No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE Many hospitals have established goals-of-care programs in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic; however, few have reported their outcomes. We examined the impact of a multicomponent interdisciplinary goals-of-care program on intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and hospital outcomes for medical inpatients with cancer. METHODS This single-center study with a quasi-experimental design included consecutive adult patients with cancer admitted to medical units at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, during the 8-month preimplementation (May 1, 2019-December 31, 2019) and postimplementation period (May 1, 2020-December 31, 2020). The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital mortality, and proportion/timing of care plan documentation. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for differences in potential covariates, including age, sex, cancer diagnosis, race/ethnicity, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. RESULTS This study involved 12,941 hospitalized patients with cancer (pre n = 6,977; post n = 5,964) including 1,365 ICU admissions (pre n = 727; post n = 638). After multicomponent goals-of-care program initiation, we observed a significant reduction in ICU mortality (28.2% v 21.9%; change −6.3%, 95% CI, −9.6 to −3.1; P = .0001). We also observed significant decreases in length of ICU stay (mean change −1.4 days, 95% CI, −2.0 to −0.7; P < .0001) and in-hospital mortality (7% v 6.1%, mean change −0.9%, 95% CI, −1.5 to −0.3; P = .004). The proportion of hospitalized patients with an in-hospital do-not-resuscitate order increased significantly from 14.7% to 19.6% after implementation (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.5; P < .0001), and do-not-resuscitate order was established earlier (mean difference −3.0 days, 95% CI, −3.9 to −2.1; P < .0001). CONCLUSION This study showed improvement in hospital outcomes and care plan documentation after implementation of a system-wide, multicomponent goals-of-care intervention.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence-based resources have been sought to support decision-making and strategically inform hospitals’ policies, procedures, and practices. While greatly emphasizing protection, most guiding documents have neglected to support and protect the psychosocial needs of frontline health care workers and patients and their families during provision of palliative and end-of-life care. Consequently, the stage has been set for increased anxiety, moral distress, and moral injury and extreme moral hazard. A family-centered approach to care has been unilaterally relinquished to a secondary and nonessential role during the current crisis. This phenomenon violates a foundational public health principle, namely, to apply the least restrictive means to achieve good for the many. Instead, there has been widespread adoption of utilitarian and paternalistic approaches. In many cases the foundational principles of palliative care have also been neglected. No circumstance, even a global public health emergency, should ever cause health care providers to deny their ethical obligations and human commitment to compassion. The lack of responsive protocols for family visitation, particularly at the end of life, is an important gap in the current recommendations for pandemic triage and contingency planning. A stepwise approach to hospital visitation using a tiered, standardized process for responding to emerging clinical circumstances and individual patients’ needs should be considered, following the principle of proportionality. A contingency plan, based on epidemiological data, is the best strategy to refocus health care ethics in practice now and for the future.