Reference

Cassel JB et al. Palliative care leadership centers are key to the diffusion of palliative care innovation. Health Aff. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1122.

In 2015, 75% of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds had palliative care programs – a sharp increase from the 25% that had palliative care in 2000.

“The rapid adoption of this high-value program, which is voluntary and runs counter to the dominant culture in U.S. hospitals, was catalyzed by tens of millions of dollars in philanthropic support for innovation, dissemination, and professionalization in the palliative care field,” according to research published in Health Affairs.
 

Reference

Cassel JB et al. Palliative care leadership centers are key to the diffusion of palliative care innovation. Health Aff. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1122.

In 2015, 75% of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds had palliative care programs – a sharp increase from the 25% that had palliative care in 2000.

“The rapid adoption of this high-value program, which is voluntary and runs counter to the dominant culture in U.S. hospitals, was catalyzed by tens of millions of dollars in philanthropic support for innovation, dissemination, and professionalization in the palliative care field,” according to research published in Health Affairs.
 

Reference

Cassel JB et al. Palliative care leadership centers are key to the diffusion of palliative care innovation. Health Aff. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1122.

Several months ago, we invited readers to submit short personalized commentaries on articles that changed the way they approach a specific clinical problem and the way they take care of patients. In this issue of the Journal, addiction specialist Charles Reznikoff, MD, discusses 3 observational studies that focused on how prescribing opioids for acute pain can lead to chronic opioid use and addiction, and how these studies have influenced his practice.

Although observational studies rank lower on the level-of-evidence scale than randomized controlled trials, they can intellectually stimulate and inform us in ways that lead us to modify how we deliver clinical care.

The initial prescribing of pain medications and the management of patients with chronic pain are currently under intense scrutiny, and are the topic of much discussion in the United States. The opioid epidemic has spilled over into all aspects of daily life, far beyond the medical community. But since we physicians are the only legal and regulated source of narcotics and other pain medications, we are under the microscope—and rightly so.

We, our patients, the pharmaceutical industry, legislators, and the law enforcement community struggle to navigate a complex maze, one with moving walls. Not long ago, physicians were told that we were not attentive enough to our patients’ suffering and needed to do better at relieving it. “Pain” became a vital sign and a recorded metric of quality care. Some excellent changes evolved from this focus, such as increased emphasis on postoperative regional and local pain control. But pain measurements continue to be recorded at every outpatient visit, an almost mindless requirement.

Recently, a patient with lupus nephritis whom I was seeing for blood pressure management reported a pain level of 8 on a scale of 10. I confess that I usually don’t even look at these metrics, but for whatever reason I saw her answer. I asked her about it. She had burned her finger while cooking and said, “I had no idea what number to pick. I picked 8. It’s no big deal.”

But the ongoing emphasis on this metric may lead some patients to expect total pain relief, a problematic expectation in those with chronic pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia. As Dr. Reznikoff points out, a large proportion of patients report they have chronic pain, and many (but clearly not all) suffer from recognized or masked chronic anxiety and depression disorders¹ that may well influence how they use pain medications.

Thus, while physicians indeed are on the front lines of offering initial prescriptions for pain medications, we remain betwixt and between in the challenges of responding to the immediate needs of our patients while trying to predict the long-term effects of our prescription on the individual patient and of our prescribing patterns on society in general.

I again welcome your submissions describing how individual publications have affected your personal approach to managing patients and specific diseases. We will publish selected contributions in print and online.

Several months ago, we invited readers to submit short personalized commentaries on articles that changed the way they approach a specific clinical problem and the way they take care of patients. In this issue of the Journal, addiction specialist Charles Reznikoff, MD, discusses 3 observational studies that focused on how prescribing opioids for acute pain can lead to chronic opioid use and addiction, and how these studies have influenced his practice.

Although observational studies rank lower on the level-of-evidence scale than randomized controlled trials, they can intellectually stimulate and inform us in ways that lead us to modify how we deliver clinical care.

The initial prescribing of pain medications and the management of patients with chronic pain are currently under intense scrutiny, and are the topic of much discussion in the United States. The opioid epidemic has spilled over into all aspects of daily life, far beyond the medical community. But since we physicians are the only legal and regulated source of narcotics and other pain medications, we are under the microscope—and rightly so.

We, our patients, the pharmaceutical industry, legislators, and the law enforcement community struggle to navigate a complex maze, one with moving walls. Not long ago, physicians were told that we were not attentive enough to our patients’ suffering and needed to do better at relieving it. “Pain” became a vital sign and a recorded metric of quality care. Some excellent changes evolved from this focus, such as increased emphasis on postoperative regional and local pain control. But pain measurements continue to be recorded at every outpatient visit, an almost mindless requirement.

Recently, a patient with lupus nephritis whom I was seeing for blood pressure management reported a pain level of 8 on a scale of 10. I confess that I usually don’t even look at these metrics, but for whatever reason I saw her answer. I asked her about it. She had burned her finger while cooking and said, “I had no idea what number to pick. I picked 8. It’s no big deal.”

But the ongoing emphasis on this metric may lead some patients to expect total pain relief, a problematic expectation in those with chronic pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia. As Dr. Reznikoff points out, a large proportion of patients report they have chronic pain, and many (but clearly not all) suffer from recognized or masked chronic anxiety and depression disorders¹ that may well influence how they use pain medications.

Thus, while physicians indeed are on the front lines of offering initial prescriptions for pain medications, we remain betwixt and between in the challenges of responding to the immediate needs of our patients while trying to predict the long-term effects of our prescription on the individual patient and of our prescribing patterns on society in general.

I again welcome your submissions describing how individual publications have affected your personal approach to managing patients and specific diseases. We will publish selected contributions in print and online.

Several months ago, we invited readers to submit short personalized commentaries on articles that changed the way they approach a specific clinical problem and the way they take care of patients. In this issue of the Journal, addiction specialist Charles Reznikoff, MD, discusses 3 observational studies that focused on how prescribing opioids for acute pain can lead to chronic opioid use and addiction, and how these studies have influenced his practice.

Although observational studies rank lower on the level-of-evidence scale than randomized controlled trials, they can intellectually stimulate and inform us in ways that lead us to modify how we deliver clinical care.

The initial prescribing of pain medications and the management of patients with chronic pain are currently under intense scrutiny, and are the topic of much discussion in the United States. The opioid epidemic has spilled over into all aspects of daily life, far beyond the medical community. But since we physicians are the only legal and regulated source of narcotics and other pain medications, we are under the microscope—and rightly so.

We, our patients, the pharmaceutical industry, legislators, and the law enforcement community struggle to navigate a complex maze, one with moving walls. Not long ago, physicians were told that we were not attentive enough to our patients’ suffering and needed to do better at relieving it. “Pain” became a vital sign and a recorded metric of quality care. Some excellent changes evolved from this focus, such as increased emphasis on postoperative regional and local pain control. But pain measurements continue to be recorded at every outpatient visit, an almost mindless requirement.

Recently, a patient with lupus nephritis whom I was seeing for blood pressure management reported a pain level of 8 on a scale of 10. I confess that I usually don’t even look at these metrics, but for whatever reason I saw her answer. I asked her about it. She had burned her finger while cooking and said, “I had no idea what number to pick. I picked 8. It’s no big deal.”

But the ongoing emphasis on this metric may lead some patients to expect total pain relief, a problematic expectation in those with chronic pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia. As Dr. Reznikoff points out, a large proportion of patients report they have chronic pain, and many (but clearly not all) suffer from recognized or masked chronic anxiety and depression disorders¹ that may well influence how they use pain medications.

Thus, while physicians indeed are on the front lines of offering initial prescriptions for pain medications, we remain betwixt and between in the challenges of responding to the immediate needs of our patients while trying to predict the long-term effects of our prescription on the individual patient and of our prescribing patterns on society in general.

I again welcome your submissions describing how individual publications have affected your personal approach to managing patients and specific diseases. We will publish selected contributions in print and online.

The new edition of national palliative care guidelines provide updated clinical strategies and guidance relevant to all clinicians providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.

The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.

One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.

The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.

“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.

Implications for treatment of oncology patients

These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Palliative care in surgical care

These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.

Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”

Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”

While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.

“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.

“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.

The new edition of national palliative care guidelines provide updated clinical strategies and guidance relevant to all clinicians providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.

The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.

One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.

The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.

“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.

Implications for treatment of oncology patients

These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Palliative care in surgical care

These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.

Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”

Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”

While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.

“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.

“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.

The new edition of national palliative care guidelines provide updated clinical strategies and guidance relevant to all clinicians providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.

The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.

One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.

The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.

“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.

Implications for treatment of oncology patients

These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Palliative care in surgical care

These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.

Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”

Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”

While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.

“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.

“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.