A 72-hr, continuous intravenous infusion of rhIL-1ra failed to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in mortality when compared with standard therapy in this multicenter clinical trial. If rhIL-1ra treatment has any therapeutic activity in severe sepsis, the incremental benefits are small and will be difficult to demonstrate in a patient population as defined by this clinical trial.

Background and Objectives The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively impacted persons with existing chronic health conditions. The pandemic also has the potential to exacerbate stresses of family caregiving. We compare family caregivers with non-caregivers on physical, psychosocial, and financial well-being outcomes during the pandemic and determine family caregivers most at risk for adverse outcomes. Research Design and Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 576 family caregivers and 2,933 non-caregivers from April-May 2020 in Pittsburgh, PA region with a national supplement. Outcome measures included concurrent anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social participation; and financial well-being); and perceived changes due to COVID-19 (loneliness, financial well-being, food security). We also measured socio-demographic; caregiving contextual variables; and COVID-related caregiver stressors (COVID Caregiver Risk Index). Results Controlling for socio-demographics, family caregivers reported higher anxiety; depression; fatigue; sleep disturbance; lower social participation; lower financial well-being; increased food insecurity (all p < .01) and increased financial worries (p=.01). Caregivers who reported more COVID-related caregiver stressors and disruptions reported more adverse outcomes (all p < .01). In addition, caregivers who were female, younger, lower income, providing both personal / medical care, and providing care for cognitive / behavioral / emotional problems reported more adverse outcomes. Discussion and Implications Challenges of caregiving are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Family caregivers reported increased duties, burdens, and resulting adverse health, psychosocial, and financial outcomes. Results were generally consistent with caregiver stress-health process models. Family caregivers should receive increased support during this serious public health crisis.

The study purposes were to 1) describe interaction behaviors and factors that may impact communication and 2) explore associations between interaction behaviors and nursing care quality indicators between 38 mechanically ventilated patients (≥60 years) and their intensive care unit nurses (n=24). Behaviors were measured by rating videotaped observations from the Study of Patient-Nurse Effectiveness with Communication Strategies (SPEACS). Characteristics and quality indicators were obtained from the SPEACS dataset and medical chart abstraction. All positive behaviors occurred at least once. Significant (p<.05) associations were observed between: 1) positive nurse and positive patient behaviors, 2) patient unaided augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies and positive nurse behaviors, 3) individual patient unaided AAC strategies and individual nurse positive behaviors and 4) positive nurse behaviors and pain management, and 5) positive patient behaviors and sedation level. Findings provide evidence that nurse and patient behaviors impact communication and may be associated with nursing care quality.

Purpose Providers’ communication skills play a key role in encouraging breast cancer survivors to report symptoms and adhere to long-term treatments such as adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). The purpose of this study was to examine provider perspectives on patient-provider communication regarding AET symptom management and to explore whether provider perspectives vary across the multi-disciplinary team of providers involved in survivorship care. Methods We conducted three one-hour focus groups with a multi-disciplinary group of health care providers including oncology specialists, primary care physicians, and non-physician providers experienced in caring for breast cancer survivors undergoing AET (n = 13). Themes were organized using Epstein and Street’s (2007) Framework for Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care. Results The findings of this study suggest providers’ communication behaviors including managing survivors’ uncertainty, responding to survivors’ emotions, exchanging information, and enabling self-management influences the quality of patient-provider communication about AET symptoms. Additionally, lack of systematic symptom assessment tools for AET requires providers to use discretion in determining which symptoms to discuss with survivors resulting in approaches that vary based on providers’ discipline. Conclusion There may be AET-specific provider communication skills and behaviors that promote effective patient-provider communication but additional research is needed to identify practices and policies that encourage these skills and behaviors among the many providers involved in survivorship care. Efforts are also needed to coordinate AET symptom assessment across providers, clarify providers’ roles in symptom assessment, and determine best practices for AET symptom communication.

Purpose Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) utilization is linked to improved clinical outcomes among breast cancer survivors (BCS); yet, AET adherence rates remain suboptimal. Little is known about provider perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to AET-related symptom management (SM). In this study, we examined provider perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to AET-related SM among BCS and opportunities for improvement. Methods We conducted three focus groups (FGs) with a multidisciplinary group of health care providers (n=13) experienced in caring for BCS undergoing AET. We utilized semi-structured discussion guides to elicit provider perspectives on AET-related SM. FGs were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative software to identify key themes. Results Providers described patient-, provider-, and system- level barriers and facilitators to AET-related SM. At the patient-level, barriers included competing demands, limited time/resources, and possible misattribution of some symptoms to AET, while family/social relationships and insurance emerged as important facilitators. Discomfort with SM, limited time, and challenges distinguishing AET-related symptoms from other conditions were key provider-level barriers. Provider-level facilitators included routine symptom documentation and strong provider relationships. Care fragmentation and complexity of the cancer care delivery system were described as system-level barriers; however, survivor clinics were endorsed by providers. Conclusions Provider perspectives on AET-related SM can shed light on SM barriers and facilitators spanning multiple levels of the cancer care delivery system. Strategies for improving AET-related SM in BCS include increasing patients' knowledge and engagement in SM, equipping providers with efficient SM strategies, and improving coordination of symptom-related services through survivorship programs.